It is incredible that people still don’t know how this stuff works even after generations of campaign promises to reduce taxes, improve the schools, fix social security, and make government fiscally accountable. It is refershing to hear from someone who can see that the Emperor is naked.
“It is lucky for rulers that men do not think.” — Adolf Hitler
I appreciate your point, Libertarian (for further evidence, scroll up), but would say that you rely on the decision-making capacity of the same people who “still don’t know how this stuff works even after generations”.
Am I the only one who pays sales tax?
There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
People want inherently contradictory things and largely refuse to face up the the contradictions --avoiding cognitive dissonance, politicians reflect that. Shrug, that’s humanity, Lib, that’s humanity.
Sorry to be so long getting back, folks. Please forgive me for the line-by-line, but it’s the best way I know to address everything without missing anything important, and it helps me understand. And also apologies for the length of this post.
Collounsbury:
True. But why does this mean providing financial incentives to people who have children?
Coll, I’d appreciate it very much if you were to avoid pedantry. Disagree with what I say, explain to me, but please do not talk down to me. Thanks.
My remark about market trends depends on the simple fact that the US stock markets have shown growth over any given 20-year period in its history. While my savings and long-term investments might well decline in value, they will only do so if the whole of the economy also declines. And I will not be destitute unless the whole of the economy collapses. If so, I suspect that we’ll all have other things to worry about. Anyone need a pencil? 
Future economic conditions, I contend, do not rely on providing cash awards to parents simply for having kids. Perhaps you can show me otherwise, but I’d ask that you then show me why non-parents must shoulder more of the load.
I said:
To which you responded:
I’m sorry if you see it as a strawman, but I never claimed you said anything about growth. My statement that population growth is not a prerequisite for economic health was not mean tot imply that you held to the contrary. It was a discrete observation.
You’re right that there would be severe impacts from a dramatic increase or decrease of the population. I don’t see how it applies, though . . .
You’re right. A simple $500 tax credit does not in an of itself encourage people to have children. However, it provides no incentive to parents for not having children they cannot afford. It strikes me that the government is saying “ok, you had a kid you cannot afford. Here, have money. And if you do it again, we’ll give you more money.”
In easing the burden without repurcussions, are we not encouraging?
Yes, it does help make more resources available to parents. And as I’ve said several times, it is indeed in all our best interests to educate children. I know this.
But, again, I still don’t see why this requires non-parents to pay a proportionally larger share. Every dollar parents do not pay in taxes has to come from somewhere, no?
First, please remember that I have said nothing about any dramatic changes in population. All I have said is that fiscal health does not require a constantly growing population.
Secondly, please avoid putting words in my mouth. I have no hostility toward children, and I very much resent the implication.
You’re right, of course.
Thank you! This is what I wanted to hear.
I personally dislike the idea that we have to have children to support us, and that those without kids will cost taxpayers more money. I’m not disputing it, but do we have any data anywhere on this? I’ve seen numerous studies demonstrating that childless couples have more disposable income and a generally higher standard of living. Do they also save more?
Nevertheless, you’re right–the social policy in the US is geared toward future generations paying in. My question is essentially answered.
I dislike it, and is not the way things would work in androsia, but I understand it.
Thank you, Collounsbury, for your perspective.
But just to keep things interesting . . .
ElvisL1ves (and others who have made this point):
And everyone knows this, or should. If you can’t afford a kid, don’t have one.
Doreen:
“Even” me? Thanks so much.
But as to mortgages, homeownership provides a direct benefit to the economy that renting does not. :shrug: Is it established that children provide a direct benefit to society? Maybe.
Uke:
Hold that thought. I’ll get to it in just a bit.
Magdalene:
This is why I love you, Mags.
Sam:
You are the man.
Dead right.
flowbark:
Absolutely, and this is the root of some of my frustration. The parents who raise a kid to be a slug benefit as much as the parents who raise a kid to be productive, well-educated, and responsible. The latter deserve to be lauded. The former irritate the hell out of me.
And back to Collounsbury:
:sigh: Yup. There is nothing new under the sun.
Finally, I apologise to all for giving a false impression. In an effort to eliminate bias, it seems I went too far, and several people have assumed that I hate children, or parents, or whatever.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
My SO and I had a baby boy in February. He is perfect in every way. If he could walk, I’d worship the ground he walks on. I love my son with all my heart.
And yes, I will of course take advantage of the tax breaks available to me. I’m opinionated, but not stupid.
But dammit, we can afford a child, even without ANY governmental breaks. I’ve worked my ass off to put money in the bank to afford this kid. It frustrates me to no end to see people deliberately having children when they cannot afford to, knowing that they’ll receive support.
Though it may not seem so at times, I’m a social liberal. I support universal health care, federally-funded housing and education. I support welfare and socsec, thought I agrue witht he current policies. I’m willing to pay for all this with my tax dollars.
But I guess I just hate to see my generosity taken for granted.
Boy, was that ever a disappointing link. Her essays are silly and whiny; I was surprised when I read her biography and discovered she wasn’t 14 years old.
Anyway, I’m surprised that nobody has yet mentioned one of the key reasons families with children get tax breaks; because otherwise, the individuals in the family would indirectly be paying a greater burden of tax.
Let us say that I make $X and a single father with one child also makes $X. My taxable income $X is reduced by the basic personal exemption. So is the father’s, but then, his kid isn’t. Why shouldn’t that individual (the kid) get an exemption, too? That salary is supporting two citizens, not one; it doesn’t strike me as being fair to give ME the same personal exemption as TWO people. (Canadian tax laws. YMMV.)
It seems to me that a houshold should receive a personal tax exemption for each person in the house, which I guess is one of the purposes of child tax credits; frankly, it might be easier to just end the distinction and have the same personal exemption for he earner and all dependents, but that’s the basic idea.
But as to mortgages, homeownership provides a direct benefit to the economy that renting does not. :shrug: Is it established that children provide a direct benefit to society? Maybe.
[/quote]
Sorry, andros, I didn’t realize how that sounded.
But about the mortgages, I don’t really see how it benefits the economy more for my neighbor and I each to own a house and partially deduct the mortgage payments than it does for my neighbor to own two and rent one to me.And a lot of tax policies don’t provide a direct benefit to the economy or society.Society doesn’t get a benefit from me being able to deduct medical expenses, unreimbursed business expenses,casualty and theft losses,gambling losses to the extent of winnings and so on. I’m not saying they shouldn’t exist, but they’re clearly justified on some other basis that than we should encourage them because society will benefit.
I haven’t seen any studies,either, but I won’t argue with the idea than childless couples probably do save more than a similar income couple with children.Still, unless the SS system is drastically changed, they will benefit from other people having had children. I suppose you could change it so that there was some limit to how much you could collect in total ,based on what you paid in,rather than a monthly benefit that gets paid no matter how long you live after reirement, but that would cause other problems.
We’ve all heard the Republican rhetoric justifying massively proportionate tax cuts for the wealthy and for abolishing the inheritance tax and the marriage penalty. But arguments for child tax credits do not jibe. It isn’t “their money” this time. It’s “redistribution of wealth”, it’s “class warfare” conducted against the childless class.
The future productivity argument is rationalization after the fact. Republicans are more known for emphasizing short-term financial gain over long-term fiscal/environmental health. IIRC, the credit will go up to $1000 per child under the Bush plan. Is this in response to a projected shortfall in births?
You might say that the child credit is in response to criticisms that the R’s tax cuts favor the rich. “Okay, we’ll give some to working families too.” In addition to being a powerful constituency, “families” resonates emotionally and culturally. If you have kids, you’re “worthy” of a tax cut.
People raising kids need the money, you say? Doesn’t anyone else need more money? The rich don’t need more money, yet look how much they’re getting. Millionare’s brats sure don’t, yet unless I’m missing something, they won’t have to pay income taxes at all! But people paying for housing on a single income sure do. It’s a lot easier to avoid child rearing costs expenses than housing costs. The forgotten reason for the marriage penalty is that a two-income household can split the housing costs. If a family lifestyle choice affecting disposable income shouldn’t affect your tax bill in one case, why should it in another? The Republicans are using contracdictory logic to give married people with children double, triple, quadruple helpings of tax relief while shiting the burden significantly onto single childless people.
andros: *It’s not my confidence in my investing abilities, Coll, it’s the fact that I’m not in debt, that I save money, that I’m not obsessed with consumption. It’s faith in my investor, faith in 100+ year market trends, and faith in caring about my future. […]
My remark about market trends depends on the simple fact that the US stock markets have shown growth over any given 20-year period in its history.*
But this is still just handwaving of what jshore likes to call the “market fundamentalist” variety. Simply saying that markets have “shown growth” in some given period does not tell us what we need to know about how much growth took place and how it was created. There’s nothing magic about the sheer existence of markets that necessarily makes growth happen in a given period: look at the several Latin American economies that have averaged zero growth per capita over the past twenty years, for example. And our own markets don’t always shine, either—consider the comment made by pantom in the recent “Social Security’s security” thread:
Just saying that the market “shows growth” over any twenty-year period kind of obscures the fact that sometimes it’s twenty years of growth and sometimes it’s five years of growth tacked onto fifteen years of nothing. Personally, my “faith in market trends” (and since when are we talking about markets in the language of faith, anyway? I thought we were all hard-headed realistic economic pragmatists here?) is a little shaken by such details. Collounsbury’s quite right that you can’t separate market performance from fiscal and social policies: it’s not some benevolent deity that is obliged to eventually reward you for your lack of debt and your thrifty habits and your “caring about your future”, irrespective of what may be happening to everybody else.
*I support universal health care, federally-funded housing and education. I support welfare and socsec, thought I agrue witht he current policies. I’m willing to pay for all this with my tax dollars.
But I guess I just hate to see my generosity taken for granted.*
While I applaud your basic acceptance of civic obligations, I must say, I think “generosity” is an awfully naive (and self-laudatory) word to use when discussing the social contract. Where do you imagine “your” dollars would be in a society where the non-rich had no expectations of support from those better off, and no social commitment to giving them help or hope for improving their condition or staving off financial desperation? Still safe in the bank for Lord Andros the Bountiful to distribute as he might choose among the grateful peasantry? Or siphoned off to deal with the costs of rising social unrest, economic disruption, and danger?
Sure, all social spending can be viewed as ultimately nothing but a payoff to someone or other. Spending for a modest level of economic democracy (trying to maintain a basic minimum standard of existence for all, even those who have not proved capable, fortunate, or prudent enough to afford it on their own) is one of the cheapest payoffs we’ve got.
But if you’re just feeling hurt that you haven’t been thanked for your willingness to accept these burdens, I’ll be happy to thank you, and sincerely, too. Thank you very much, andros! 
Kimstu:
How about this then: Through a combination of healthy spending habits, fiscal responsibility, future planning, and sense, I will be among the last of the middle class to require the financial support of my fellow taxpayers.
Does that make sense now?
As to the “social contract,” I’m sorry that I managed to annoy you. It wasn’t my intent, but I’m sure I deserve your snide comments.
I’m sorry you do not care for my use of the word “generousity.” But I do think it’s generous to not begrudge the taxes that I spend. Really, I’m one of the few people I know who does not complain about paying taxes. And I do think it’s generous to want my taxes to increase in order to pay for more social services.
Your idea of the social contract is one that I share. But I’m sure you understand that not everyone does–I could easily dig up a few conservative Republicans or Libertarians, for example, who believe that the federal government should play a much smaller role in social programs.
You talk of these societal burdens as though they are absolute and eternal, and I think you know full well they are not.
My willingness to accept the burdens of this social contract is not in issue. All I suggested was that I just might want my money to be well-spent. Did I not say that clearly enough?
On some further items
You need future workers who are effective. They do not appear magically. Laying aside the plain fact of give and take politics, financial incentives in this area may be helpful. Alternate choices are tax policy. I believe that I more than adequately developed this idea for those truly interested.
Growth depends on real economic factors, take them away, no ipso facto growth. Future projections depend on the same. I could a give fuck what “any given” 20 year period in the past may or may not tell you (mind you I believe your statement is not fully correct, but I lack the time to correct) tells you jack, absolutely jack. You can form certian expectations presumiing, do not that, presuming similar conditions hold true. This sort of statement is just about at the level of superstition.
For all the hand waving that was rather my point. You need future, effective workers in order for assumptions to hold true. Ergo, even the childless and child uninterested have some real interest in children as effective workers.
I already did. I fail to see a reason to repeat myself.
Not relevant to my observations, ergo a straw man. Might I remind you a logical fallacy.
Read something in re projections in re Europe or Japan given current population structure.
In re financial incentives:
Your * presumption * hardly supportable by logic. First the very phrase “can not afford” is meaningless. What does “afford” mean? Provide basic care for? What does basic care even mean? Provide whatever moving social yardstick “middle class” life requires in the USA? Aside from the fact this probably is an impossible standard, it is also without support.
Your objection is without foundation or even clear meaning.
Are not rhetorical questions without factual foundation meaningless?
Clearly there are repurcussions, as child supports via tax policy do not begin to fully cover child rearing costs.
I don’t see that non-parents are in fact paying a proportionally larger share. Proportional to what? Future worker rearing costs, quite clearly you as the non child rearer are externalizing those costs onto the child rearer. As such, you are paying the proportionally smaller share.
Nearsighted yardsticks.
Odd, for yet the third time, I myself said nothing about growing populations, although you keep returning to this.
I am unware of any data on differential savings rates, above all those controlled for income level.
As mentioned above, the phrase “afford” is vague and undefined.
Well, unless you willfully ignore in a stunningly illogical manner the prior discussion on future workers etc, one has to admit that children provide an immense direct benefit by providing future effective labor. The same kind of medium to long term calculation that does into subsidies to home ownership.
I rather doubt that.
So, the wasteful consumer and the speculator irritate the hell out of me. Big deal, that does not overturn the aggregate benefits. Without a big brother system, one just has to accept there is going to be bleed-offs.
Mabrouk, God and all that is good in the world shines upon you. I presume you mean you can afford a child according to your standards, furtherthey are likely to be middle class. More than 90% of humanity have no hope to aspire to even a pittance of that. But they’re going to make babies whether we like it or not. The question is then how to make this better.
They have kids because of deep seated biological imperatives. Recieving or not recieving support is of little to no consequence. Come live in the 3rd world with me for a sustained period of time and get a reality check in this regard.
All of you that complain that you don’t get to take an exemption for children are a bunch of cry babies. You have selected a life style that is not beneficial to society and instead of taxing you extra, you just don’t get some deductions. I am over 60 and have no children in school, why should I pay school tax? The answer is obvious to me, but might not be to you dumbies. Get a grib, get your head out of your ass and be responsible.
I have a good deal of sympathy with andros’ position, but I think that quarreling with the current system of tax credits/exemptions for children is futile, because of 1) Sam Stone’s point about it being a long-standing and politically popular government goodie, and 2) it fits in so beautifully with the popular but ludicrous idea that people have kids to Benefit Society, as opposed to the real reasons - instinct, personal gratification, pressure from relatives etc.
I may have missed this in the erudite flow of debate, but are there actual studies to show that kiddie tax credits are linked to a larger, more productive work force, or that people would avoid having kids without the existence of credits, or, most importantly, that the damage to society from having a child (loss of resources, overcrowding, environmental degradation) outweighs the benefit?
And no, I am not hostile to children, but occasionally have unkind feelings about some greedy, sanctimonious parents.
I’d save my efforts on this issue for working towards the defeat of “school choice” - a handout plan that will have the effect of doubly taxing the childfree to support both public and private schools. Once this entitlement is established, it’ll be a tax killer.
Having children equates to benefitting society? Well, thank you Mr. and Mrs. Hitler, Mr. and Mrs. Stalin, Mr. and Mrs. Dahmer, Mr. and Mrs. Falwell, and all you other fine baby factories who gave us our mass murderers, our serial killers, our religion politicians, and our anal retentive supervisors and managers. Yep, thanks a lot.
Perhaps you would favour us with the answer (I know, it’s “be responsible”). Sometimes the things we think are most obvious are hard to explain, and in explaining them we gain great insight into some process or into what unspoken assumptions guide our views. Maybe this is not one of those times, but still…
So far in this thread people have suggested that to the extent there is a rationale for this policy it is based on (1) encouraging people to have more children or (2) fairly distributing the burden of taxation.
I think (and I think the tone of this thread is leaning this way) is that (1) is not a good argument. The amount of money is small and the activity of having fraggles is not very responsive to prices. It is in any case not clear that reproduction should be encouraged at the margin, since you can get immigrants pretty cheap and there’s no particular reason to suspect that people undervalue children.
I suppose there could be another efficiency reason behind this policy in the guise of optimal income tax theory. Crudely speaking this holds that you should have lower tax rates on those people who are more responsive to changes in after tax earnings. I doubt there’s much in that line of argument (for similar reasons).
That leaves fairness. Income taxes are to a great degree about the nebulous concept of “ability to pay”. Is it the case that of two households with the same measured market income that the one with a child is worse off and deserves to pay less? This is pretty unclear to me.
Finally, you point to the responsible course of action being supporting reproduction (okay, that’s only in this case, more broadly you talk of a duty to contribute under a social contract regardless of personal interest – an attitude cool by me). Why? Why isn’t the living of a productive, happy life today enough? What of tomorrow’s children – do they get to live or should their lives be deferred to their children’s (and so on)?
Collounsbury, you are such a joy. Thank you so much for your well-reasoned posts. After all, if I’m not understanding you, it must be my fault. You have adequately developed all your ideas, and I must not be “truly interested.” You are God, Allah, and the Buddha rolled into one. I kneel before your greatness.
Everything you say is correct. You have clearly and thoroughly read my posts, striving to understand what I’m saying. You are in no way insulting, pedantic, or rude. Your thoughts are pearls; the words that drop from your exquisite lips are golden drops of wisdom.
Now, then.
It is important for a healthy society to ensure the health, education, and future prosperity. I have said this, I continue to say this. I am sorry if I ever gave the impression that I believe otherwise.
Nevertheless, I do not feel that nonparents should pay more than parents to make this happen.
I understand why you believe otherwise. You are welcome to take my disagreement as a sign of my inferiority, if it makes you feel better.
I said:
To which you replied:
I don’t think it applies because (in chorus) I never said a thing about a dramatic increase or decrease in population.
Have I made that clear now?
Here’s my standard: I don’t think anyone should have children until they can provide for that child’s clothing, healthy food, immunizations, medical care, and education without assistance from the government.
Is it subjective? Of course it is.
Is it unrealistic? I don’t think so. But, yes, Sparky, that’s subjective too.
Odd, for yet the third time I never said you did. What, am I not allowed to say anything unless it’s destined for your shell-like ear?
I’d appreciate it if you didn’t call me a liar. It’s hard to listen to your sublime Truths when you decide to tell me I’m untruthful. If you doubt me, please specify what and why, and I’ll try to explain. But calling someone a liar is much more becoming of the Pit than GD.
“They’re animals anyway, so let them lose their souls”? Perhaps we could, as a society and a species, discourage indiscriminate breeding, instead of accepting it as a given. We do have really great birth control these days; women are no longer automatically doomed to be breeding machines.
Again, again, again, we do need to support children. But I do not see that we should provide incentives to people to have more children. (Yes, I know you never said we did.) :shrug: I’m sure that a tax break does not cause a decision one way or the other. But if the seeming disparity were removed, perhaps even one person might decide to wait an extra year and have a few more dollars in savings.
And it still does seem to be a disparity to me. You say that the amount that parents save in taxes is reimbursed by the effort and money they put into making a future worker. But that does not allow for the children who will not become productive workers, whom we will continue to support, and whose children we will continue to support.
Jackmannii:
Amen. The simple fact is that no one has a child out of altruism.
Nope, no such studies that I’ve seen.
Libertarian:
picmr-
This is a serious question, although I couldn’t find a better way to word it.Which part, exactly, is not clear? Are you not sure that a household of three is worse off than a household of two with the same income, or are you not certain that a household of two adults and a child is worse off than a household with three adults with the same income (which would be my position), or do you think the tax code shouldn’t even try to address the ability to pay?
Might as well throw in my two cents…
First of all, kimstu, thanks for quoting me. Almost brought a tear to my eye to see that.
This is a hijack, but just an observation: that stock market data assumes an ideal world where there are no taxes, commissions, management fees, and above all, no spread to pay. (Investors will know what I mean when I say that this is an extremely insidious and sneaky cost.)
Now on to the main subject:
A few facts to dress up the discussion, from this year’s Statistical Abstract (the whole thing can be found at http://www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html ).
1 - Poverty for those below 18 stands at 18.9%, as opposed to 10.5% for those over 65. (Table 757) The poverty rate for those over 65 is reasonably close to that of the general population. I believe that this is generally attributed to the effect of Social Security.
2 - Believe it or not, they’ve got a table for how much it costs to raise a child - table 731. This ranges from between 6000 - 9530 per year for poor and middle income families, to 12550 - 13800 per year for affluent families.
Anyway, based on #1 above, the evidence is that we’ve done a good job at reducing poverty among the elderly (anyone want to raise a cheer for Social Security?) and a not terribly good job at lowering it for our children. In my experience, there are lots of folks like andros out there, and they vote. They make sure to come out every time there’s a vote for a school budget, so they can vote it down. They make sure to come out and vote every time a proposal is put up to improve the local school district’s facilities, so they can vote it down. Unfortunately, those with children have no idea until it’s too late that there’s this large and cranky opposition to the idea that they had the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to actually want to have a family.
They should be lined up and shot, the amoral bastards, lest their children grow up to be Adolf Hitler. (Like that, Libertarian?)
Pantom: Great post, although I’m not sure that andros would vote against school budgets. (I don’t.)
My response is that if you’re concerned about child poverty, then it’s better to increase Earned Income Tax Credit allowances for children in low income families than to give $1000 to every family with two kids, regardless of their income. (Even better might be to support school lunch programs, pre-natal care, national health insurance for kids, and the usual liberal etc. etc. etc.)
To which you might reply that $500 is much less than the $6000 - $13,800 that it takes to support an additional child. Fair enough. But we shouldn’t think of this tax credit as an anti-poverty program: it’s mostly a matter of re-distributing income within the broad middle class.
flowbark: Thanks for the compliment.
This may come as a surprise, or it may not, but I do think the child credit is a pretty inefficient way of getting help to children. It complicates an already Byzantine tax code, and it scattershots revenue that, if properly focussed, could do a lot more good. Any one of the ideas you mentioned (whether approvingly or not) would be a better one.