As is stands, parents are able to claim their children as dependents on their tax returns, which lowers their overall tax liability and in effect means that the parents either pay less in taxes or receive a higher return at the end of each year.

Until they reach the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society. They receive public schooling and receive the same benefit from public services that adults do, yet they contribute nothing in return. At the point that they reach maturity and are gainfully employed and paying taxes, they become a functioning member of society.

If a parent decides to have a child, they are making a conscious decision to produce another human being. They could choose to get a sterilization surgery, use birth control, or abort the pregnancy (assuming they don’t live in a backwards state that’s banned it). Yet even if they decide to have 15 children, the rest of society has to foot the bill for their poor decisions until the child reaches adulthood.

By increasing taxes on parents instead of reducing them, you not only incentivize safe sex and abortion, but you shift the burden of raising a child solely to the individuals who are responsible for the fact that that child exists.

I am a strong advocate for social programs: Single-payer healthcare, welfare programs, low-income housing, etc, but for adults who in turn contribute what they can. A child should only be supported by the individuals who created it.

  • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Children are not a drain on society, they are society. You cannot have a society for longer than a single generation without children. They are critically important to continuing any society and penalizing people for deciding to have children is backwards thinking.

    The idea that a single family body should be the sole people responsible for the development of a child is also a foolish and somewhat modern misconception. The adage of “it takes a village…” comes to mind. As a society, it is our collective duties to ensure that all members of the society are healthy and cared for. We are communal, social creatures who have long relied on community to be successful and raise our children. This individualist perspective is myopic and counterproductive.

    Additionally, the value of a human being simply cannot be reduced to what they contribute to the GDP. Children or adults.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Say what you will about humans on earth, annoying kids, etc.

    But the state needs bodies. Kids are future workers, and they state wants healthy, capable workers. As such, tax credits are offered not as a prize to the parents, but an investment by the state. The state is hoping parents will have a bit more money for healthy food, housing and education for their kids, thus creating workers who are a bit healthier and more capable.

    Human capital is a real thing, at a state level. Lose your input, and you’ll grow weak.

    You may not have had a perfect, or even good upbringing, but any tax credit your parent/guardian received didn’t make it worse. If you did have a good upbringing, think of all the variables that went into that. Tax credits are a small part of that.

    Upvote for using the sub correctly

  • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Individuals choosing not to have kids should pay an extra tax that should go to the ones having children.

    Choosing not to have children is a perfecly acceptable individual choice, but the consequence is that you become a net negative for the economy.

    Taking on the burden of child-raising is an essential task that is net positive for the economy, which has been way underappreciated for too long.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t get this one… If I am a productive worker and self fund my retirement, how am I a net negative?

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Because you aren’t replacing yourself. It might not be net negative while you’re alive (though I would be very surprised if your 'self funded" retirement wasn’t helped along significantly by the tax code (either tax breaks you get for saving for retirement or tax breaks tour employer gets for matching contributions, etc) the state will outlive you and need a replacement…one you didn’t contribute to the system.

    • do_not_pm_me@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Your taxes should go up each decade you age without having children. If you have a kid some of that could be refunded as an incentive.