Shouldn't there be tax breaks for people who DON'T have children?

[NNN0LHI]

Why is everything geared to paying less taxes the MORE children people have? More children require more energy, more schooling, more medical care, more food, more everything. Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage people to have less children and the in turn conserve on everything that they require?

Don

[Skittles]

1. I agree

[Duckhunter935]

3. That would be nice

I help pay for schools for my non-existant children

[Skittles]

4. actually I don't mind doing that

because I like for the people around me to be educated :)

[Duckhunter935]

9. Do not get me wrong

I do not really mind as long as it is used as intended.

I gess it would just be better to remove tax breaks for children so we are all treated the same

[awoke_in_2003]

286. And when you went to school...

there were people without kids paying for your education, also.

[deaniac21]

2. Yes! Who cares about the future!

[baldguy]

13. People will fuck each other & have kids no matter what.

Having to pay a little more for that responsibility won't stop them.

[deaniac21]

16. Kids don't have an income, oh eloquent one.

[Quantess]

85. The overpopulated future, you mean...?

Oh, you mean the future adults.
I already knew that's what you meant, and I completely agree that we need to invest in our future, our children. I realize children get shafted in government resources. I taught in public schools for a few years. If the USA were smart, we would cut about 75% of our military budget and invest it in children, including family planning and parenting classes for parents-to-be. Tax cuts for parents would be irrelevant if we did that, and our society would flourish.

In my opinion, there are far too many children being born, and worse, there are too many unwanted children born to thoughtless parents unequipped to deal with parenthood who probably just neglected to use birth control.

[Chulanowa]

124. School funding comes from property taxes

Do you get breaks on your property taxes for having kids? I don't own land so honest question

[Darth_Kitten]

138. Unfortunately, too many PARENTS..............

Have 1 or 2, but geez, you think kids were a new cellphone or blackberry the way some morons want to have them.

[EnviroBat]

168. I agree...

"Gee honey, the economy sucks ass, lets have 3 more kids. Then we can piss an moan about how hard it is to make end's meet..." I've never understood this personal crusade to populate the planet mentality.

[Name removed]

171. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lame54]

309. Obviously the OP does

[slackmaster]

5. We who have no children get breaks on just about everything in life except taxes

I don't mind paying taxes, as long as the money is put to good use like education and health care.

[SmileyRose]

26. I'm not quite sure what you mean.

how exactly do I get a break by not having kids? I'm not being argumentative, I'm actually curious. I honestly have not seen it - in fact, in my world I've generally noticed the opposite.

[Duckhunter935]

28. Single serving size that are more expensive than normal size

That must be one of those breaks

[seabeyond]

34. no, that is choice, and not a good choice either. get normal size and then

eat left over or freeze for next time. time efficient and convenient too

[slackmaster]

35. I buy most of my food in bulk at Costco

No single-serving ripoff for me.

[dysfunctional press]

97. and unless you have a family, have the stuff will rot before it's gone.

buying perishable food at costco generally doesn't benefit the childless.

[slackmaster]

101. I don't buy perishables at Costco unless they are freezable

I abhor wasting food.

But thanks for proving once again that some DUers are inclined to take the worst possible interpretation of any information you give them, and use it to smear the person who provided it.

[dysfunctional press]

128. please explain when, where, and how i "smeared" you with that post?

:shrug:

we do buy kiwi and mangoes "in bulk" at costco- and the caracara oranges. but a lot of the stuff- like broccoli for instance, comes in a bag that's to big for two people to use up before it goes bad. it's something my wife and i have discussed before about shopping at costco, particularly for food- that it's not such a great deal if you don't have a lot of mouths to feed. unless maybe someone is inclined to cook multiple dishes in advance and freeze them- we aren't.

i also got bummed out on a recent foray to the NEW costco- only 10 minutes away- because i found out that the maple syrup squeeze has finally hit them as well. you used to be able to get 64 ounces of the good stuff for $18. now the only one they sell is 32 ounces- for the same price.

there are also a lot of their frozen items we do enjoy- which was part of the reason that we bought a chest freezer for the garage.

but i would be interested in how i smeared you by posting what i did.

[slackmaster]

134. You wrote "have (sic) the stuff will rot before it's gone"

You suggested that my shopping practices waste good food, which is most certainly not the case. I considered that to be an insult.

I would never buy broccoli or avocados or onions there, unless I needed a large quantity to prepare food for a special event.

[dysfunctional press]

135. firstly, the "you" in that post is meant as any person in general, not a specific egotistical sap...

secondly- YOU(personally) were the one who said that YOU buy "MOST of my food in bulk at costco"- for my wife and i, the biggest share of our diet consists of perishable items, so forgive me for assuming that was also true of other people as well. it slipped my mind that there are people out there who prefer to subsist on pre-packaged crap. :hi:

[slackmaster]

31. I don't have to provide food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc. for anyone but myself

Having been a parent, I do know how much of your time, energy, and money kids require.

If you haven't had the experience, borrow one some time, for two weeks. (That's the advice I give to young people who talk about how wonderful it would be to have a child.)

It IS wonderful, but it's also a major hassle. The tax breaks don't come anywhere near covering the expense. Not by a long shot. (Nor should they IMO.)

[SmileyRose]

63. That hassle is a choice parents make, but does not explain how I benefit

I fully understand the emotional, spiritual and financial commitment children require. It's not as if I have never spent extended time being responsible for a child 24/7. I quickly learned that commitment is not the right one for me. The fact parents have chosen to make that commitment doesn't automatically make my life easier. In fact, in a society geared toward the support of children and their parents, I have found some rather startling ways I am expected to sacrifice for the good of adults who have committed to children.

I am honestly curious. How, specifically, does a parent's life being "harder" make my life "easier"?

[slackmaster]

89. The subject seems like a tempest in a teapot to me

The tax break given for having children is peanuts.

[seabeyond]

98. i was just thinking the same. compared to what i pay in taxes, it is nothing.

i am glad that it helps those struggling though

i also have to pay tons for school supplies. more every year. and there are many children whose parents cant afford. especially the more children they have. i always buy extra, knowing that i am already buying extra for kids that cant bring in their share

i am more than happy to do and am thankful i am able.

[Pithlet]

102. It's just like the right wingers who bitch and moan about the taxes that go to welfare.

It's such a small amount of our taxes. If they knew the real waste, they wouldn't even bother. But it's really about the moral outrage of other people's behavior, so you can't tell them anything. Same thing here, really. It's all about other people making a choice that's different. Gotta punish that somehow. Up their taxes, and make them pay the same! Because it's not fair Even if that tax break was enacted as a benefit to society, and to preserve the middle class, and it's progressive, but whatever. People have to bitch and whine about that itty bitty little amount.

[SmileyRose]

106. I don't mind paying for other people's kids at all.

But I don't see how I have it easier by paying a little more for someone else's choices. My income is well below the median, as is my household income. Just the school tax alone is $1000 that makes a very big difference in my budget. I'm not complaining about paying it and hope by doing so I'm training some hot shot doc that will fix me when I'm old and used up, but like I said - sacrificing for the good of society, against my will, isn't exactly having it easy. IMHO.

The sacrifices parents make raising kids are highly valued in our society. There is a lot of status in raising a child that succeeds as an adult. Those of us who make many work sacrifices to cover for parents, who pay a higher percentage of income to help pay for their kids, who quietly tolerate being told our lives are less significant are different sure, but certainly not less valuable and not necessarily "easier".

[seabeyond]

108. i will say again, i was old, 32, when i got married. single lots of years. i never

never felt " being told our lives are less significant" until i got into these threads with anti kid (not referring to you) posts. i am female. i assumed i would never marry. i didnt want to ever marry. and i never went around thinking society or anyone i knew thought i was "less". as a matter of fact it is the opposite. i was a hot commodity. single, good looking, no baggage, no divorces, no children. i had it good. i LIKED my life. and no one made it less.

i also hear on threads the "kids out of control all over the place ruining adults precious out and about time". again.... i am out and about a lot, for a lot of years and i am not seeing all these out of control kids.

i must be truly blessed that all these horrors seem to not knock on my door.

[Pithlet]

109. I don't think the point is that you have it easier.

I hope I personally haven't said anything in any of the threads that has given that impression. I know that property taxes can be a big chunk. The scope of this thread was things like the EITC that most people have to pay to contribute towards in the form of income taxes regardless if they're property owners. The percentage of our taxes that go to things like that really are small, and the benefits that families receive aren't that much.

[hfojvt]

111. in the last ten years it has gone the other way

Now $1,000 tax break per child, a tax break, by the way, that went to more higher income couples than lower income couples. But anybody who might wanna undo the travesty that means a couple and two kids making $40,000 a year pays less in income taxes than a single person making $10,000 is a selfish SOB.

Tell me again how it is progressive to give a tax break to couples making $30,000-150,000 while giving nothing to couples making less than $30,000. Even if it is only $1,000 a couple, how is that progressive? Explain again to somebody making $12,000 a year how $1,000 a year is just chicken feed not worth getting upset about.

[Pithlet]

117. It is progressive

Because it saves our middle class. It's one of the few things we have left. See the post I made about how much it costs to raise kids nowadays. I'm sorry, and I mean this as politely as I can. But you're clueless as to how much kids costs. I saw your post where you say you just don't understand how they can cost so much. They do.

Why isn't the solution to ease the tax burden also on the single person making 10,000? I'd like to know that? Seems that's a hell of a lot more progressive than taking away one of our safety nets for the middle class?

[hfojvt]

123. because it is not progressive for people making $40,000 to pay

the same rate as people making $10,000. Progressive implies that taxes go up when income goes up. What some people propose, like Wesley Clark, eliminating income taxes for families making less than $75,000 a year provides a much bigger benefit to people making $70,000 than it does to people making $30,000, and that is a change, like the child tax credit, which is not progressive. The math is simple to me. A plan that gives benefits to families making over $30,000 but not to families making less than $30,000 is not progressive. As expensive as raising kids is, some of those families making less than $30,000 have kids too, but did not get any benefit when the child tax credit was increased.

Some of the costs you listed are voluntary, and some I am already paying as a single guy. For example, I own two computers and two laptops. Surplus computers which could be toys for my kids, if I had kids. Same with the dogs. I happen to own a good library of kids books too, but that's more of a fluke from the fact that I once owned a bookstore. I also own some kid-friendly DVDs or videos, like Wall-E, Iron Giant, The Sound of Music, Short Circuit, The Neverending Story II, The Sound of Music, Peter Pan, Shrek, Black Beauty and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and more so up the age range.

I believe I said
a) they would not add to many of my current expenses, such as housing, phone, electric, water and gas bills. Especially since so many utility bills are based on minimum charges, like my $93 gas bill that includes a service charge of $12.25 to start and a franchise fee of $4.38 which may not be based on usage
b) children also add value to a household by doing some of the work, and
c) they can provide their own transportation. In fact, the real trick is trying to stop the little buggers.

[Pithlet]

125. Some of the costs I listed are voluntary? Which ones?

Are you suggesting people should have kids, but never buy them anything other than the very basic necessities like food and clothing? Because, really, I'd say that's not a very good parenting decision. They actually need toys for development, especially when they're very young. It could actually be very bad for them otherwise. I guess, strictly speaking, it's voluntary as to exactly what and how much. But as an expense, you can't eliminate it entirely. So, you have to include it if you're going to lay out exactly how much it costs to raise a child, if you're going to give an accurate picture, and not try to make it sound like it's a cake walk financially.

So, you're not arguing to remove tax credits for families entirely then? I don't know what you're arguing. You've lost me. If there's some flaw where families under 30,000 weren't getting as much benefit from it it, I was unaware of it. Obviously, that has to get fixed. Note, I'm not talking about any specific taxes, here. Some people in this thread were arguing to eliminate all income tax breaks for parents, because it's unfair to childfree people. I'm arguing how ridiculous that is. If you aren't arguing for that, then you and I aren't at cross purposes. If there are flaws in current tax laws that leave people out, I'm open to change them, of course.

[hfojvt]

129. I seem to have been mistaken, although I am not sure when it changed

Here's my original reasoning. The child tax credit is $500 and then it is increased to $1,000. But, it is not refundable. If you figure that credit on line 52 of the 1040, it is not more than your tax liability. A family of 4 is already paying zero in taxes with a $500 tax credit (edit if their income is less than $34,900). So they did not get any benefit when the child tax credit went to $1,000 per child. That benefit was reserved for families making more, sometimes much more than $34,900.

However, I notice that it IS refundable, with certain calculations and restrictions on line 66. I do wonder though, how many moderate income families are not getting the credit because form 8812 is not readily available and they do not bother to check because they figure they probably won't get the credit anyway. I missed out on some credits from line 51 myself, although I later filed some amended returns (but only 3 years was allowed and I do not know how many years I missed the credit because form 8880 was not readily available until I got the internet).

Also, I am not sure when that changed, if it was part of the original bill from 2004 or it was added later, and there are various threshholds on form 8812 which have changed, providing the credit for more people, presumably. I understood from 2003 that refundability was stripped out by Senate Republicans and never heard of it being added back in with line 66. So my understanding, which seems to be in error, was that lower income families were not getting the child tax credit.

[Pithlet]

130. Oh, okay.

I hope that enough families are indeed getting the right form. That would be a shame if some families aren't getting the relief they need. :(

[hfojvt]

132. actually I think form 8812 was at the local library

unlike form 8880 which is pretty hard to find unless you look online or goto a tax preparer or IRS office.

[Bill McBlueState]

162. "people making $40,000"

Your example contained

1) A single person making $10,000

2) A couple with two kids (four people) making $40,000

In both cases, the income is $10,000 per person. Their income taxes should be the same.

[psychmommy]

216. don't families making under $30,000 qualify for the earned

income credit or did they do away with that one?

[sinkingfeeling]

185. But that's exactly what happens to single taxpayers without children. They are punished. Just look

at the tax tables.

[Pithlet]

257. No. I'm sorry.

I was single without children, once, too. Believe me. The added expense of children makes a HUGE difference. The tax breaks really don't make up much of a difference, but they do help a little, especially for the poor. It's ridiculous to begrudge it. I'm sorry. It goes a little way to even the playing field, so it isn't so much that only the affluent and wealthy can afford to have kids. Really, as time goes on, it's getting more and more to be that way. And we don't want it to be that way. It will do our society no good for it to be that way. We don't want a society where only the affluent can afford to do it well.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

312. Poor people get EITC. If you are getting the tax credit you are NOT poor.

I don't care if you think you are but you are not.

[Scout]

179. if the tax break is really only peanuts, then parents won't mind giving it up, right! n/t

[slackmaster]

183. That tax break doesn't mean much to middle- and upper-income people

It means a whole lot to poor people.

[seabeyond]

206. i didnt want it in the first second or third place. but they didnt listen to me. i don't mind

lower income receiving it at all. but i wouldnt have voted for it.

[Nederland]

158. Yes

Maybe not not, but eventually. As you stated, your life is made easier now by not having children. However, at retirement you will be getting benefits in the form of Social Security and Medicare that are being paid by someone else's offspring. In this sense you will be getting something for free.

[SmileyRose]

242. I can promise you this

Because of my genetics, I have a higher chance of hitting the lottery and getting hit by lighting simultaneously than I do living beyond my 60s. I'm already locked in a battle royale and I'm only in my early 50's. I will pay FAR more in extra taxes to support children and families than I will ever get from social security and medicare - even if you don't figure in investment returns. I don't mind that, I'm just stating the fact. I am also voluntarily helping with about half the college costs for 4 nieces/nephews as my siblings are using up everything they have to raise their kids.

So telling me I get something great for free is just plain wrong.

[redqueen]

246. Brilliantly and succinctly put.

And no doubt it will be ignored by the majority posting.

[Raineyb]

274. That coud be said by anyone.

The benefits for current retirees are paid by current working people. So even without children, they already paid for someone's retirement. Assuming that they live to get to retire in the first place of course because then the money has been taken out of their pockets without getting any benefits at all. It's not like the person didn't contribute anything.

Regards

[Nederland]

279. Not really

The people that don't have children are paying once: they pay taxes. The people that have children pay twice: they pay taxes AND they pay for the raising of the next generation of taxpayers, without whom we would all be fucked.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

284. So says the guy who is for lowering American wages.

I remember you from that thread. If you have your way no one would make enough to fund SS and Medicare so you should really STFU.

[BigAnth]

263. Do you want decent medical care in your old age?

From qualified doctors, nurses and other health care professionals? Those health care professionals are the children of people who may have gotten some tax relief to help them in feeding, clothing, housing and educting these children.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

314. Fewer children now would mean better-paid health care workers in the future

It's so laughable how people pull the "health care in old age" card whenever this subject comes up, as if every kid born today will grow up to wipe old people's butts. As it is, I'm sure you are aware that long term care workers are paid horribly and often have terrible working conditions. They way we treat them is indicative of the regard society has for its aging members. And if we want more doctors and nurses we should be making medical and nursing school more affordable, not just randomly handing money to parents in the hopes that some of the kids will grow up to be doctors.

[hfojvt]

107. some of that does not sound like a big deal to me

For examples
a) I could provide shelter for a couple of kids in this house I already own
b) I provide food, shelter, and medical care for two dogs, at one time it was 3 dogs (for another thing my dogs pretty much stay in my yard or are supervised by me, and I pay for city tags every year. Kids, OTOH, roam the city at will, require no fees or licensing, and often kick my fence or throwing things at my dogs when my dogs bark at them.)
c) when I was a kid I walked or biked almost everywhere I went
d) school bus transportation is provided for many other kids
e) when I was a kid we had chores, like cutting the grass, filling and emptying the dishwasher, vacuuming the upstairs, and cleaning the basement and our rooms, and whatever other project my dad drafted me in to. Also at age 12 or 13 I got my own job and bought myself a telescope (as well as some comic books and candy and also added to my savings account (at one point when I was 17 or 18 my Savings and Loan gave away china with a deposit and my mom bought an entire set using my CD deposits))

[SmileyRose]

113. you guys only had ONE dishwasher?

You poor underprivileged kid! I bet you had to wash dishes uphill, both ways, in the snow, with no shoes. We had 7 dishwashers at my house. Rose, Terrence, Scott, David, Ashline, John and Terri. We each had dishes for a week and didn't even get allowance or an earned income credit. LOL :) :)

[Pithlet]

115. I don't know how old you are.

But things have changed a lot, even in just the past 20 years. Kids really do cost a lot, and I think it's even worse now than it ever was. Until you have them, you really have no idea. It doesn't sound like a big deal to you. Until I had kids, I had no clue either. Kids mean a higher grocery bill. By quite a bit. Even with the coupon cutting and the discount shopping. Groceries have shot up lately, and they aren't coming back down. They also mean more clothes. For example, every time I do laundry, I find another pair of pants with a hole in the knee. And that's when I haven't found that I've put a pair on and they no longer fit. So, gotta buy more. It's a constant expense. They outgrow their shoes constantly. And even if you buy these things discount or second hand. It's still an expense. And then there's daycare, if you work while they're young. It's hundreds, if not thousands of dollars a month. That's money you never see again and couldn't save. Then medical expenses. They need their checkups. Not to mention they get sick. Sometimes it's an ER visit. My insurance requires me to pony up 150 bucks every time that happens. Some aren't lucky enough to have insurance that good, if at all. It's a 20 copay otherwise. I'm also lucky enough that one child requires an expensive prescription medication. Every month, and also requires a specialist every three months, which is an even more expensive copay. Then there's entertainment. Toys. Books. You can be as frugal as possible, but you've got to provide something. And it costs. Yeah, we do the library, but they have their favorite books, too. It all adds up, very quickly. You'd be surprised.

[hfojvt]

119. I said some of the things, not all of them

One of the great things though is that you get paid more because of your kids at some employers. Where I work if you are single, the company pays $486.05 a month for your health insurance. If you have a family, they pay $837.48 a month. That's a difference of $351.43 a month or $4,217.16 a year or $25,302.96 for the six years I have worked there.

Then too, from ages 5-12 you get state subsidized day-care, and there is talk of extending that to universal pre-K. Make it more affordable for the parents if millions of single and childless people are forced to kick in for some of the costs.

[Pithlet]

120. Right, because there's no cost associated with sending your child to school.

Yes, most work places let you come in and go home exactly the same length as the school day, so you don't have to pay for before and after care, which isn't much less than the full time cost. Not to mention the costs associated for many people when they have to go get them when the school calls and tells them they're sick. Not to mention that now a days you have to provide the school supplies as an upfront cost. Bet you didn't know that, did you? I'm not just talking paper and pencils. It's a huge box, costs quite a bit, then they keep sending home notes hitting you up to replace them. Cha ching! It's everything they need, because schools supply very little anymore. There's talk about extending it to pre-k? Well don't worry. They've been talking about it here for years. It's never gone anywhere. And with budget cuts, it probably won't near you, either. So, some employers pay more for family healthcare, so that's fine, then. My family plan just tripled. That's a huge chunk out of the paycheck, let me tell you. Let's not forget the millions of uninsured and underinsured, including children, okay?

Again. These little pittances some of you are grousing about are sometimes the difference between middle class and poverty for some people. Sometimes I'm ashamed of DU. For some of you, it's ignorance, and I'm willing to forgive it. But, I wish people would focus on the big problems, and lay off parents. Just because we "chose" parenthood doesn't mean we should have to sink or swim. It's not a progressive ideal. And we will all eventually sink with that attitude. Anything that helps our middle class families stay middle class, even if it's some pissy little tax, helps.

[hfojvt]

126. Why should poor people care if middle class people stay middle class?

Does that help to end poverty somehow? It looks like a trade-off to this economist. Every dollar that goes to a family making over $30,000 is one that cannot goto a family making less. And that money goes to many families who are far above the edge of middle class. It's $1,000 going to a family making $80,000 or $90,000 or $110,000 a year (and the House voted to extend it to families making $130,000 - $160,000 a year, calling them middle class families (fortunately the Senate did not act on that little subsidy for the relatively wealthy)) - because they have kids, while not going to a family making $30,000 who also has kids, and not going to a single guy making $12,000 because he doesn't have kids and therefore he neither counts nor matters. Because IT IS ALL ABOUT THE KIDS!

[Pithlet]

127. Oh, okay. Fuck the middle class, then.

Because their children are so much better off poor :crazy: It's a trade off? Yeah, it's a zero sum game. Just like that. Ooookay, then. Goodnight.

ETA sorry. Can't help it. I have to respond. Why would the poor care about the middle class? Because they aren't some monolithic group? Because they aren't all selfish people who only care about themselves, or worse, want to see the children of everyone else be poor, too? Just a guess. But, more to the point, I wouldn't think they'd want to see their own tax benefits go bye bye just to spite others. Because I don't think they're illogical, either.

[hfojvt]

131. I think it is better to fu$% the middle class than to fu$% the poor

Yes, strangely enough, I put the needs of families making $30,000 ahead of those of families making $80,000, and I put the needs of a single person making minimum wage or 130% of minimum wage ahead of the "needs" of a supposedly middle class family making $110,000. Yeah, especially when both parties (edit: Political parties) are bleating the mantra of "fiscal responsibility" then it is a zero sum game. A $1,000 tax rebate for families making over $50,000 a year is money that is not available for head start or SCHIP or LIHEAP or food stamps. I thought that was progressive conventional wisdom that those programs were being starved in order to give tax breaks to people who are better off.

As I stated above, it was my understanding that they were NOT getting those benefits, certainly not the full benefit. I was wrong, but I would still like to see data, if possible, on the number of lower income people who are eligible for the credit but are not getting it because they cannot figure out form 8812. Because the government, for some reason, does not just want to make the credit on line 52 refundable.

But all of this discussion has reminded/motivated me to visit Catholic Social Services tomorrow so I can volunteer to assist poor people with their taxes.

[Pithlet]

133. I saw that upthread after I posted the response above.

Of course, the immediate needs of poorer families are more important because they're more urgent. You're right. But the bigger picture can't be ignored. The middle class is vital to the health of our nation. If it goes, we're all in serious trouble. We've been seeing the effects of a dwindling middle class for awhile now, and part of that effect is the larger population of poor families we have now. It benefits no one for the children of the middle class to be plunged into poverty. We as a society give in to the sniveling of some here on DU and take away that crumb that got thrown to us? We might as well just give up entirely. It's not because I think that group is the most important; it's really more because they're the barometer of the health of our country. The healthier the middle class, the easier it is to move more people into it, which should be the goal I think. But my focus on most of my arguments in my posts on this topic that started in the other thread have indeed mainly on the poor, for they would definitely be hurt the most by losing taxes like this.

[NeedleCast]

251. Kids do cost a lot

and this is something I find many parents fail to consider before having them...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

285. And how many people THINK about those things before they become parents?

Not many. If people put half as much thought and consideration into procreation as they do into buying a home or car or, shit, into ordering a meal at a restaurant, we'd have a lot fewer problems in this country. And it's not like this stuff isn't known.

[Pithlet]

291. And how many circumstances change after people have children?

And tell me, how exactly was I supposed to know that I was going to have with a child with special needs and costs that go with that? Hmmm? You just told me to spare you the 2 cent psychobable in another post ? Well, spare me the Right Wing bullshit. Because that's exactly the same kind of shit logic they spew when they want to cut social programs. "They should have thought of that before they had kids. Cut WIC!" And even aside from that. Perhaps you'd like to explain why only affluent people should get to raise children? Why poor people shouldn't get to? And how that's such a progressive ideal? What kind of a country would we eventually morph into when the only people born and raised are people that come from money? I shudder to think. You think it's such a horrible, parent centric society now?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

304. I realize I came off harsh there and I'm sorry for that.

Yes of course circumstances change.

[sinkingfeeling]

184. Ever get hit with the 'singles supplement' on tours/travel?

[MADem]

6. It sure would be an incentive, at any rate! nt

[RC]

7. They need the tax breaks to encourage you to breed more canon fodder.

[Hydra]

65. Exactly!

Capitalism requires growing numbers of kids to put in the shredder, both in the military and in wage-slave labor.

Don't expect negative population growth to be hailed in any capitalist nation.

[Quantess]

105. Tax breaks aren't an encouragement to breed.

Forgive me if I'm being too serious while you are being cynical...

Anyone who is smart enough to know about tax breaks, knows that babies cost a lot of money, and work, to raise.

If you want to know an effective way to breed more cannon fodder: Abstinence-only education of our teenagers is a good way to raise the teen pregnancy rate. Teenage mothers will have a hard time raising her children, and will most likely not be able to send them to college.

Post edit: I wanted to post an article that shows the teen pregnancy rates and teen abortion rates of western industrialized countries. I believe it's guttmacher institute, but I couldn't find it on Google tonight. The article cites that USA teenagers and Russian teenagers have similarly, very high, rates of teen pregnancy. USA has THE HIGHEST number of teenage births of all western industrialized nations per capita. Russian teenagers just get more abortions. The rest of Europe has really low teen pregnancy rates, compared to Russia. The US is just an anomaly of high teenage childbearing.

[stuntcat]

155. and more consumers

Growth growth growth, it should never end even when we've paved the whole planet, who cares if the once beautiful Earth is a finite resource? I just hope none of the babies being made today grow up to love nature.

[Liberal_in_LA]

8. YES!

[lonestarnot]

10. Yes.

[Deja Q]

11. At one point, it was an incentive for people to marry and breed.

Thanks to the petri dish known as "The Duggar Household", the concept is grossly abused.

[distantearlywarning]

12. I would be up for this.

I have never understood why people are rewarded for breeding.

[MrModerate]

15. Ummm . . . so the human race doesn't die out?

So that society still functions when we get elderly?

[cascadiance]

22. I think the human race dying out for too few kids being born is the LAST thing...

... we need to worry about.

Now the human race might die out, but not from having too few people born into the next generation. It will more likely be due to too many people chewing up the planet's resources to a breaking point.

[MrModerate]

110. Well yes . . . but survival is the reason that societies . . .

Have always favored the childbearing over the childless, or at minimum required that productive individuals contribute to the upkeep of child-related public resources regardless of whether they have children or not.

[cascadiance]

156. Childbearing has its benefits as well as its costs...

And if you ask the rest of society to bear the costs (when they don't have kids), and not the benefits (that those who are raising them get), then you are putting too much of a burden on the latter. Then people say that if they're going to pay for it anyway, then why don't they go ahead and just have more kids, even if they might not otherwise have them.

Now the real question isn't about population growth for a society to survive that tax breaks for having kids should be about, which your earlier post seemed to assert. It should be about ensuring that those kids that are brought into this world are raised well and have decent opportunities (and hopefully over time we can REDUCE those coming in to the world, and not have them suffer as a result of that reduction of new births).

That's why I think if you come up with creative solutions like making sure that we reward child rearing moreso (like more credit for taking care of adopted kids), and not incentivizing having new kids as the focus (or implicit focus if we don't target more well intended solutions well enough)...

Hopefully a better educated America later will see that each of us has to play a part in not having too many kids in order to have a more sustainable lifestyle on this planet, and not thinking they can "have theirs" and f everyone else, like many do now.

[MrModerate]

222. If you want to talk about how large the human population on this planet should be . . .

That's an entirely different line of thought. It's outside my area of competence to say anything authoritative about the subject, but I'm guessing that you and I might agree "much smaller" would be best.

With regard to incentivizing childbearing, I don't think financial mechanisms really have much effect on people's behavior. People have kids because of biological and societal pressures to do so, and decline to have them for personal and economic reasons (vast oversimplification, but not too far from the truth, I think). Societies' bias toward childrearing just makes it more practicable once you've got 'em to provide a decent quality of life.

The benefit of having children is not "the joy of parenthood" (which is a wildly uneven blessing), but the stability, continuity, and economic health of society, a benefit shared by childrearers and nonrearers alike.

[distantearlywarning]

24. Let me know when we're in danger of that happening.

When we get to that point, I'll even do my part and breed some anklebiters to save the human race.

Until then, why are we rewarding people for reproducing?

[MrModerate]

112. As a practical matter, it's probably unworkable . . .

To stop and start reproduction on any broad scale. Not the sort of thing you'd want to get wrong.

[Deja Q]

Well, if high school kids are getting busted for taunting and hurting elders in 2008...

What will they not be getting busted for in 2038, just because they're innocent sweet kids?

[MrModerate]

114. I was going to respond to your comment . . .

But when I parsed it, the whole thing just fell apart in my hands.

Please rediagram your sentence and bring it back to me.

[BeatleBoot]

14. Wow.

...


:banghead:

[robinlynne]

17. right on. I remember how I felt when a friend with 2 children she cannot afford

to take care of went on and on about why I should pay for her children to go to private school!!!!!!!! (vouchers). I nearly lost it.

[cascadiance]

18. I think a cap on benefits at two kids...

Or at least start phasing down the benefits over two. I do hate penalizing kids, so make it more focused on the taxes and benefits of the parents. So I have mixed feelings about it. But I do think we shouldn't be incentivizing people to have more than two kids. People should just feel privileged and encouraged to replace themselves with kids on the earth. Getting more than two, perhaps others that don't have kids can have "credits" that people can buy to get more kids (if those people don't want to have kids). That way there's an incentive not to have less kids hopefully (kind of like carbon credits are being discussed to be used and limited for environmental pollution). I think some thought should be given though before making any new hard rules. The last thing I want to see happen is kids starve and be underprivileged in this bad economy too.

[bigwillq]

19. YES!

:bounce:

I have needs too! :)

[ibegurpard]

20. It's not like the tax break is a reward

for having children.
The costs of raising children are higher than the tax break.

[distantearlywarning]

27. People choose to have kids.

I chose to have cats, and they cost money too. Maybe I should get a tax break for each small fuzzy creature I take in.

Also, the car I chose to buy costs money too. Bring on the automobile tax breaks! After all, we need people to buy more cars just as much as we need people to make more people.

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, everything about my lifestyle costs money to maintain. My lifestyle costs consistently exceed my tax breaks every year, and I don't really think that's fair. I should get a tax break for everything I choose to add to my life. It's the right thing to do!

[jberryhill]

39. If your cats are going to be paying my social security in the future, fine /nt

[greguganus]

281. lol n/t

[cascadiance]

32. But the costs to ALL of us later in an overpopulated world will be far worse!

The problem is that none of us yet see the true effects of so many people being brought into the world, much like many haven't seen the mess they put themselves in with the crazy mortgages they got to get that house they always wanted too. Now we're facing that debt. I hope that we can stop overpopulation before it goes too far for the earth to sustain us too.

[Pithlet]

60. Okay. So, do you want that overpopulated population

of which we're all members, to be a well cared for, educated overpopulation? Because we're all going to be here anyway, and if you think regressive taxation is going to make everyone have fewer babies, you're sadly mistaken. So, let's regress the taxation, ignore the real reasons why taxes are unfair, and stick it to the parents, because after all, they chose to have kids. So, now we're all just poorer, and overpopulation is still a real problem. That's smart.

No, I say the adult way to deal with the issue of overpopulation is to find out the real reasons why people have too many kids. And it isn't because of tax breaks. A better educated population, where the children are well taken care of, and not seen as burdens bred by selfish parents and looked upon with disdain by the childfree, is the better way to handle it. A society that takes care of everyone, including its children, is a better society, and one less likely to suffer from ills like overpopulation. All tax breaks are are a nod from society to parents that acknowledges that kids take work and resources, and it's society's way of chipping in. It's not an incentive to breed, even if that's what some resentful childfree people think it is, because it doesn't fully replace the cost of childrearing. Removing it is just spiteful, and will only actually hurt the poor among us, the most vulnerable.

[cascadiance]

100. I agree that education is a big part of the solution... But we shouldn't be incentivizing...

... having more kids. That sends the wrong message. Ultimately if folks get decent education, they will understand when they have too many kids beyond their means (and ultimately contributing to the collective lack of means by the planet itself) to take care of them, that they will have less of them.

Perhaps do some creative things like give people more credit for adoption than for having their own kids. That way, those who want kids, instead of having new kids will try to give attention to those that are already born. There are many kind of ways I think if we put our minds to it where we can make sure that our younger generation is taken care of well and are provided for, and yet not incentivize people to have too many of them.

Right now the message carries over from the bible to many that we're out there to "multiply" which might have been good logic back in the days that the bible was written, but isn't right now.

We need to find creative ways for people to look to provide solutions without having more kids. And we should find some ways to reward those who don't have kids who are in effect contributing to the solution of not filling the world with more kids.

[Pithlet]

118. Incentivize

I'd like to know how on earth such a thing is incentivize. Do you want to know how incentivizing it is? I'll tell you how incentivizing it is. It was so incentivizing that it may very well be the one thing that keeps us from sinking into utter destitution if the worst thing happens and we become the next victim of this horrid economy that is rapidly shrinking our middle class as we speak. Yeah. I guess we should have known that was going to happen, huh? And not let that tax credit incentivize us to have kids? The tax credits that were in no way on my mind when I made the decision? Too bad it just might do what it was designed to do should the inevitable happen. We'll hang on by a thread for a tiny little while longer instead of utterly sinking into poverty right away. Maybe it will give us the time we need to pull out of it. Because those tax breaks probably did help us to save a little more than maybe we otherwise would have been able to. Doesn't that frost your shorts? Well, too bad.

Honestly. I don't think too many people are thinking about EITCs when they're doing the deed. Do you? And don't worry. We're probably going to be okay. But the economy does suck royally. No one is safe anymore but the insanely rich. I'm just trying to point that particularly at this point, tax credits for families really are meant to be a safety net.

[semillama]

149. Tax breaks were the furthest thing from my mind when the wife and I were trying to concieve

Now we're looking down the barrel of impending parenthood, I have to say I agree with everything you've posted on this thread. It's sad how many of the counter-arguments just don't get how it all works. A thousand bucks for a kid in a year is a drop in the bucket compared to the expenses that come with it.

And look at it this way: If progressives stop having kids, and conservatives don't - what do you think the future is going to look like?


(btw, is your screen name a reference to Tad Williams' Otherland series?)

[cascadiance]

153. Ultimately the real solution isn't adding or removing children's tax credits to fix the economy...

As many note here, whether or not we have tax breaks that encourage or for many people don't really make a difference in their decision to have kids, the most important issue is to fix things like our salaries, etc. so that we don't have to worry about things like children's tax credits, or mortgage tax breaks, etc. for people to get by, which selectively help only a certain segment, and ignore others. Now granted, those with kids to take care of, and a big home mortgage are facing big challenges now in this recession/depression and arguably need more help to get themselves out of trouble, but many of the rest of us who've avoided having kids, getting married, rent instead of owning houses, also have limited our ability to get wealth, even though we've not got as many obligations as some do here, and will be left behind, if all of those "adjustments" are targeted at the former and not the latter. At some point you'll want us investing in houses, and perhaps marrying and having kids too, when we feel more ready to do so if we choose to.

Fixing the economy with broadly scoped efforts to get the middle class back on its feet (like returning to the pre-Reagan marginal tax rates that would target the "insanely rich" that you and I both agree are the ones that should be targeted more for revenue for our broke system) should be considered as a separate problem than trying selective measures to rescue those that are most hit hard. The latter are band-aid solutions that don't fix the fundamental problem of a shrinking middle class, and like I said in some cases arguably have bad side effects, like implicitly telling people they should get married and have more kids, if you put too much of the rewards towards those people and not helping the rest of the struggling middle class as well. Overpopulation might not be a huge problem now, but it is going to be huge when the effects of global warming really start kicking in later. Either we try to do things gracefully now in terms of holding back births to halt the growth of population (and even reverse growth), or we will have more catastrophic death for our kids later in a very ugly world not capable of supporting them then. Now I don't want to have rules like China does on limiting numbers of kids in families, but unless we find ways to incentivize people avoiding large families now, we may be forced to adopt that strategy later out of necessity. Then another of our freedoms will be lost.

[Pithlet]

181. Yeah, we have to fix that stuff.

I just have no patience for the whining from some childfree people on this board and their resentment of people who have kids. They can cloak it in a thin disguise for concern for the planet if they want to, but it's really quite easy to see through. Anyone who's genuinely interested in that issue and knows a thing or two about it knows that things like the EITC have absolutely nothing to do with that issue. What it boils down to is they disapprove of the choice to have kids, combined with the fact that they're jealous and resentful of what they perceive as some perk that parents get that they don't. That's really all it is, and it's silly. I don't have a problem with people who might have some real, technical problems with the taxes and have some better solutions to offer up. That's fine.

But the whining is really not much different than people who call things like welfare a punishment on the successful. It's a similar kind of logic. The justifications for their arguments are the same, too. Poor people didn't make the same choices I did, and that's why they're not successful like me. Why should I have to pay? Welfare just encourages them to be poor. We shouldn't give them that incentive. The arguments are the same. And if someone went around shouting about entitlements poor people got, and how it punishes people like them? They'd probably get a tombstone. It would probably be cheered by the same people who are whining about the tax breaks for parents, ironically. They're so blinded by their resentment of parents that they can't see how their own arguments are disgustingly the same, and very anti-progressive.

[Midlodemocrat]

244. .

:applause:

[sinkingfeeling]

186. Are you claiming that the only reason you chose to have children is for the betterment of the

middle class? Why did you choose to have kids? You do realize that up until about 1980 the only 'tax break' given for children was the extra exemptions? Forty years ago, I was a single mother (divorced without child support) and the society didn't provide a tax credit for child care nor anything else. Why did that change? I'm now a single tax payer and pay more than double in federal income and state income taxes than my married co-worker with 3 kids. Is that your definition of fair?

[Pithlet]

261. No, I'm not.

But my own personal reasons reasons really have nothing to do with the reasons why these tax breaks were enacted, do they?

You should have received something. It's a shame you didn't. Why did it change? There's actually a thread on that somewhere in GD that someone posted a couple of days ago about how one of them came about. But, really among the reasons for the push is that it is in society's best interest that more people can afford to raise children comfortably. That's the reason.

Without knowing the specifics of what you and your coworker make, I can't say. But what I can say is that no. I don't think it's unfair that working families get a break on taxes. It's not a punishment against people who don't have kids. It's a concession by society that it costs to raise a family. It's an acknowledgment that we don't want a society where only rich people can afford to raise their kids well. That would be mean society is functioning less than optimally. It's no more a punishment against people without children than welfare is a punishment against successful people. People who look at it as a punishment and therefore somehow unfair are just looking at it from a twisted viewpoint.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

310. Jesus what a martyr you are.

Even worse, you hide behind your kids. A better educated population, where the children are well taken care of, and not seen as burdens bred by selfish parents and looked upon with disdain by the childfree... Oh boo hoo. :nopity: Except the only little glitch in your self-pity and pity-by-proxy party is that the childfree generally don't look at children with disdain. It's the annoying demanding whiny overblown sense of entitlement PARENTS most of us can't stand.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

315. What else would you call handing money to people because they did something?

A penalty?

[vanderBeth]

21. It's not as though tax breaks are "rewards" for having children. You said it yourself, children

require more of everything. That's what the tax break is for. I doubt it reduce the population because it would have no effect on unplanned pregnancy and do you really think people having planned pregnancy would give up their dreams for children for a 1000 bucks a year?

If there are rewards for having children, they are in some Europe countries where the population growth was negative (This was a couple years ago. Don't know if it's still the case.)For overpopulation, I'd be more worried with those countries with a billion plus people.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. People with no children AND unmarried people

It's the most unfair double-taxation ever!!

[Duckhunter935]

25. Thank you- yes it is

[Maine1991]

30. re:People with no children AND unmarried people

Remember, we must all pay our fair share of taxes.

[Duckhunter935]

41. So my share is more as a single and childless

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

49. It's not that I don't want to be married or have children, but if those circumstances

don't work out for me, should I be punished because my situation turned out different from others? That's not fair-share of taxes, that's punishment because society says that I must have a husband and children.

[sinkingfeeling]

187. Bingo!

[seabeyond]

37. not really. the second breadwinner in the family is. say hubby makes in highest bracket

regardless my low pay i am taxed in that bracket

[NeedleCast]

255. Honestly, as captain of the SINK fan boi club

The advntages of being single and without children far outdistance the small amount of tax I incur for it.

I'm cool with that.

[Gregorian]

29. We're in an emergency.

How do we deal with it?

We are slowing down the population rate. But as some of us know, we cannot grow at all. In fact we must decrease the population.

We can do it intelligently, or painfully.

Someone on DU posted this, and it pretty much says how I feel about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh-hdLKITZA&feature=related


And I'm sorry I didn't answer your question. I don't think taxation makes any difference to people who have made up their mind to introduce more humans to the planet. But if it would help out without hurting those who are already here, I'd be all for it.

[Greyhound]

200. The scary thing is that study after study for decades has verified the premise

behind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/">"Idiocracy". The inverse proportion between intellect and reproduction.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

[Gregorian]

224. I've always loved that quote.

I guess because I've always doubted my ideas. And then I see them on tv, or in a magazine. Well it ends up I made my fortune by accident. What the hell. :)



My biggest reason for concern is that we are wielding huge amounts of power. I wish I could find this speech I once heard from the 70's regarding peak oil. In it the speaker mentions how each American has the equivalent of several hundred slaves, thanks to petroleum. We're like babies with machine guns.

I happen to have grown up in a very energy aware household, neighborhood, town. So this discussion has been going on almost half of the population ago.

The irony of it all is that in my attempt to escape the crowds I now find myself finally building my own house. Argh! The thing I detest the most, I am now doing. But I didn't duplicate my genes. So I guess I deserve some leeway.

Sorry to bore you all. :)

[lumberjack_jeff]

33. Kids are the demographic most likely to live in poverty.

But far be it for me to interfere in your bitter tirade.

[Gregorian]

42. What's bitter is a melting planet.

Words are not the problem. This is a very serious situation we are in. And many don't understand that. Most don't understand. I've been up against this for a long time. But criticism isn't going to help, nor make us stop talking about it.

[Le Taz Hot]

147. So, wouldn't it make more sense

NOT to have children? Sorry, your post just flew in the face of logic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

173. Kids aren't consumer goods.

Your post might make some sense if you exchange "children" for "an SUV".

It is not rational nor humane to consider the impact on kids to be acceptable collateral damage in your war on their parents.

Yours is the same self-centered logic which resulted in the welfare "reform" that has further impoverished kids.

[Le Taz Hot]

193. "My" war against parents?

When the hell did I declare war on parents?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

253. You have to understand that parents are really used to having their butts kissed

The minute someone gives their choices a similar kind of scrutiny that those of us who choose not to breed routinely get some of them come unglued. It doesn't compute with their sense of entitlement. Parenthood is the Hardest Job In The WOOOORLD* and no one dare forget it.


*Even when parents do things like dump their teenaged children at Nebraska hospitals, it's because they are sainted martyrs overwhelmed by the mighty responsibility and not because they are selfish jerks who shouldn't have procreated.

[lumberjack_jeff]

307. Yes, being called "greedy selfish breeders" is something we enjoy.

We are very much not used to having our butts kissed at DU. That's fine, but stop taking it out on the kids.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

320. I don't see anyone "taking it out on the kids" here.

Yet another entitled breeder whiner hiding behind the kids like Sarah Palin at the hockey game. I have a newsflash for you, Ace. I don't dislike children. I like them just fine. It's a large percentage of their PARENTS I can't stand.

[lumberjack_jeff]

321. You expect to be able to punish parents independent of the kids?

You're not simply self-centered, you're profoundly stupid.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

324. Punished?

I just happen to think that parents should stop acting like they and their children are the only people who matter and that non-parents exist solely to subsidize families. If you consider that a "punishment" then I don't what to do for ya. :shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

356. Especially since so many of them have deadbeat dads. nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. Yes.

[Political Tiger]

38. Yes, I think so! n/t

[Name removed]

40. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varelse]

43. What about people who adopt children?

Have you considered that the tax breaks are directed to people who serve as parents and/or legal guardians of children, regardless of their status as "breeders"?

[Lyric]

57. A fantastic point that is being ignored.

Just so you know, *I* noticed it.

[distantearlywarning]

148. Now THIS is a good idea.

[redqueen]

245. That would make it so much less outragey, though. (nt)

[Warpy]

44. Also more of a FUTURE for the country in which they reside

Raising children isn't just a silly, self indulgent hobby, you know. There are real practical benefits to having a next generation of workers and citizens.

After all, who do you think is going to be paying your social security?

[Hello_Kitty]

53. I love responses like this!

"You were born to be sacrificed to the gods of commerce and to pay my social security!"

Hey, I give you credit for at least admitting it.

[Warpy]

Not to mention keeping the world going for one more generation

Sorry you missed the point.

[Hello_Kitty]

70. Oh yes of course.

Let's hand people money to incentivize them to breed. Great idea for an overpopulated planet. :eyes:

[Bill McBlueState]

163. Do you have any evidence that the child tax credit

is actually an incentive to breed?

[Critters2]

81. Yeah. We're really at risk of extinction.

:eyes:

[stuntcat]

154. right on

humans quadrupled in the last century.. look what a beautiful future it's gotten us. I'd die before I gave my baby the rest of this century.

[JerseygirlCT]

146. Precisely, Warpy. nt

[WillowTree]

45. Absolutely not!

And I don't have kids. I also haven't had to pay to support and educate and properly care for them. I don't begrudge the dependent deduction to those with children and I don't think I deserve some sort of "compensatory deduction" because I don't.

[seabeyond]

46. 2.3 is the average number of children. i am not seeing that as excessive

and needing some kind of control

[Duckhunter935]

47. I think the key is "average"

What is the average number excluding persons that have decided not to have children

[seabeyond]

83. then it all averages out now, doesnt it. wink. n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

336. Over replacement level

if not for immigration the US population would be growing considerably more slowly and might even decrease (which would not necessarily be a bad thing considering that the planet is probably overpopulated as it is, and that the net environmental impact of people in developed countries s much greater--and greatest of all from Americans; the average American consumes twice the energy of the average European, for instance, and the average American has twice the carbon footprint as well).

[dbackjon]

48. Agreed!

[Luminous Animal]

50. Look at it as an unemployment benefit...

for the unemployable.

If there were no children, who would pay for maintenance of our infrastructure? Society would collapse.

[kiva]

51. Yes.

In modern society, having a child is a choice--some may not choose wisely, but they still choose. I'd like to see any added tax revenue this would generate earmarked to provide health care and other services for children living in poverty. Several have commented here that the tax break is only a fraction of the cost of raising a child; in that case, the loss of the credits wouldn't affect the daily lives of most families, while the extra money toward services could be of great benefit to children from the poorest households.

[W_HAMILTON]

52. ...

[Pithlet]

54. Because it's not an incentive for having kids. Therefore, taking away

won't reduce the amount of children people have. All it will do is eliminate one of the few progressive taxes we have. A pittance, really. Funny that it would be one that gets focused on as if it were on par with say, the tax benefits the rich get. The rich. The people who consume a hell of a lot more than many of the people you begrudge this tax break. A pittance that for some really could make a difference. Removing it for them would hurt. Why would anyone remotely progressive really want to do such a thing?

[mudesi]

55. No children = No future

I'm a single white heterosexual male with zero children, and I couldn't disagree more with your post.

It's the new generation that progresses civilization forward. Obama wouldn't have even been elected without them.

[Duckhunter935]

59. US Population, 1918 it went down

US Population


Date National Population Population Change
July 1, 1998 270,298,524 2,554,929 0.95
July 1, 1997 267,743,595 2,553,801 0.96
July 1, 1996 265,189,794 2,424,846 0.92
July 1, 1995 262,764,948 2,475,711 0.95
July 1, 1994 260,289,237 2,543,134 0.98
July 1, 1993 257,746,103 2,751,586 1.07
July 1, 1992 254,994,517 2,867,115 1.13
July 1, 1991 252,127,402 2,688,690 1.07
July 1, 1990 249,438,712 2,619,482 1.06
July 1, 1989 246,819,230 2,320,248 0.94
July 1, 1988 244,498,982 2,210,064 0.91
July 1, 1987 242,288,918 2,156,031 0.89
July 1, 1986 240,132,887 2,209,092 0.92
July 1, 1985 237,923,795 2,098,893 0.89
July 1, 1984 235,824,902 2,032,908 0.87
July 1, 1983 233,791,994 2,127,536 0.91
July 1, 1982 231,664,458 2,198,744 0.95
July 1, 1981 229,465,714 2,241,033 0.98
July 1, 1980 227,224,681 2,169,194 0.96
July 1, 1979 225,055,487 2,470,942 1.10
July 1, 1978 222,584,545 2,345,120 1.06
July 1, 1977 220,239,425 2,204,261 1.01
July 1, 1976 218,035,164 2,061,965 0.95
July 1, 1975 215,973,199 2,119,271 0.99
July 1, 1974 213,853,928 1,945,140 0.91
July 1, 1973 211,908,788 2,012,767 0.95
July 1, 1972 209,896,021 2,235,344 1.07
July 1, 1971 207,660,677 2,608,503 1.26
July 1, 1970 205,052,174 2,375,228 1.17
July 1, 1969 202,676,946 1,970,894 0.98
July 1, 1968 200,706,052 1,993,996 1.00
July 1, 1967 198,712,056 2,151,718 1.09
July 1, 1966 196,560,338 2,257,375 1.16
July 1, 1965 194,302,963 2,414,172 1.25
July 1, 1964 191,888,791 2,646,993 1.39
July 1, 1963 189,241,798 2,704,061 1.44
July 1, 1962 186,537,737 2,846,256 1.54
July 1, 1961 183,691,481 3,020,323 1.66
July 1, 1960 180,671,158 2,841,530 1.59
July 1, 1959 177,829,628 2,947,724 1.67
July 1, 1958 174,881,904 2,897,774 1.67
July 1, 1957 171,984,130 3,081,099 1.81
July 1, 1956 168,903,031 2,971,829 1.78
July 1, 1955 165,931,202 2,905,348 1.77
July 1, 1954 163,025,854 2,841,662 1.76
July 1, 1953 160,184,192 2,631,452 1.66
July 1, 1952 157,552,740 2,674,851 1.71
July 1, 1951 154,877,889 2,606,472 1.70
July 1, 1950 152,271,417 3,083,287 2.05
July 1, 1949 149,188,130 2,556,828 1.73
July 1, 1948 146,631,302 2,505,231 1.72
July 1, 1947 144,126,071 2,737,505 1.92
July 1, 1946 141,388,566 1,460,401 1.04
July 1, 1945 139,928,165 1,530,820 1.10
July 1, 1944 138,397,345 1,657,992 1.21
July 1, 1943 136,739,353 1,879,800 1.38
July 1, 1942 134,859,553 1,457,082 1.09
July 1, 1941 133,402,471 1,280,025 0.96
July 1, 1940 132,122,446 1,242,728 0.95
July 1, 1939 130,879,718 1,054,779 0.81
July 1, 1938 129,824,939 1,000,110 0.77
July 1, 1937 128,824,829 771,649 0.60
July 1, 1936 128,053,180 802,948 0.63
July 1, 1935 127,250,232 876,459 0.69
July 1, 1934 126,373,773 795,010 0.63
July 1, 1933 125,578,763 738,292 0.59
July 1, 1932 124,840,471 800,823 0.64
July 1, 1931 124,039,648 962,907 0.78
July 1, 1930 123,076,741 1,309,741 1.07
July 1, 1929 121,767,000 1,258,000 1.04
July 1, 1928 120,509,000 1,474,000 1.23
July 1, 1927 119,035,000 1,638,000 1.39
July 1, 1926 117,397,000 1,568,000 1.34
July 1, 1925 115,829,000 1,720,000 1.50
July 1, 1924 114,109,000 2,162,000 1.91
July 1, 1923 111,947,000 1,898,000 1.71
July 1, 1922 110,049,000 1,511,000 1.38
July 1, 1921 108,538,000 2,077,000 1.93
July 1, 1920 106,461,000 1,947,000 1.85
July 1, 1919 104,514,000 1,306,000 1.26
July 1, 1918 103,208,000 -60,000 -0.06
July 1, 1917 103,268,000 1,307,000 1.27
July 1, 1916 101,961,000 1,415,000 1.40
July 1, 1915 100,546,000 1,435,000 1.44
July 1, 1914 99,111,000 1,886,000 1.92
July 1, 1913 97,225,000 1,890,000 1.96
July 1, 1912 95,335,000 1,472,000 1.56
July 1, 1911 93,863,000 1,456,000 1.56
July 1, 1910 92,407,000 1,917,000 2.10
July 1, 1909 90,490,000 1,780,000 1.99
July 1, 1908 88,710,000 1,702,000 1.94
July 1, 1907 87,008,000 1,558,000 1.81
July 1, 1906 85,450,000 1,628,000 1.92
July 1, 1905 83,822,000 1,656,000 2.00
July 1, 1904 82,166,000 1,534,000 1.88
July 1, 1903 80,632,000 1,469,000 1.84
July 1, 1902 79,163,000 1,579,000 2.01
July 1, 1901 77,584,000 1,490,000 1.94
July 1, 1900 76,094,000 --- ---

[Pithlet]

66. You're right. A better way to put it?

A poorly taken care of population of children means a poor future for us all. A society that takes a view of children the way some DUers in this thread do? A mighty poor society indeed. Yeah, the tax breaks don't go very far. But for some members of the poor and middle class? They do make a difference. I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread.

[Kaylee]

322. It went down because of the flu pandemic....

[I814U]

56. I agree on the premise b/c of equal treatment under the law...

...but economically speaking population growth is a pillar of capitalism. The average human an only generate X amount of productivity over Y amount of time. In capitalism an economy that does not expand is said to be in recession and that is said to be bad. But if you can only achieve a limited amount of productivity from a limited population pool the only way to have ever unending economic growth is to have an ever-increasingly population.

Capitalism breeds people as herd animals to their own destruction. Progressives, those at the forefront of the birth control movement, understood that socialized economic policy was good for people, good economics, good for the environment and ushed in an era of sexual freedom.

[Hello_Kitty]

64. Not true. Human beings, per se, do not generate any productivity or revenue.

Having an abundant supply of humans who don't have the capability to produce or the money to buy anything are just an excess of hungry mouths. Here's an analogy I read recently which is very apt: Suppose you are a shoe manufacturer. Which situation would be more profitable to you? A thousand dirt poor people or one Imelda Marcos?

People don't buy things. Money does.

[Pithlet]

69. What in the hell are you even doing here?

Hungry mouths?

And take some friggin economics classes.

[Hello_Kitty]

71. Excuse me?

It's the fundies and the winguts who want everyone to "be fruitful and multiply". Isn't it? Liberals are supposed to be smarter than that.

BTW, insinuating that a longtime DUer is a Freeper is against the rules of this site. I haven't dropped in for a while but I'm aware of how things work around here.

[Pithlet]

76. Liberals are indeed supposed to be smarter than that.

Proposing something that hurts primarily poor and middle class children isn't so progressive in my book. And since it would do absolutely nothing to help reduce the population, I don't see what that has to do with the excess of "hungry mouths" as you so eloquently put it.

[Hello_Kitty]

80. You don't know what you are talking about.

The only tax break I would get rid of or reduce is the $1000 per child that primarily middle class families get. Temporary Assistance To Affluent Families, as it's sometimes called. At the same time that boondoggle was passed, so was so-called Welfare Reform which threw millions of women and children out into the cold. Unlike you, I actually care about poor children. I don't just lump all families under $150K into the "lower income" category and hope no one notices that the bennies seem to be going to the ones at the higher end.

[Pithlet]

82. Yes. Ludicrous.

It's ludicrous to call it that. Only people who don't know what they're talking about, call it that. Mostly bitter Childfree types (note the capital C. I know plenty of lovely, intelligent progressive childfree people), Conservatives and Libertarians. Unlike me? I don't care about poor children? I'm not the one talking about getting rid of a tax break that greatly benefits struggling families. Now who doesn't know what they're talking about. If you think that no one is struggling unless they're only making 25 grand or less, you are out of your mind. Especially now, in this economy.

[Hello_Kitty]

90. "bitter Childfree types"

Hey genius, wanna know why some of us are bitter? Try this on for size. I am on unemployment right now. I got laid off 5 months ago. I bring in about $1000 a month, after taxes, in benefits. Guess what? Because I have no children that amount is TOO MUCH to qualify for Medicaid in my state. Ain't that loverly! If I had a kid I could bring home twice what I'm bringing home now (which still wouldn't be a lot but it's probably what I could make at a retail or secretarial job) both my child and I would qualify for full medical benefits. I can't afford COBRA so I am uninsured. Am I bitter? You bet your fucking ass I am. The state just told me that because I haven't procreated I can fuck off and die. After years of paying taxes to support the schools, etc. Us "bitter childfree" people are only useful to you "breeders" when we have deep pockets you can pick. When we don't, we are worthless to you.

[Pithlet]

92. Having a child would only compound your problems.

I'm really sorry for all the problems you're facing right now. You might qualify for those benefits because where you live would provide them for you. But do you know that depending on what state you live in, you might not? There are people with children right now facing what you are, who aren't getting much more in the face of what you're going through. And even with those added benefits. Children cost A LOT of money. You'd be getting those extra benefits. But now you have a mouth to feed. To clothe. Not to mention the extra utilities. And the child care you'd have to pay while you work. Do you know how much child care costs? Hundreds of dollars a month, if not over a thousand depending on where you live. That double income wouldn't cover it. I'm sorry for the problems you're facing. I truly am. They don't call me a bleeding heart for nothing. But I also feel for the people who are facing your problems who also have children. Because children compound those problems. We progressives who want to acknowledge that and do things for those children aren't doing that to spite the childfree, or because we want to take resources away from them.

[Darth_Kitten]

140. My, how breeders DO whine..........

:sarcasm: ;)

[Pithlet]

256. Well, we wouldn't have to whine

If we didn't have to defend the paltry tax benefits we got now, would we? ;)

[cascadiance]

160. Not having children ALSO costs a lot more as you get older too!

I look at my father now having alzheimers and my Mom heading in to a stage of life where she will need more care as well, we as their kids are going to have to use a lot of our finances to take care of them to ensure they don't wind up a statistic someplace where they won't be taken care of well.

So, if you think that we should help all of those with kids more than the childless because of their costs of bringing up kids, does that also mean that we as childless individuals should also be given more special treatment as we get older as we don't have kids to rely on to take care of us then? It seems supporting one would imply supporting the other.

[seabeyond]

161. you will thru ss and medicare that you paid into but that wont nearly cover your cost that MY kid

will pay into for YOU.

since you didn't see fit to have any children, ergo not contributing into the pot, i will enthusiastically insist my kids do right by you in all kinds of manners.

this summer my child will be going to a senior home to volunteer his time cause he hears there are a lot of old people that just need to talk, and dont have family to just spend time with.

[cascadiance]

166. "not contributing to the pot"? How about not contributing the overpopulation mess!

Now, if I got married, I might consider having one, maybe two kids, and take the responsibilities of bringing them up, but I would NOT have any more than two kids. I feel that one should entitled the ability to have kids to replace yourself as you get older, but more than that, you are asking society to take on a bigger burden. And it isn't just about the costs of raising those kids. It is the costs of a world that has too many humans on it already and making that equation worse.

Many of us who've not had kids should be thanked for not making this overpopulation problem worse, not criticized for "not contributing to the pot". I don't have a problem with helping pay for people already on this planet, but I want to have some way of conditionally providing that money through my government's actions to put in place incentives for us to collectively reduce our population, not increase it, which is part of my reason for not having kids, and is something I should be rewarded for doing, not penalized.

And yes, my Mom gets SS and medicare to help her. But she still pays 90% of her take home retirement pay to pay for my dad's facility care. Doesn't leave much left for her, especially if she needs to go in to such a facility herself later. Just sold her house and she's now living with my sister for the moment. No money to pay for her care (SS or no) unless we kids pay for it.

Unless we have more put away for retirement (and that's harder to do in this economy these days), we won't have the options my parents have now in terms of senior care facilities later.

I'll say it again. If we want solutions to correct the problems our economy has that are long term focused, they should be broadly focused, and not tightly focused just "on families", or "home owners", or "married couples". There are many out there that don't fit into those categories that are also hit hard by the economy too and shouldn't have to shoulder more of the cost of putting it back together again.

At the same time, I understand the costs of having kids are great now too, and we want to make sure our next generation is well taken care of. So any solutions have to be well thought out too. Just shouldn't be a reflexive "give more tax breaks for kids" without thinking through all of the consequences.

[seabeyond]

169. two here, so pat me on the back for not reaping your outrage.

you are the one raising the argument about no kid to take care of you as you age; i am merely pointing out that since what you put in the pot probably wont cover what you take out, MY kids will cover it enthusiastically without complaint. it is how i raise them in responsibility as a collective whole. that is not criticizing you for not having kids, nor patting on the back. you get to freely make your choices as we all do. it is a point made

i on the other hand will not only be taking care of my parents and my husbands parents, again with entusiasm, but i will be taking care of my children at the same time. if we must call tit for tat.

i beg to differ that single and childless are exclusively being picked on. progressive tax alone argues that point and as i have said on previous post there is a penalty to the joint income tax on a married couple. my husband makes money in a higher bracket, regardless of the amount i bring in, i get taxed at the highest bracket with him. not on what i make. ergo i am having more taken out of my paycheck by far than you are on yours. even if we are making the same amount.

and my point is, this is so insignificant and though one side may feel they are being abused, i dont think they think it thru, that it is not just them that is paying in an unfair manner.

[cascadiance]

174. Thanks for raising your kids well!...

I hope I don't sound too ungrateful here... I think those who raise kids should be rewarded for the hard work they do. And a lot of that is having a good family to rely on as well as many other things.

And I don't think people are *consciously* "picking on" single or unmarried people with these tax policies or other similar legislation. I think many making these laws are truly well motivated to help kids and foster good family environments. So I don't feel like we're being selectively "mistreated" either. However, I think we should be able to point out how one can't just limit oneself to looking at rearing kids as the sole focus of such legislation. We should look at the larger context which includes the obligations put on society with having more kids, and on the planet for having more people too. And then consider the merits of those who don't have children, and perhaps even moreso those that adopt kids that take on the child rearing responsibilities but at the same time don't themselves contribute to the growing population problem but serve the goal of having those kids on the planet already have a better place and resources to grow up with.

If we step back and make sure our legislation is broadly focused and not narrowly focused, many of us, even without kids will enthusiastically see the value of helping those that are growing our next generation. It might be more work for our congress critters to get many of our votes, but it will be well worth it in the long run, and ultimately our children's children who will have to live in the planet down the road will thank us all for more such thoughtfulness.

[seabeyond]

209. ha

the reward is i have an almost 14 yr old boy that STILL makes my life a joy, easy as pie and a real blessing. and his younger brother wants to be just like him. really makes the effort early on worth it. but it isnt a pat on the back to me anymore than any other responsibility that we should just be expected to do. it is all on kids shoulders, the praise and criticism, since they are the ones that make the choices. i dont own any of it. all theirs.

as i have said in other posts.... i didnt like that credit and money sent to us. i thought it a total waste. i dont want it now. i have no desire for the lower tax rate that obama promises us. take what they were taking before. raise it back up on the wealthier adn reward corps that produce in u.s. (jobs) and hit hard the corps that produce outside u.s. (no jobs) and close the holes

my main concern right now is the huge increase in cost of living and wages are in no way staying up with it.

i am so empathitic and sorrowful for those struggling as they work their asses off, are financially responsible and still cannot have a restful day cause they worry about putting food on table or keeping a roof over head or taking care of health issues. all of that is too wrong for me.

[cascadiance]

228. I think you and I share a lot of the same concerns...

A very small tax cut doesn't really go very far. What really is needed like you just said is getting our wages up to match the increases of the cost of living, and the other costs we bear. The problem is that we don't directly control how much we get as wages through government actions. Private businesses are still free to pay us what they want, but a lot of forces govern that, which we and the government can affect (which they haven't for so many years).

1) First of all, minimum wage standards need to be up to where they were back in earlier times in inflation adjusted dollars for starters.

2) Secondly, if you tax the hell out of the rich, then they have less spending money, so the prices of things like housing, etc. hopefully will go down some, which will also hopefully trickle down the ladder to having lower costs down the ladder for cheaper housing.

If someone the next rung down can pay a few hundred thousand dollars less for a house he wants at a higher level, then he's going to perhaps not be as admamant about demanding a certain amount of his own house for a sale, and then that just goes down the ladder.

3) Remove the cap on social security tax wages, so that everyone is taxed the same percentage rate. That way some of us aren't paying the same amount of social security taxes as someone like Bill Gates is. Now, some will claim that this raises the taxes on those between $100k and $250k, which would violate the commitment of not raising taxes on anyone under $250k by Obama. That is easily solved though by dropping this flat rate so that those making $250k in effect pay the same raw amount of money on their salary as they did before in raw dollars, but it would be derived as a percentage of $250k instead of the first $100k. That way everyone below $250k in effect gets a progressive social security tax cut.

4) By doing items 2 and 3, and perhaps other measures, you increase the tax liabilities for companies that want to pay their execs tons of money for those execs, so that when layoffs are considered when companies are in trouble, the execs will be sticking out even more as tax liabilities and means of cutting costs than the vast majority of average workers. Then it would be harder for them to shelter themselves in layoffs when they come if they are just arguing on how they are going to cut costs.

5) You have a lot more government jobs like the New Deal offered from FDR, which puts more competition in place for hiring workers, which helps keep our salaries higher than if there are fewer jobs available.

6) You really tackle the problem with illegal immigration, but not through just either giving citizenship to illegals, or sending them home. But by cutting back on ag subsidies that let corporate America "dump" food products on these other countries, which create the problems that eventually lead to them coming over as illegals. That and renegotiating NAFTA and CAFTA to put in place environmental and worker protections as part of the agreements, and not just "free trade". That will also contribute to having us get higher salaries too, if America is hiring its citizens more than illegals. Also find ways of encouraging countries like Mexico to share their wealth more with their poorer classes and provide them jobs so that they have less reaosns to come up here. Perhaps that can be started by giving them back their farmland, where many have been forced to sell it off from our "ag product dumping", and encouraging "grow local" strategies, not only to build up their economies, but also to help with the global warming problem.

There are many things we can do, but we need leadership that's creative and looks past just giving a quick buck for bandaids and will build long term solutions later.

[demodonkey]

205. "not contributing into the pot" is uncalled for! Some people CAN'T have childen.

"Didn't see fit to have any children, ergo not contributing into the pot"

Shame on you -- and lucky for you that you were ABLE to have such a "nice" son. Hope he stays that way.

[seabeyond]

208. i was specifically

speaking to a person who said they CHOSE to not have a child. i was not speaking to a person who may want a child and cannot have it.

if you cannot recognize the difference in the two statements then shame right back. i have total empathy for a person who would like to create, yet cant. and i would have addressed the point differently if choice was not clear.

[demodonkey]

213. Didn't sound that way to me. And I have heard many say the same in respect to ALL childless adults.

You say you have experienced life both with a child and without. But one thing you will NEVER experience is what it is like in our society to go through your ENTIRE lifetime without being a parent.

The stigma is terrible, especially around the Holidays that we've just been through. So please be considerate. Some people really hurt about this.

And even if being childless is a choice, making that choice is not a vice.

[seabeyond]

215. you are attempting to give me stuff, garbage, that i wont own. of course it was obvious

you highlighted the very part of the post that states the person i was responding to stated they saw fit not to have a child. that is choice. they made it clear for me. if you read any other post, i have not addressed the issue of childless in any kind of manner, cause the choice is not clear. i absolutely am sensitive to the matter and i dont need a lecture on it from a person that is purposely chosing to be hurt or offended when clearly the intent is not there.

i was speaking specifically to a person who clearly spoke their position. a choice

i have friends without children, both a decision and then a regret. and uncle that never had children. two brother in laws that have chosen not to. though i have willed my kids to one of them and he graciously said yes. sheeeeit, three cousins that i know of.... more, that have never married or had kids. i had to resolve that within myself as i hit 30 and no desire to marry. being childless is not an issue in my family for, what did you call it, a stigma. it is almost the norm.

of course this can be a hurtful position for some. and i am sorry for them. there are crosses that we all bare, and i am empathetic and sensitive to all the varying ones that we all carry. including my own. though it may not be something you experience or appreciate, the fact is, we all have them.

[cascadiance]

230. Please also note that I'm also not married...

... and that also factors in to my choice for not having a kid. Trying to have a kid as a single person is a lot different equation than having one as a married couple. Now one thing I won't do is to just marry anyone just to have a kid. The first part of that equation is that one has to find someone that one would like to get married to. For some it is a choice not to be married just because they don't want to be married. For others, it is not finding the right person. Yes there are choices there too, but they aren't really black and white for everyone. And there is no necessarily right or wrong universal answer here. Every situation is different and has many different variables.

What we should encourage people to do is make choices that make sense from the financial and social well being of themselves and their children and also hopefully their decisions contributing constructively to a society as a whole and not negatively where they have options that are less negative that they can anticipate ahead of time. And if we see rationality in their choices in these regards, we should respect them for these choices, whatever they may be.

For me, at my age, probably having my own kids isn't practical. If I do get married, I might consider adopting a kid or two and be a part of "maintaining the pot", which would fit in with both my values of us providing good upbringing for kids, and also my concern about not bringing in too many kids into the world, especially when I probably wouldn't do an optimal job of it at my age.

[seabeyond]

217. further thought on this

do you realize just how insulting and disrespectful you are being to this person. the person said they saw fit to not have kids. was a decision he/she made. i can respect and appreciate and not throw garbage on them. create a stigma. call it like it is, thinking that person was mature and healthy enough to make their own life decisions.

i respected that person, their choice.

you telling me to walk on eggshell is like saying whisper... like there is something to be shameful about. whereas i see that is not the case. i think it is a perfectly reasonable choice and responsible choice to make as an adult, if it works in whomevers world.

[demodonkey]

240. I didn't "create" the stigma, I feel the effects of it.

I have no earthly idea why you have the gall to call me "insulting and disresctful". I simply point out that some people can not have children; this is a great hurt to many and out of respect for THEM you might take it a little easy. You are lucky -- especially in our society -- that you have a "nice" son, but some people will never see THEIR son or daughter even be born.

I have no further time for this nonsense. Enjoy your children.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

313. And what if your kid doesn't grow up to be a productive citizen?

What if he/she turns into a criminal, drug addict, or disabled and never pays into SS? Stop assuming that your wondrous progeny is going to grow up to be Einstein or a brain surgeon. You have no way of knowing what the future will bring.

[seabeyond]

317. kid doesn't grow up to be a productive citizen?... we'll shoot him? guillotine? his odds are good

he has a good solid foundation. he is already, wink... showing the signs of einstein like behavior. he is in the duke program, at the top 5% of the 10% across the nation. all AP courses. college level reading two years ago in sixth grade.

he is 8th grade, never a behavioral problem and is responsible. 1500 already saved for the car at 16. he knows how to work. he has already paid into the ss fund. he received a check for working at the business my husband owned.

he is politically conscious, environmentally conscious, and socially conscious. he is respectful to his parent, respectful to the teachers and adm and all adults and even respectful to his peers

he gets the pat on the back for good choices he makes.

as i say, the odds are in his favor

he could also keel over and die tomorrow. and there will be one less body for you to be angry about using up your resources.

life is a risk. the unknown is there.

but i like to play the odds. i stack them in my favor.

does that just disappoint you all to hell, that the child has a chance?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

318. First off, I never said anything about eliminating people who aren't "productive"

That's an offensive and outrageous accusation to make. Nor am I "disappointed" that a "child has a chance". Try to separate your identity from your child's for a second to understand that most of us childfree people do not dislike or resent children. It's their whiny, entitled acting PARENTS we can't stand. It's YOU that we find annoying, not your kids. YOU.

Your 8th grader sounds divine but a lot can happen between now and when he's an adult. A lot can happen after he's an adult. Some of the most fucked up people in the world started out as gifted child prodigies. Really. Hopefully, yours will turn out great but you never know. As I've said many, many times on this subject: Your children are not a retirement plan or an insurance policy. Not for you and not for anyone else.

[seabeyond]

323. then i guess you will just have to be annoyed because i really dont think it matters a bit

what any parent says to you. it will not be good enough. you will just continually and always be "annoyed".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

327. They don't annoy me at all if they aren't acting like whiny entitled attention hogs

Some parents have proven themselves capable of doing that.

[seabeyond]

330. hm..... n/t

[tpsbmam]

248. Do you have any idea how many families don't take on that responsibility?

I'm not coming down on one side or the other of this argument -- both sides have valid points. But I had to throw in my .02 on this post. I worked for decades in hospitals. You have no idea how many individuals who had kids were ultimately left pretty much alone and were, indeed, supported by taxpayer money. Often it didn't have to do with selfish offspring but had more to do with practical, sometimes intellectual, and financial resources. There were also a substantial proportion, though less than the former, who had screwed up family relations and offspring that simply didn't care enough not to toss a parent into a nursing home -- often necessary, but those people were often abandoned there by those families. It wasn't always the kids' fault -- sometimes the parent had been an abusive asshole and had earned the kids' contempt, but that certainly wasn't always the case. And then there were those who had selfish offspring whose lives were too "important" to be bothered with taking care of their parents (I have a sister like that -- she was AWOL when both of our parents went through protracted illnesses and died. I guess the dinner parties she was hosting were more important than parents who'd given her everything during the course of their lives). Over the years, I'd say those who ended up being supported by taxpayers and NOT being taken care of by their kids vs. those whose families stepped in and took the bulk of their parents' care & expenses into their hands was about 50-50.

I hate to break it to those with kids but having kids is FAR from a guarantee that their old age, illness and deaths won't be lonely and that they won't end up being supported by taxpayers. The offspring may or may not want it that way, but it becomes a reality for many, many families.

[Pithlet]

254. But, see, I'm not calling for a removal of any sort of benefit, am I?

You don't have to convince me that single people suffer any sort of struggle. I'm not anti single people. I'm anti removal of tax benefits of families by some single people whining about them. That is all. Some solutions to your problems would be shoring up Social Security, making sure we have more programs that benefit retires, making sure our nursing homes are better funded, etc. Making sure all elderly are taken care of, regardless of whether they had children. Having children isn't a guarantee they'll be around to take care of you.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

272. Of course not, silly.

People without children haven't done their duty to produce more consumers so they aren't valued. :sarcasm:

Seriously though, since you bring up the subject, one of the most common arguments for breeding is the "who will take care of you when you are older?" one. The thing is, having children is no guarantee that they will be able to, or inclined, to provide for your care in old age. Children are NOT an insurance policy.

[Scout]

293. that's the most selfish reason there is for having children, too

"but i want somebody to loooooooooove ME and take care of ME"

[mrreowwr_kittty]

358. A person tells you they don't have health insurance

And your response is to tell them that "children cost a lot of money" and "people with children face that problem too". IOW, you don't give a shit about a person without health insurance if they don't have kids.

:banghead:


This is the kind of crap that makes us childfree folks bitter toward parents.

[Darth_Kitten]

139. How about Jealous, Greedy Breeders?

Jealous that having kids didn't make the marriage happier?

Jealous that nobody finds their little wonders anything but annoying?

:sarcasm:

[Pithlet]

250. You know what?

People can project their own deep rooted issues all they want to. I can feel sad for them, but hey, whatever. We all have our issues. None of us had a perfect life. But when they start sounding like whiney freepers and start attacking actual progressive benefits that even the playing field and help people? I'm going to call them on their whiny baby behavior that makes them sound just like whiney baby freepers. Waaaahhh, why don't I get that tiny progressive tax break that helps working families, too! Take it away! Only rich people should be able to afford to raise kids, apparently. That's a real progressive attitude, there. Look, I don't care if you hate kids, and hate parents, and want to call them breeders. Work out your personal issues that way, and make yourself feel better by all means. Try and enforce that bitterness through policy? Then I'm going to have a problem with it.

[sinkingfeeling]

189. But you don't seem to think that people who aren't married or don't have children are struggling as

well.

[Pithlet]

249. What on earth could I have possibly said to give that impression?

My only issue is with people who are whining about a benefit meant to make things easier for families and even the playing field so that it doesn't mean only people with means can comfortably afford to raise children. A paltry benefit, when all is said and done. How does that translate to I don't think people without children are struggling as much? Answer: It doesn't.

[Quantess]

122. Have you figured out how this equates to you? (eom)

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Let's be clear about our terms

"Tax breaks" can mean different things. You have tax deductions, which people take for dependents and reduce their taxable income. You have things like the EITC, which is a subsidy to lower income parents, who usually don't make enough pay taxes. Then there is the Child Tax Credit, which is a $1000 dollar-for-dollar deduction off the tax bill for each child. This credit goes primarily to middle class families and of all the tax breaks going to parents, is the most unfair and unnecessary IMO. Since it was implemented in the mid-90s, literally billions of dollars that could have been spent on things that would benefit all children have been going into the pockets of parents who make up to $150,000 a year (yes, I know that's not a lot of money in New York and San Francisco but it is in most places in the U.S.). That money has to be made up somewhere so you can look at that middle class child tax credit as one of the largest distributions of wealth (from non-parents to parents) in U.S. history.

[Bill McBlueState]

165. be clear about our terms?

Hey, stop trying to put facts in the way of an angry diatribe. This is the internet. :sarcasm:

[roamer65]

61. The first one should get a decent sized tax break...

the second should be a very small tax break...the third gets you a zero tax break and after that you should pay higher taxes to discourage overpopulation.

[roamer65]

67. ...or simply go to a "no-deduction" lower rate, graduated tax system.

But if you make over 500,000 you should be tax under this system at no less than 50%.

[Fumesucker]

62. The tax break for kids is not forever..

We had it for eighteen years and have not had it for over ten years now.

I don't begrudge it to those younger than we are.

And who knows, you might have kids one day, or maybe a relative of yours might.

Oh, one more point, the US birth rate is already below the replacement rate, without immigration the US population would be shrinking.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. Oh puhleeze, enough with this "shrinking birth rate" shit.

That is nothing but thinly-veiled racism and I can't believe that so-called liberals are spouting it. Not to mention sexist as all hell. It's an attempt to guilt-trip women into breeding more babies because let's face it, when women get more education and economic opportunities, they have fewer babies. That makes dudes like the Pope and John Gibson (asshat on FAUX who told white Americans to get to breeding) uneasy. Fuck that noise. There are 6 billion people on earth now and the population is projected to be 9 billion by 2050. There are ENOUGH fucking people already!

[Pithlet]

74. Well, yes. That's why the birth rate is slower here.

So, get a grip. The birth rate is slower in countries that are more educated. Nothing racist about mentioning that at all, is there, especially since you concede the point that more education and economic opportunities means fewer babies. So. Explain why enacting policies that makes things harder for children to get an education helps at all? Because make no mistake, anything that makes things harder on parents can affect a child's ability to get a quality education. That earned income tax credit you so elegantly trashed in your other post? Can make the difference between a middle class parent having to take another job. Which can take time away from their child. The more time a parent can spend with their child, reading to them, helping them with their homework, etc. can make a difference in that child succeeding in school.

[Hello_Kitty]

78. Holy strawman Batman!

First off, you did NOT read my post because I did NOT trash the EITC. Or maybe you just don't know the difference between that and the Child Tax Credit. If that's the case go to www.irs.gov and educate yourself. The EITC goes to lower income families who don't earn enough money to take advantage of the Child Tax Credit that Mr. and Mrs. McMansion get. Furthermore, where do you get off accusing me of not wanting children to get a quality education? Nothing could be further from the truth. The more educated young people are, the better life decisions they make, such as those involving procreation. You can bag the fucking guilt-trip anyway because it's not like they're going to take away your precious tax credit any time soon.

[Pithlet]

79. Sorry, I got the two confused.

I meant the Child Tax Credit. Everything else I said applies. I found your post ludicrous. Mr. and Mrs. McMansion? Please. My precious tax credit? I'm not the one I'm worried about. I'm doing just fine. For the moment.

[Hello_Kitty]

84. So would you be willing to reduce your child tax credit to increase the EITC?

Well?

[Pithlet]

87. No. This is stupid. What is your beef with the child tax credit?

Your argument boils down to the contention that after more than thirty years of following real wages for everybody but the super wealthy in this country, that it's now so easy to raise a child in this country that we don't need the child tax credit? Feel free to make that argument. Just don't expect a whole lot of people to go along with it. And just for the record, one of the purposes of these kinds of things is to help middle class people STAY middle class. It is better to not wait until they're destitute to help them out. It's not good for them. It's not good for their children. It's not good for our country. The proper way to care for poor children is to decrease the number of children in poverty, and to prevent them from falling into poverty in the first place.

[Hello_Kitty]

93. Raise wages and raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

The EITC is nothing but a subsidy to low wage employers. You know who proposed it in the first place, don't you? Milton Friedman. The Child Tax Credit is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the childless to parents so that a giant voting bloc would be placated and not bitch about all the goodies going to the top 1%. When they gave you that tax credit they not only threw people off welfare but they cut capital gains.

Enough with this robbing Peter to pay Paul shit.

[Pithlet]

95. You're not getting it.

Yeah, and welfare is nothing but a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

[sinkingfeeling]

191. You already have, what, a $3400 exemption per child. Why do you believe the child tax credit is so

holy? It didn't even exist until 2001?

[Pithlet]

207. So, the value in something rests only in how long it's existed then?

Yeah, and it's not as if there isn't this little something like a recession happening right now that would make the removal of something like the child tax credit especially rough right now.

[Fumesucker]

88. Huh? All of the developed, educated nations have low birth rates..

That includes Japan and some other Asian nations.

In fact the only thing that has been proven to reduce the birth rate in humans is education and wealth.

Would that we could educate the entire world and make them wealthy.

[Hello_Kitty]

94. You're right. We don't need more people to prosper.

We need people to prosper more.

[The2ndWheel]

157. Then we shouldn't need immigration to keep our system going

However, we do need immigration to keep our system going. There's that whole life cycle thing. Birth, growing up, maturing, and then eventually death. Once our economy has matured, once we're a developed nation, there is only one step left in that cycle. Unless we continue to be a developing nation, who's economy hasn't quite matured yet, and the only way to do that with an aging population is to add more people. Since we have a declining population, the only way to add more people is to import them. But what happens to the nations that have a lot more room for development than we do? Become baby factories for the wealthy nations? What happens when the wealthy nations want the best and brightest from the less wealthy developing nations? Where does the growth for those countries come from? They'll have to crank out more people. Then the cycle will continue, since we won't allow our system to die its natural death.

So we do need more people to prosper. And as people prosper more, we'll have a greater impact on the environment. Unfortunately, we don't get to win in this game.

[Lilith Velkor]

72. No.

[fishnfla]

73. Abortion: safe, legal

and profitable

good thinking

[RadicalTexan]

75. Of course there should

But we live in a capitalist society that demands more, more, more consumers and more, more, more GDP.

[TheKentuckian]

77. I don't mind contributing to society

but I am tired of being expected to play utility because _________ has kids and I don't, I know it is a bit assholish but my time and routine is just as valuable as ________'s.

Kids are a big responsibility, that's why I've waited til I was ready for it and beyond. The deductions and/or breaks for kids I don't mind in the least but getting a break for being married is social engineering bullshit and should be eternally banned along with any penalties. You don't deserve a cut there at all and it is by definition systemic inequality.

[fishnfla]

86. wouldn't euthanasia be more cost efficient?

off the old fucks before they become a drag on society

[gravity]

91. Children require money

and the tax credits aren't big enough to offset the cost. Punishing people who have kids will just make the next generation more susceptible to poverty and other social ills.

And having a dwindling population isn't healthy for society either. You need workers to support the elderly who require medicare and social security.

[Gregorian]

96. Can we please have a POPULATION FORUM?

Greatful Dead.
Daily Show.

But no POPULATION FORUM.


Why not?

[stuntcat]

152. POPULATION FORUM, yes PLEASE

but oh noooo, it is the issue we cannot acknowledge.. growth is good, human beings are fantastic, etc etc :eyes: our population causing a mass-extinction? a non-issue!!

[Gregorian]

172. :) I love you!

Here I was in a downward spiral this morning. But no, you brought a spark of light to things.

I have a mouse that is gnawing on something in the ceiling, and I'm kind of half awake. It's nice to have a nice reply.

So here's a couple of silly things to look at if you see this-

These guys are pretty cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tWP6aYwi5M

And this is just nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkSPUDpe0U8

[stuntcat]

175. omg BORN TO BE ALIVE

That's one of my favorite silly-ass songs :bounce: what a GREAT video!!!

I was in a downward spiral all yesterday.. then I watched 11th Hour and went to bed feeling just sick. I have to remember to keep laughing though, depression is useless

I'm going to work a while but I'll come back and watch that again and again, Thank you!! :hug: :hug :hug:

[Lorien]

295. It's still a taboo topic, but I agree

it needs to be discussed.

[RB TexLa]

99. There is a big one already. When there is extra work and the boss says Joe or Sue gets the overtime

because s/he has a family to support the childfree worker doesn't have to pay taxes on the extra income like Joe or Sue.

[slutticus]

103. Thank You! Been saying that for ever......

[CreekDog]

104. because kids can't take care of themselves

that's a good reason.

and i'm single.

[anonymous171]

116. You're right! Children don't need to eat! The little bastards...

[specimenfred1984]

121. Yes, and churches that politicize should pay taxes

The fascist combination of religion and gov't needs to pay up. Also, people who don't have children should pay less tax because they require fewer social services. Now, let's throw that logic right out the window and play "propagandized torture supporting Amurikkkan" and scream at everyone!!

[Romulox]

136. Our society and financial system are predicated on never-ending, exponential population growth.

My guess is that the OP will be the first with their hand out when it comes time to collect Social Security.

Just whom do you think will pay for that, Mr. No-Offspring???? :eyes:

[gollygee]

137. Children grow up to be future taxpayers.

[Vickers]

141. As a parent, I may pay less in *income* tax, but I more than make up for it

in emergency room deductibles.

:P

[gollygee]

142. LOL. I thought you were going to say

Sales Tax. :D

[shadowknows69]

143. That would work for us

[Le Taz Hot]

144. You and I rarely agree on anything

but we agree on this! Childless people are actually PUNISHED, in so many ways, for not having children, particularly if it's a choice (as it was with me).

[Critters2]

177. It wasn't a choice with me, but I'm still being punished.

Me and my damn dysfunctional ovaries! I should be penalized!

[Le Taz Hot]

194. Well, let me tell you.

My choice to not have children resulted in frequent questions/charges as follows:

1. Why do you hate children?
2. But that is your duty a a woman -- to reproduce.
3. How can you be so selfish?
4. But, who is going to take care of you when your old? I loved this one because a) I thought the only reason one had children was because wanted them, not to breed them to take care of me when they're old and b) if you've ever been in a nursing home and seen the people there who have just been parked BY THEIR KIDS who come to see them maybe twice a year, you'd see this strategy is not a solid one.
5. What do you MEAN you don't want children? EVERYbody wants children! :eyes:

It's been a few years but those are just off the top of my head.

[seabeyond]

211. i was 32 before i got married and then had kids. ALL those years

i never had a single person bring up any of that stuff. maybe a why arent you married, but i dont even remember that. a simple, no desire sufficed.

just amazes me how some are constantly bombarded by this crap and i never experienced it at all.

[Critters2]

229. Most people assume I've made a choice, apparently. Because

I get the same comments about my duty as a woman (don't you fee unfulfilled?), who'll care for me in my old age, etc.

[TK421]

145. I've been asking that question for years....now I'll have some ideas

:thumbsup:

[stuntcat]

150. Yep.

The best thing rich 1st-worlders can do for the rest of the life on this planet is not push out another consumer.

I'm not just saying stuff, it's a fact, look it up :)

[seabeyond]

151. i make more money in a number of ways. i get taxed more. it is SO unfair.

if people on here are actually arguing that they are abused with taxes cause they dont pay the same amount as someone making equal wage but files jointly with kids, then why isnt it an equal argument for flat tax? why should we pay more cause my husband brings in more and we have other things bringing in income that we are taxed on? not just dollar on the amount made, but a percentage of tax that is more.

[newportdadde]

159. I have 4 kids and I love spending your taxes.. ow and I won't die alone!

Whoohoo, ow excuse me there I got carried away rolling around around in this bathtub full of your money while I dreamed about a day when my genes were still in the pool and yours were long turned to dust somewhere.

*Lites up cigar with hundred dollar bill*

I'll have to make this brief as my 4 children are all under the age of 5 and they might be in the other room playing with the one of our rare vases or giving our butler a hard time.

My wife and I originally planned on having two children but sometimes life doesn't work out like you planned (twins - no family history and not fertility drugs and an unplanned pregnancy.. yes she was on birth control).

When I first opened up this thread I thought I was on the wrong forum. Ow man all of these 'breeders' are taking my money OMGZZ OMGZZ I must protest this immediately if only I had children so I could get all this free money or if I could just take away the breeders money!!!! You realize most of you all sound just like freepers or libertarians bitching about a welfare queen and her Cadillac right? I mean POOR PEOPLE have it SOOO GOOD with all their WELFARE, all that high dollar welfare makes them not want to work, I wish I was poor and on welfare!!

If you don't have children then stop mopping about your TAXES, you remind me of my millionaire coworker whining about her money all going to 'welfare'... instead enjoy your freedom, enjoy sleeping in on a weekend, enjoy going out whenever the hell you want, enjoy doing whatever the hell you want. After 5 years with kids I can tell you that freedom is priceless, I remember that freedom, my salary was a 1/3 less back then and I didn't get any 'tax breaks' either but I sure had a hell of a lot more to spend and all I had to worry about was my wife and I.

If you must gripe about tax waste then go after something that actually amounts to real money like all the money that gets wasted via the Department of Defense or given out to ass-hat corporations.

Well our time here is almost over and I need to go wax my Porsche you all helped me buy so let me leave you with this thought.. if you want me to stop having having kids I'm going to need a check for "one million dollars" - said via Dr. Evil voice. Look we had 4 kids in 4 years I have the power and I'm willing to use it, don't make me go Duggar Family on you, just give me the check and walk away.

[Pithlet]

176. Oh, the money is fun. But what's more fun? Ruining the planet.

Come on. You and I both know, being members of the super secret Parents Club. Those poor innocents who are posting on their special computers made of magical non consuming fairy dust that aren't using any resources the way ours evil Parent computers are have no clue. Our aims are to screw, and produce little planet wasters that never grow up, and take over the planet, and ruin things for them. The tax breaks causing piles of cash in our storage areas next to the welfare queen caddies are just the icing on the cake. The candles on the icing are that they feel it just punishes them further. I can't help but cackle with glee when I think of that. The truth is that Parents are actually repubs. We've infiltrated DU to ensure we keep getting these childfree punishing handouts, because that's how slimey repubs are. But maybe we shouldn't divulge too much. ;)

[varelse]

223. When I first opened up this thread I thought I was on the wrong forum.

so I'm not the only one. I feel less lonely now. :P

[dendrobium]

232. Is this the monthly Breeder bashing thread?

Newportdadde you made me burst out laughing. All this anger and resentment because most people reproduce. I don't know where people get the idea that parents decide to have children for the tax breaks. Children are wonderful 99% of the time. I have three myself. And there are no tax breaks for children in my country and people are still "breeding".

Some people here sound very unhappy with their child free status. How about we try to respect each other's choices.

[TroglodyteScholar]

234. Haha, entertaining post...

But please, do get your tubes tied.

:D

[fight4my3sons]

319. .

:thumbsup:

I had three kids in two years (also have twins- no family history, no fertility drugs) so I can relate.

I just had to say that I loved your post. :hi:

[Kalyke]

164. No.

First, people don't decide to have children based on what they'll get back in taxes. Maybe a handful do, but most simply do not. They have children because they either want to have them or decided to have them after an unexpected pregnancy.

Second, people who do have children have far more expenses than you, thus the need to get tax breaks.

Finally, providing families with more disposable income helps you in the long run by keeping the economy going. Republicans can't seem to understand that trickle-down economies don't work, but putting tax breaks in the hands of the middle class, particularly those with children, means more people have more to spend.

[Freddie Stubbs]

167. A lower birthrate would have a negative fiscal impact on Social Security

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

170. No.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. Yes. But, it makes too much sense to ever happen in this country.

[Pithlet]

182. You know what really bugs me. Tax breaks for small businesses.

I don't have a small business. Why am I being punished for that? I'm going to completely ignore the fact that I'm not providing any sort of benefit to the community by starting up that business and providing that service in the community and contributing to the local economy, and that's why such tax breaks exist, and instead focus on the fact that somebody is getting a tax break I'm not. Oh. It's bad when those business go under, and we don't want to give them incentive to fail, so maybe we should get rid of them. Another one that really gets me? Tax breaks for donations. For example, I don't have an extra car to donate. Why should I be punished for that? I'll totally ignore the fact it encourages people to be more generous. I don't have anything extra to give. That's not my fault! I shouldn't be punished for that. It encourages waste, and we shouldn't provide an incentive. The needy can just do without like the rest of us. Better for the environment. Voila! There's the logic to get rid of that disgustingly unfair tax break, too. Oh, did someone say something about the rich not having to pay as much taxes as us? Wait a minute. I'm too busy bitching about little tax breaks that other little people are getting that I'm not, go away! Where were we. Ah! Tax deductions for interest. But I don't have a house...

[sinkingfeeling]

192. There's a big difference between 'deductions' and 'credits'. Deductions help to reduce the amount of

income on which taxes are based, just like personal exemptions. Credits are taken directly from the amount of the taxes.

[Pithlet]

203. Did you mean this in response to me?

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

210. i dont know what tax break you are talking for small business, but they surely need it. they pay

what corps should be paying. hubby had a business for five years of bush adm and sold a little over a year ago. shit that was hard. he worked his fuckin ass off, day, night, weekends. feeling massive responsibility to the employees and their wage. he didnt just see 13 people he was responsible for (employees) but would site down the mates and children in those families as his responsibility too.

small business getting fucked all over as corp pays no taxes with all their fiddlin .....

[Pithlet]

287. What about those of us who don't have one? It woud be punishing us!

;) I don't know, seabeyond. Mainly my point was making fun of the idea that any tax break or benefit was a punishment for those who didn't qualify. If there isn't one for small businesses, there should be. Maybe Wal Mart wouldn't have been able to run roughshod over them if we'd supported them more with more breaks.

[seabeyond]

298. rollin eyes.... whine whine whine. It woud be punishing us!

i understand what your point was, and i was just clarifying that they are the ones screwed beyond ANY other group. kerry was gonna do something about it. one of reasons hubby went away from repugs in 2004. just one of the reasons

but ya

i know what you are saying

still, no one is thinking about the poor second worker in a family that even with a low wage is taxed at the higher one. NO ONE seems to care about that injustice.

[aikoaiko]

188. I thinking tax breaks for parents who have above 110 IQ scores.

:)

[PurityOfEssence]

190. Consider it pre-payment for your future paramedics...

Most of us will live beyond the point where we can really do EVERYTHING for ourselves, and even if this just means manning the 911 line, staffing police and fire departments and the like, we're all going to prevail on the next generation or so. Thus, those of us who are providing and nurturing this workforce for you are asking for a bit of assistance in the effort. You won't begrudge us that, will you?

I DEFINITELY think that the tax breaks should be for more than 3 kids, and I'd even entertain a tax on the overages when it gets to the point of abusiveness to the biosphere, but I respectfully have to dissent on the basic premise you raise.

[108blessings]

195. That is so true! I am so tired of child-free people getting the shaft!

Like when a working woman gets pregnant (or has to take her child somewhere) and other people have to pick up her slack in the office place. It's just a given that we should breed and the rest of us are supposed to just get over ourselves.

Aargh!

[anonymous171]

196. Because a generation of poorly raised children is just what this country needs!

[108blessings]

197. I'm sorry--where did I advocate for that?

As I recall, I spoke of the workplace, where parents are allowed special perks and others are expected to just hop to it and not complain.

If you are suggesting that this policy allows parents to be well-raised, I do NOT think you want to go there. I have my own opinions on people who want children AND high-powered careers.

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. No, DO share. What do you think about working parents?

I really don't get some people.

On the one hand, we want to make being a child as much of a hardship as possible, but on the other we want to punish them when they grow up to be people with few prospects except parenthood.

[108blessings]

299. "Few prospects except parenthood?!" Am I hearing you correctly?

Are you REALLY saying that if one doesn't have any 'prospects' (I take it you mean a decent job) that it is inevitable or even understandable to bring children into the world as a result?! Good god, man! That is exactly the time NOT to do that very thing. Hell, don't even risk sex, if you wanna get right down to it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

301. You ain't been very far around the block, have you?

It happens, usually among those who believe themselves to have the worst prospects.

[108blessings]

302. Um...yes I have...and I never believed that the world was my oyster

And the point I was making is that there were people in truly difficult circumstances (like sharecroppers who never seemed to be able to get ahead due to exploitation) who still impressed upon their children the importance of an education, etc. Poverty didn't just make them completely unravel and lose all sense of right and wrong. Even in the inner city, children are afforded opportunities that kids in places like African countries (with crushing poverty and violence) would jump at a chance to get (and do when afforded them).

[lumberjack_jeff]

303. You're confusing the exceptions with the rule.

People who are raised in a positive, nurturing environment and have the advantage of not growing up in poverty are statistically more likely to wait until later in life to have children of their own, when they can be better prepared.

Innercity people and the rural poor occasionally make the most of a bad situation. Far more often, they don't.

Make the bad situation more of a norm, and the result is really predictable.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

333. Government policies that incentivize parenthood exascerbate that situation

It's kind of off the topic of the OP, which is about taxation, but this is a big problem with social programs. Yes, poor children need government assistance but how about giving food stamps and housing assistance and state health aid to poor non-parents? Currently, if you don't have a child you qualify for none of those things, no matter how poor you are. Parents and children go to the head of the line for assistance and very often are the only people getting any.

Remember the debate over mandates in the primaries? I researched both Clinton's and Obama's plans to see who would be getting the subsidies to help pay for premiums that both promised. Just as I suspected, the subsidies were for mostly for "working families". The childless get to pay full premiums with both plans, unless they have practically no income. Considering that many people with no kids are young and working in crappy low wage service jobs it's no wonder so many of them were worried about those mandates. $100 a month is a lot of money when you are waiting tables or running a cash register for a living, even if you are one of those carefree people with no kids.

[lumberjack_jeff]

337. Education is inversely proportional to the number of children a person has.

If you want to control birth rates, the most effective way is to improve the standard of living and the education of today's kids. Do anything that harms the standard of living of those children, and you undermine your stated goal. The idea that people would choose kids to get more welfare or a tax break is really pretty silly. The calculator at http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator shows that it costs a rural middle income married couple $236,000 to raise a child born today. That makes the $17,000 child tax credits they will get over the lifetime of that kid pretty trivial. No one with a half-decent ability to count would do it for the money.

I said that people have kids because they have few other perceived prospects. I didn't mean to imply that having a child was a rational economic strategy. They turn to babies in the same way that others turn to drugs and alcohol.

Health care "mandates" (I really hate that universal health care has to be defended against memes invented and promulgated by democrats) really is off topic, but unless young adults participate in the system, no reform is possible.

In medical care, universal is a prerequisite of cheap.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

345. You are conflating a tax credit that middle class parents get with aid to poor families

Sure, $17000 over the course of a childhood isn't that much, and the parents who made over $100k a year (and remember - that's adjusted income, not gross) didn't need it in the first place. I wasn't talking about them. I was talking about government assistance to the poorest members of society, and I'm sorry to tell you this but if you tie it to having children then yes, it does become an incentive to have them. It may not seem rational to you or me but to a young woman in the inner city it's a different story. Again, I'm not saying that poor mothers shouldn't assistance because they absolutely need it. What I'm suggesting is that if people without children could also qualify for help and programs many young women might delay childbearing.

As for mandates, you completely missed my point which doesn't surprise me. I wasn't arguing about the need for mandates. I was talking about who gets their premiums subsidized and who doesn't.

[dugaresa]

226. i can't tell you the number of single people I have picked up the slack for

and been late to pick up my kids or missed dinner because they had "plans" and I was just going home to my spouse and kids...so what did it matter to me.

slackers come in all sorts of varieties...

[Raineyb]

277. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying

Picked up the slack as in they were allowed to just leave because they had plans without using personal or vacation time to do so? Or picked up the slack by staying late because the single person had plans after work and for some reason expected to leave work on time to get to them?

Regards

[dugaresa]

292. what I meant is

that I have worked with a number of single folks who were highly unproductive at work while they made plans for their weekend. I can remember one fellow in particular...he was basically useless by 12noon on Thursdays as he spent the rest of that work day and the next making plans for Friday night while others picked up the slack. In fact I was single at the time and I remember one woman who fretted about taking time off during her pregnancy (time due to her from accumulated work experience) because she was afraid that she would be viewed as less valuable... It has more to do with people's personalities than their having kids..

There are a lot of slackers in the workplace and it has little to do with their marital or child status.

[BurtWorm]

198. Tax breaks for children are meant to make it financially more bearable for the people who raise them

Raising children is expensive enough as it is. You want to make it *more* expensive? Why? To punish people for having children?

[cascadiance]

199. The best way to make it more "bearable" to raise kids is for ALL of us to get better tax treatment!

If we get back to the 60's balance of wealth between rich and poor, and the tax rates in the pre-Reagan / post FDR eras, then we shouldn't have to single out people for "special treatment" if everyone's doing reasonably well in keeping up with the cost of living. That's the financial side of things.

Now the separate issue of preventing another "baby boom" that will have very bad effects on the long term health of the planet, is a separate issue, but one that should be looked at when making tax policy that centers around giving more money for child care. One has to find creative ways to ensure that we encourage parents to take care of the kids that are born and we need to bring up in next generation, and who are willing to take on that hard job, and yet we can't just encourage people to go crazy making babies when making this legislation, which hurts everyone in the long run.

It's not a simple problem, but we shouldn't demonize those who want kids or those who don't want kids in looking at that problem. There are good reasons both to not have kids and to have kids, and each set of folks deserve some respect for that.

[BurtWorm]

201. Well, we're not at that point.

Right now is not the time to make life harder for people who are suffering, if it ever is the time.

If paying more taxes meant an appreciable increase in the quality of life of parents with children, that would make it easy as pie. Unfortunately, increasing taxes on anyone in this country usually only means some business in a distant state with an aggressive senator or rep does better.

[cascadiance]

204. We're not at what point?

I don't think I was advocating making it harder for anyone, except those at the very top of the ladder, who've been living increasingly well on our backs for the last two and a half decades, since the 60's. It's time they paid the bills so that society can get healthy again.

If we all had salaries that kept up with inflation, then not only would families have better means to take care of the kids that (I hope) they planned for when budgeting their salaries and how much they'd have to be able to afford before having them. And ideally, everyone should be able to afford to have at least two kids and have them well taken care of to have equal opportunities when they enter adulthood too. But it is things like tax breaks that will get the monkey off our backs, and not divide us.

It's the same when your only economic stimulus plan is just to help those with mortgage problems too. Those who rent that don't have mortgages, who've also suffered their salaries keeping up with inflation who might be working three jobs also deserve some help too. That's achieved by getting more balance in the wealth gap in society, not just singling out some folks with more visible problems and ignoring everyone else.

It's kind of like blaming illegal immigrants with the whole problem of illegal immigration or conversely saying we should just let them all in without any controls over immmigration as well, and not looking at the root causes of that problem too. You have to go back to things like the corn subsidies that allow us to dump farm products in South American countries, put local farmers out of business and force them to sell their farms cheaply to the elites in those countries, that turn around and lease them to companies to help them outsource labor costs, and then force these people to come here for jobs if those companies leave those south american countries to go to Asia for even cheaper labor. You have to look at the whole equation and the big picture, to fix the fundamentals that created the mess, not just try to fix the symptoms, that still keep many problems in place.

[BurtWorm]

243. Well I basically agree with you.

I think the OP was written in a spirit of dividing and polarizing the with-kids from the withouts. Maybe this divisiveness is written into the code, or more likely, it's written into the fundamental ideology of post-Watergate America. Certainly, it's going to take a fundamental restructuring of the wealth distribution system to restore the kind of balance you're talking about, and we can only hope Obama will at least begin to point us down that road. Otherwise, we are simply doomed as a workable society. No hyperbole.

[distantearlywarning]

212. If you don't like the expense of having children...

don't have any.

:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

235. Too late.

:eyes:

That's like the old Reaganite proverb: if you can't get a job in one state, just move to another. Mccain tried to foist the same shit on the voters with his health care scam.

[Pithlet]

247. The same logic freepers use.

Beautiful in its simplicity. It's great, because it can be used to dismantle all sorts of pesky things that we liberals like, that were started for the same reason the tax breaks some of you are whining about were started. Things funded to give people a leg up and even out the playing field. That's what the tax breaks you guys are whining about are for, you know. Just because some misanthropics hate parenthood and children doesn't mean parenthood should only be for the wealthy.

So it's a choice? So are a lot of things that get some measure of funding meant to even the field. Let's apply your logic again, shall we? Don't like the expense of college? Don't go. Whee, we've just eliminated lots of money that can go for more tax breaks for the rich, and to fund more war.

I'm done with this thread. The odds I"ve changed your mind? Pretty low. I was having fun, but now it just feels like I'm bagging my head against the wall.

[lumberjack_jeff]

219. No, it makes childhood survivable. I find it perplexing that this is mysterious here. n/t

[BurtWorm]

236. $1000 per child per year is what keeps all those kids alive?

I did not know that. Thanks.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

252. It also enables families with incomes of $150K to buy jetskis

That's exactly what a married couple of co-workers of mine (with about that income) did with theirs one year. I say if we're going to give parents that tax credit they should be REQUIRED to use it on the child, i.e., setting up or contributing to a college fund.

[Pithlet]

262. Hmmmm

So, they'd used up every penny of income otherwise, and they had just the money left from that credit, and so they bought jet skis? Wow, doesn't sound like they managed their money very well.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

283. That's what they said they spent it on.

And I think the fact they could afford to pay cash for jetskis is an indication that they were not struggling to feed their 3 kids.

[madokie]

202. Personally I think that people like me who have no children of my own

but have raised two sons without any help from either of the fathers. All my life I'd always wanted to adopt children because there is so many who don't have fathers and I have so many brothers to keep my family genes going. Why not some help for guys and gals like me?

I'm a happy camper with two great sons

[trudyco]

308. Way to go Madokie! nt

[Cleita]

214. Well, I know couples who chose not to have children for the economic

bonanza. More money for material goods and vacation for instance, so why would they also need a tax break? Also, giving women the means to control their fertility is what encourages people to have less children not tax incentives. That means free family clinics for contraceptives, vasectomies and abortions without any church influences. Most women really don't want more than two pregnancies. The number who don't want any children balance out those who want more than two.

[Hippo_Tron]

218. I could argue that it's so that wealth isn't a barrier to childbearing

But the answer to your question is that it's politics. What congressman in their right mind is going to vote against a child tax credit?

[anonymous171]

220. Dick Cheney probably would. nt

[southerncrone]

225. I think tax breaks for reproducing should be limited. No more after 2 children,

unless you adopt needy kids. Then THAT needs to be closely monitored.

I don't think we should be rewarding the Fundie families who are spitting out a dozen kids.
Limit tax breaks to no more 2 kids. Obviously you would need exemptions for people who have NATURAL triplets or quads (very rare). If you took fertility drugs EVER, your tax break would be limited to 2, just like everyone else.

Expanded on edit:
If your "religion" encourages you to continually have kids, then you pay for that belief. It is a CHOICE YOU ARE MAKING.

People on welfare should be sterilized after 2 kids, or no longer receive the benefits. Once again this should be closely monitored for the sake of the kids.
Too many people have kids for another "paycheck" from the govt. Give them birth control instead.

The overpopulation of the world & it's drain on resources should have some type of penalty.

[seabeyond]

227. welfare and aid for only TWO children. after that fuck em. hey, lets legislate how

many kids people can have, like..... china.

[southerncrone]

233. We are not legislating how many kids someone can have.

If you can afford them, have more. But you are MAKING A CHOICE.
Science has given us birth control to keep us from BECOMING A CHINA.

China made that decision after things had gotten so far out of control that it was a MUST DO for them to survive. I would hope we could learn from their mistakes & promote birth control instead of having to "legislate how many kids you can have", as you put it.

In lots of these large families the kids suffer. I have an aunt with 10 kids. They did not get the attention they needed & as adults it has shown up in negative behaviors.

If there were not tax deductions based on the # of kids, you can bet that there would be fewer kids born. I'm not promoting abortion as birth control, but other methods exist & are widely available. It would be an incentive to limit family size.

[seabeyond]

237. i am certainly not going ot decide for another. n/t

[Scout]

266. fine, no one is asking you to do so ... and we aren't deciding for other people either. n/t

[mrreowwr_kittty]

258. What often happens in large families is that the older children are exploited

Yes, exploited. Especially the older girls. I grew up with several girls in big families and they were enlisted to act as pseudo-mothers to their younger siblings. They had no childhood. About 20 years ago, Ann Landers got a letter from a teenage girl who was the oldest of several children. She complained about not being able to go out with her friends because she was stuck babysitting. Ann responded by admonishing her that it was her job as an older sister to do that and she should be grateful to be helping her parents. :puke: Well she sure got an earful from many of her readers about it. She did a later column where she described being bombarded with letters from adult women who'd grown up as the older sisters in big families. Many of them were still bitterly resentful at being deprived of their childhoods and social lives. A few claimed that they themselves never married and rarely dated because they either never developed the social skills or they felt like they'd already raised a family so why do it again? Even sadder were the ones who were now stuck caring for the aging parents because, of course, the younger siblings were too busy living their lives. To her credit, Ann Landers changed her tune on the issue.

Large families were a necessity back when we were a mostly rural economy and many children didn't survive. That's not the case anymore.

[Scout]

265. you can HAVE as many as you want ... we just won't subsidize more than two of them n/t

[Pithlet]

267. So, you think those extra kids somehow magically require less?

The problem is you aren't looking at the bigger picture, which is the main reason things like these tax breaks are enacted. They aren't enacted as a reward for the parents. They're for the children as individuals AND for greater good for all of society. It doesn't matter to society if you and I as adults came from a household of two or twenty does it, in terms of how we contribute?. No. So what good does it do it or us to punish us as individuals at any stage of our lives because of the size of the family we came from? The answer is it doesn't do anyone any good. It won't solve the population problem one iota.

No, there are other more productive (no pun intended) ways of dealing with population issues. Education being key.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

280. Education and also a shift in the social pardigm

It needs to become OKAY not to be a parent. In most places in the world, including the U.S., it is still not viewed as an acceptable life choice. I'm going to assume you are a parent, pithlet, though I might be wrong. But assuming you are, have you EVER heard the following questions or statements about your choice to have children? "Why did you want children?" "What if you regret having them?" "You'll change your mind about having children someday" "What if everyone thought like you?" "You're not truly a responsible adult unless you decide not to have children" "The whole purpose of marriage is to not raise children" "Your life isn't complete until you've decided not to have a child"

Etc.

Obviously, some of those examples don't make sense but you can imagine their inverses. This is the kind of stuff people who have chosen not to be parents hear all the time. Some of us call it Breeder Bingo. But is it any wonder, given this environment, that a lot of people thoughtlessly bring children into the world, without really considering whether or not they are suited to be parents or if it's something they really want? For many people it's a life script they follow. It doesn't even occur to them that they have a choice. Because in many places, they truly don't. Many people have made the comment on this thread that procreation is a natural human drive. It's not. Our natural drive is to have sex. Babies are the result that often follow from it but that doesn't mean that everyone should have them. And one of the reasons that many childfree people like me resent the bennies that parents get is not because they are so generous but because they are a way that the government (and many workplaces) let us know that we are not as valued as parents are, despite the fact that we work (we're the ones who put in overtime so that moms and dads can go to soccer games and school plays) and pay taxes and help to subsidize families in numerous ways.

Some companies have wised up and have started giving childless employees comparable perks to the ones parents get but I seriously doubt you'll see politicians even acknowledging non-parents anytime soon. Some conservative economists have gone so far as to call us "free riders", I shit you not.

[Pithlet]

282. Okay. Wow.

See, I think you have a serious problem. Especially after reading some of your other posts in this thread. Because, yes, there are insensitive clods in this world. And they are indeed inclined to say things like Why don't you have children and all that crap. I spent many years as a childfree single female. I understand. These kinds of people are also likely to say insensitive judgmental shit about all kinds of other things, too. Because some people are like that. They're all about other people's business. It's not just single, childfree people that get that. Sadly, it's part of life. It doesn't go away once you have children, you know? THere isn't this vast conspiracy by people with children to make the world a horrible place for those without. That doesn't exist.

You really, really need to try not to take it so personally when mouthy, nosy people give you crap about your childfree status. Because it's turning you into a bitter person, and you're growing this victim mentality that isn't healthy. After reading your posts in this thread? I'm seriously finding it hard to believe you care about any families regardless of what income they fall into. It's that bad. There are a few people on DU that are like that. And you seem to be a person with a heart who actually does have a feel for progressive issues and a good sensibility for them, so I'd hate for you to fall in with them. Don't let a few mouthy idiots warp your view of the world.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

288. Please spare me the 2 dollar psychoanalysis.

It's very insulting. I'm neither bitter nor do I feel like a victim at all. Despite the nearly daily annoyances I encounter in this parent-centric culture (notice I didn't say "child-centric" - b/c it's really all about the parents) I wouldn't trade my childfree status for the world. It's the breeders who have the martyr-complex, which is pretty obvious from the responses on this thread.

[Pithlet]

290. Yes. But you can't separate the children from the parents.

If this is a parent centric culture, it's because it benefits the children. Make things harder on the parents, and it affects the children. Personally, I don't think it is. Having been on both sides, I can tell you, it's rougher going through life with kids. And no, just because it's a "choice" doesn't make that acceptable. But, given I'm a parent, and you have your issues with us, you're not going to believe me when I say that. The responses in this thread are only defending a pitiful little tax break we get from some rather vitriolic attacks against it. We're not calling names like some people in this thread.

[Scout]

297. "We're not calling names like some people in this thread."

that's a good one

:rofl:

[Scout]

296. i noted that you/we childfree people are frequently called bitter....

but when i commented that i thought a parent who posted in this thread was bitter, i was chastised.

:shrug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

300. Yep. nt

[mainer]

231. A measly 1000 bucks a year is incentive?

Add up the out-of-pocket expenses, plus the expense of having one spouse not working to take are of an infant, and the tax break is laughable. In the UK, families actually RECEIVE a monthly check for every minor child (not merely a tax deduction)-- that's how much more important they think children are to society than we do. Their "child benefit" runs around $1200 a year per child. So I can't believe you'd complain about the US tax break.

Couples have children because it's a human drive to reproduce -- and because some of us actually love children.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

259. And shockingly, the birthrate among low income women in the UK has shot up

Which was (ostensibly) never the intent of the subsidy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1099637/Britains-generous-welfare-created-benefits-baby-boom.html So now you have poor women choosing to have children at a young age and delaying education or job training; perhaps never attaining it.

As for how much out-of-pocket expenses are involved with children, do you honestly believe your children should be entirely subsidized?

[KakistocracyHater]

238. i agree

.....

[haele]

239. Income tax breaks or sales tax breaks?

I pay far more in sales taxes, local use fees, etc, now that I have a teenager to care for than I did when I was single, or even when I got married. I get more of a tax break for being married than I do for having the child, even with the supposed "married tax burden" - my spouse is on disability and I have to pay his taxes, too. Heck, when I owned a house as a single person, the tax break on the mortgage interest was better than the tax break for having a child. When I was single, I always got all my tax money back by April of the next year, whether or not I had individual deductions or taking a standard deduction. Now - oye. At best, we break even and perhaps get $200 back. Most times we end up paying because I make too much ($48K is too much in San Diego?) and the SSDI my husband needs all of to pay for all his medical issues isn't taxed, so we have to pay taxes on that as income.

Even though the income tax breaks for the teen end up being around $1500 for state and federal (no child care breaks), the local sales taxes on what I have to buy just to feed, clothe, transport and provide the support and materials for the educational efforts the public schools can't afford to provide any more is at the very basic level equal to the income tax breaks. I'm not considering the few entertainments for her that we pay sales taxes on, nor the additional square footage in a residence we need to consider paying for because of the additional non-working person we have to support. I'm probably paying in sales taxes and user fees - not expenses that can be deducted - a minimum of around $2K just for having the kidlet to support.
We use standard deductions rather than individual deductions, we don't have enough deductions to claim individual.

If, as when I was single, we have enough deductions, we can deduct my mortgage interest, adult education, tools for work, charity, energy savings devices, local and state income taxes, and medical expenses (including transportation to and from the clinic!) but I can't deduct the extra bedroom we need for the kid in our small crackerbox home, nor the minimum of $100 dollars for all the school supplies we have to spend on her every year. But even then, that's if my individual deductions are greater than the standard deductions. Which it hasn't been since we had to sell the house six years ago due to a work injury interrupting the ability to pay the mortgage.
Now, we have just under the minimum standard deductions, but our medical expenditures of around $12K a year (not counting the premium) is too low to take, and that's what's really hurting us.
The thought of having to support another kid at our income makes me shudder.
I feel your pain - 'cause I thought that way until I realized that unless I was very poor or very rich, having kids is a tax penalty rather than a tax break. I now consider children as much of a tax break as being elderly or blind - sort of a mixed blessing tax credit.

What I will suggest as an income tax break for everyone that's truly fair to the single people is to have an optional tax credit on health as a standard tax credit as well as an itemized credit. Even the ability to take a percentage credit on the costs for those who can't itemize their deductions will help.

Haele

[mrreowwr_kittty]

260. The problem a lot of us have with the tax breaks is not the amount

Because we realize that for many parents it doesn't begin to cover your expenses (nor should it IMHO). It's that they appear to incentivize procreation over non-procreation. Which, in a world facing almost certain ecological catastrophe and crushing food and water shortages if we continue on the current path of population is maaaaaybe not the best thing for the government to be doing. That's the point of the OP.

[Pithlet]

264. Why would it, if it doesn't cover the cost completely?

The argument that it is an incentive is really ridiculous if you put any thought to it. It's not meant to cover the cost completely. Basically, it's meant to take the sting out of it. Even the playing field. Make it so it's not only the wealthy who can afford to do it well. So, take that away, and basically what you have are more struggling families. It's not going to mean fewer families. So, it really is no more of an incentive than welfare is for being poor.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

268. You are doing what I've seen you do elsewhere on this thread

You are conflating programs that help the poorest of families with the tax subsidies that go to upper middle class ones. You want to even the playing field? What do you mean by that? Even the playing field between poor and middle class parents? Fine. Take some of the tax breaks that the parents who make $100,000 a year get and give them to the ones who make $30,000. Or, do you mean even the playing field between parents and non-parents? .

Also, have you considered that these tax credits and whatnot that you middle class parents get is money not going into the treasury? How many TRILLIONS do you think that accounts for? Do you realize that you are just adding to the debt that your children and thier children will be saddled with? Plus, since you contend that $1000 per child is a pittance, and arguably it is, wouldn't the money be better spent on improved schools and services that all children would benefit from, rather than just handing it to individual parents to do with whatever they want? Like buying jetskis, as I mentioned in a previous response. How about requiring parents to use it directly for the benefit of the children, like for a college fund? Would that be unreasonable?

[Pithlet]

270. Who's doing the conflating?

You're taking programs meant to help working families, and making it sound like it's just some boon to rich people. Yeah, so the scope extends to families making 150,000. Big whoop. The vast majority of families that benefit make nowhere near that amount, and surely you know this. They had to make the cut off somewhere. They make scope wide ranging for two reasons. One, the cost of living varies widely in this country. Two, they don't make adjustments very often, and things like inflation can fluctuate over time. Narrow the scope, and more families get dinged due to where they live, or inflation/economy fluctuations. Sure, it might assuage the bitterness and outrage some here are feeling, but I don't think it's worth it for that. Sorry.

Yes. The treasury. You know when I'll give a rip about the money missing from the treasury? When we get the real big bucks from the tax breaks the very rich and corporations get. Makes the money you're getting your panties in a twist about look like peanuts. Forgive me if I don't join you in your outrage.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

271. Excuse me, but $1000 per middle class child is a LOT of money when you add it up

And your children and their children WILL be paying off that debt, plus interest. I agree that rich people get far too many breaks too. Really, it's not an either/or thing. I'm for a truly progressive tax system where people pay their fair share for income AND wealth. I'm for reinstating the estate tax, taxing the shit out of corporations (especially if they pollute and outsource), and erecting a solid social safety net including universal health care. But instead of that, they hand certain favored people a few bucks to mollify them. They give parents tax credits and they give homeowners (which I am) a tax deduction. What a coinky dink, those are 2 groups who just so happen to be likely voters. That 1000 bucks they give you is akin to Bush's rebate checks. It's a cheap gimmick. It was a valentine from Bill Clinton and a GOP Congress to a huge voter bloc. Both Obama and McCain promised to increase it during the election - surprise surprise. McCain said he'd double it.

And the EITC, as CCBombs rightly pointed out upthread, is a subsidy to low wage employers like WalMart. Who just so happen to be big political donors. They should be paying their employees a decent wage and providing them with health benefits instead of slurping up corporate welfare.

[Pithlet]

273. Yeah, it does add up. So do a lot of the things we pay for.

It all adds up. But we don't just get rid of it because some people resent it. There has to be a better reason to get rid of something that is progressive and beneficial to working families. Plenty of programs cost our coffers a lot more money, and we need them, too. Hopefully we're not going to get rid of them. Your characterization of it is simply false. Most families who get it DO benefit from it. Your logic is failing, too. It's a subsidy to low wage employers like Wal Mart? Well, guess what? Ours is a system that rewards companies like Wal Mart. Like it or not. Yeah, I don't like it either. But, while we've got it, we have to live in reality. When we're in a world where wages are higher, and working families don't need the tax breaks? THEN we can talk about removing them. But Wal Mart doesn't exist because of the tax breaks. And removing them won't make the likes of Wal Mart go away. Such a move wouldn't even be a blip on their radar. The same argument could be made for just about any other program that benefits low wage workers, like welfare and foodstamps. We can't just get rid of them, either.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

275. I don't want get rid of things that benefit poor families.

This is beginning to look like some kind of verbal tic with you because once AGAIN you are conflating things that help poor families with those that help ones that make 120K (BTW, families who make more than that also get it, it's just pro-rated down). **Edit to add: That's modified adjusted income, NOT gross income BTW.

When we're in a world where wages are higher, and working families don't need the tax breaks? THEN we can talk about removing them.

As if. That child tax credit boondoggle will never go away. Breeders would pitch a screaming fit and no politician would dare risk it.

[Pithlet]

278. I am not conflating just because you say I am.

And just because you say it's a boondogle doesn't make it one. The fact that the tax code extends the range to the upper reaches where a narrow percentage of the people benefit doesn't a boondoggle make, for the reasons I stated that you're completely ignoring. Unless your personal definition of boondoggle means "While most people benefiting are lower to middle class, a tiny percentage of people benefited are in an upper income class, so, boondogle" If so, that's a ridiculous definition. I hardly think I'm the one conflating. I think we're done.

[orleans]

241. while i think people with kids need that child credit/tax break

i think people without children or with small families also deserve some type of "reward" because the couples/individuals with no children or with one or two are doing a good thing socially/environmentally--whether they intend to or not.

[Romulox]

269. This thread needs to be merged with the Social Security thread. nt

[Stellabella]

276. Yes.

n/t

[fadedrose]

289. You make sense...

And, you don't get to buy the large economy size that kids consume and end up paying more for single-portion foods and other products. Well, you can, but it gets stale or spoiled...

The other side - kids are good for the economy - more clothes, oreos, shoes, books, movies, cds, cars, medical expenses, etc....

It's a wash I think.

You do have it quieter though :)

[Lorien]

294. The GOP wants more consumers. The problem is that we're consuming everything

the planet has and soon will be killing one another over what's left. Population is still a taboo subject here and everywhere else, which means that it will lead to our undoing eventually.

[opihimoimoi]

305. Yup...less for no kids and more for more kids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[Orsino]

306. Uh-uh.

Children are consumers and not earners. Parents sacrifice a lot to raise them, and small tax breaks help ease that burden.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

311. So let's keep making more of those consumers!

It's not like all that consumption is endangering the planet or anything. :sarcasm:

[Orsino]

316. I could support capping that, sort of, starting somewhere around two children per couple...

...complicated though that could get with remarriages, etc. I don't feel like subsidizing the Duggars' hobby, certainly.

[seabeyond]

325. you could. you could support dictating people their choices in life, like the number of children

they have. you could do that? that is the kind of nation you think this is where a govt dictates to people how many babies they can conceive? do we all have to get tubes tide after second. and when the male concieves two, inside or outside of family, does he get snipped?

yet

we are into woman choice cause it is her body.

let her abort but by god limit production

[mrreowwr_kittty]

326. We could just breed ourselves out of existence.

That's the direction we're headed.

[seabeyond]

328. so, you too are for legislation telling us how many children a person can produce?

are you saying a woman has to get tied after second. and where a male may have left a seed, all dna goes into a bank and on the second one he is snipped?

this is what you are suggesting?

cause by gosh, if you are stating limiting children, lets be honest about it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

329. Of course not.

China sucks and I would never want us to be like that. And I'm pro-choice, which means the right to continue as well as terminate any pregnancy. What I would like to see, as I've pointed out elsewhere on this thread, is a paradigm shift in society where choosing not to be a parent is considered as respectable as choosing to be one (don't tell me the childfree choice is respected because it is not - in ways too numerous to list here). Let's become a society where people make thoughtful decisions about parenthood, rather than the current situation where people pop out kids because that's what the religious or family or consumer life script says to do.

[seabeyond]

331. it has shifted considerably just not in all spectrums of our society

there are some real social issue we would have to talk about honestly, that we just are not willing to do here on du.

and as i have said in other posts. the childfree life is not foreign to me. i was 33 before my first child and resigned and reconciled the fact i would not have a child. no desire to marry. and though you want me not to tell you.... i will anyway, i did not have the issues you and others seem to have on this thread, when i was childfree. as a matter of fact, since having a child i have been treated more disrespectfully simply cause all children are out of control, we are breeders, we are whiny wanting entitlements ect.... i wasn't even aware of all this attitude until i had kids.

but no, when i was single, i didn't have disrespect.

btw... if you haven't read my post, i dont want or need any of the credits, or the tax break obama is promising. we dont need it, it isn't enough to do anything for me and i have a much larger concern with escalating cost of living as wage stays low.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

334. Where, other than on liberal internet discussion boards

Have you encountered a disrespectful attitude because you are a parent? GMAFB. This culture worships parenthood.

[seabeyond]

335. are you kidding. out in the real world. take a child thru the grocery store

and you have people hmphing and everything else if the child accidentally gets in the way. my kids throw their bodies up against the shelves to move, be quiet and everything else they have heard as a complaint against children. until i tell them, move it.... you are allowed in the isle too.

all the time you have people telling you what you are doing wrong, how to handle your child, what that child will become.

all actions of the parent is scrutinized

child doesn't exercise enough. watches too much tv. on the computer too much. spoiled. disrespectful. drinks a coke or eats mcdonalds.

one of my best experience as a parent, my first was a couple months old. i told my doctor, people say i should....

she told me, i know child best, trust myself.

so all this doesn't bother me so. my kids and i use it as lessons. being in fundie/repug belt we have learned to disagree respectfully and kindly but always speaking out. and i now see these as advantages. but it isn't smooth sailing on either side. we are a nation of judgment, criticizing ect... i dont think anyone gets to sail thru life accepted

maybe also it is because so many in my family chose not to have children. so it really is about norm, and i dont see it any more than a choice

and another btw.... i also feel strongly that more people need to just not have children if they really dont want the work and responsibility of it. there are a lot of people having babies that should not be having babies. not something we can legislate.

[gollygee]

338. Take a child on an airplane

People roll their eyes as you walk on. "You shouldn't fly with children. It's child abuse." Yeah, someone told me it was child abuse to take my child to visit her grandparents.

[seabeyond]

340. and god forbid the child actually makes a noise. i was always really really lucky

when my kids were little and we flew they were quiet. see, not about good or bad, but quiet. that means no laughing (cause sometimes go high pitched) and squirming and all. and NO wanting to play peek a boo or anything else with strangers. hubby and i put ALL effort in containing babies during these periods.

had a lady in front one time with a 2 yr old and baby. late at night. so tired, the kids. i spent the hour flight entertaining the 2 yr old so she could focus on the baby. it didnt take much out of me and was a god send to the very young mother, desperate mother, in desperate circumstance, poor mother and hopeless mother. so du probably embraces this woman (ya, girl) with noisy children on plane as long as it was not a middle class out for a vacation family on the plane in same situation. then the children are out of control and the parents arent doing their job.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

347. Oh cry me a river.

The martyr act is getting real tiresome. This particular post of yours is so over-the-top I can't even believe it. Take the hairshirt off for a minute, will ya?

[seabeyond]

348. so basically you are saying that you are the only one to talk about experiences

cause this is only an experience. a reality in our world. as you insist that the parent is held up and when it is shown that, not so much

you call out whine.

where is the whine in it.

no where did you hear unfair, or anything else decrying it anything but what it was.

yet.... on the other hand, i hear from you how unfair.... so my question, why is yours not a whine, and mine is?

firstly

and secondly if it is all about the unfair of taxes in single, why havent i heard a comment about the second partner of lower wage being taxed at the highest rate with mates higher paycheck, ergo the unfair tax

all ignore it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

349. Ah..the marriage penalty.

I personally don't think it's fair, but some people would argue that a married couple pools their resources and therefore has more disposable income left over, thus the lower wage earner of a married couple can afford to pay higher taxes than his/her single counterpart. Kinda like how the parents say we childless folks have all this extra money because we don't have the expense of children. :shrug:

[seabeyond]

350. lol, i was gonna bring up kinda like people saying.... as i read your post

and there you go, you recognized and said. i gotta respect the consistency.

i will be consistent on my argument.

i am ok with both of them. i am ok if they do something about it for both of them. but i would like for the people on this thread thinking cause they are single they are the ONLY ones paying an unfair, that it is not the fact. it is with married too.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

357. You were never disrespected because you were never childfree.

You were a person who hadn't had a child yet. You wanted children and believed for a time that you could not have them. A childfree person is one who never intends to procreate and says so. Big difference, socially speaking.

[Orsino]

339. I see three options.

1. Government dictates reproductive rates, or discourages excessive baby-making.
2. Most of the world's people will educate themselves on the dangers of overpopulation, and voluntarily restrain themselves.
3. Civilization collapses.

I'm afraid that number three is most likely, so I advocate for some combination of the first two. Assuming that I'm calling for dictatorship, though, is rather over-dramatic.

[seabeyond]

341. so we tie womens tubes and run a dna bank on males to snip after the number? this is what you

suggest for the u.s.? you back controlling our bodies. as we argue no control over women bodies with abortions?

voluntarily restrain self? so then we have an honest discussion about social classes and behaviors, .... cause certain groups in our society has limited reproduction voluntarily and others have not?

[Orsino]

342. I think you read post #316...

...without the context of #306. I was suggesting the capping of dependent deductions for children.

[seabeyond]

343. then a welfare mother has four children. do we cap her at two? n/t

[Orsino]

352. I would lean more toward phasing out the tax breaks...

...but education, and a willingness to devote resources toward controlling population growth, are what will really save us.

If it's not already too late. And really, our puritanism has already doomed us to too many unplanned pregnancies. It would hardly be fair to pull the rug out from under the chief victims of our willful ignorance.

[seabeyond]

353. so our "heathenism" had nothing to do with it huh? du is funny, we only point the

finger one way

btw.... i am not purtanistic, nor religious, nor anything else. it is the inherit dishonesty of your comment.

are you suggesting it is those that marry, in religious faith produce excessively your sole argument and not all those "spreading their seed" in irresponsible fashion part of the problem?

if you are going to argue one side, just to not be a hypocrite one should argue the other too. they are both there for us to clearly see. but we protect one at all cost and attack one at all cost.

total dishonesty.

[Orsino]

354. I don't follow you at all.

But I'm not passing any different judgment on irresponsible parents based on whether or not they're married. I'm not sure what you find dishonest.

[seabeyond]

355. my fault

i stopped reading at a point and didnt follow thru what you are saying

sorry

[mrreowwr_kittty]

346. This is why I also agree with Orsino that #3 is the most likely option

The way people freak out at the mere suggestion that they curb their breeding (the way you are doing) indicates that the situation is probably hopeless.

[noamnety]

332. If your concern is the amount of resources used

why not tax the amount of resources used?

These types of flat taxes or even regressive taxes are counterproductive, and are an excuse to blame women (ohh so indirectly) for the reproductive choices they make. An entire family with three children living in a FEMA trailer uses way the hell less resources than someone like Paris Hilton. They also use less resources than a typical upper middle class family.

If your concern is energy use, tax energy use. If your concern is more schooling, get over it. If your concern is more medical care, you should remember that the people who use it at public expense the most are the people with the least money - what are you going to do, create a special tax for people who are poor?

[Enrique]

344. I just watched "The Bad Seed" on Netflix

and I agree with you.

[Nikia]

351. Having recently given birth

I can tell you that we have already spent more than we saved on taxes. Tax savings and credits don't encourage people to have children because they have more disposable income without children.
Being an American working mother, I am envious of benefits that parents have in other developed countries, many of which manage lower birth rates than the U.S. The U.S. does relatively little to help parents, especially working mothers with infants.