Should childless Americans pay more taxes?

posted at 5:21 pm on April 1, 2014 by Allahpundit

I’m surprised by some of the upset in Headlines to Reihan Salam’s proposal. Granted, the phrase “more taxes” rarely induces happy thoughts among conservatives, but I thought there’d be more support for beefing up the incentives for having children within a movement that (a) laments the breakdown of the nuclear family, (b) frets about declining birth rates and what they mean for the entitlement state (see, e.g., Mark Steyn and Jonathan Last), and (c) would probably benefit electorally if more Americans had children. I can’t find any data about voters with kids from the 2012 exit poll but Romney won 56 percent of married voters while Obama won 62 percent of singles. If Salam tweaked his idea to limit the tax breaks to parents who are married and reside in the same household, with lesser supplements for single parents, would that change people’s minds? What I’m asking, in other words, is whether the problem here is that we’re using the tax code to do too much social engineering or not quite enough.

And before you say “the answer is to cut spending, not to increase anyone’s tax burden,” Salam agrees with you on that. He just insists on living in reality. We tried to starve the beast and failed; turns out the beast doesn’t starve, it simply borrows and keeps feeding. If we’re doomed to run deficits until a debt crisis brings about a reckoning, who should bear the burden of extra taxes in the meantime in the name of reducing that deficit as much as possible?

Yet it is also true that we’ve stacked the deck against parents in all kinds of ways. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has found that raising a child born in 2012 will cost a middle-income family a cumulative total of $301,970 over 18 years. As high as this number sounds, it is actually a massive understatement, as it fails to take into account the cost of postsecondary education. It also fails to factor in the value of forgone earnings and career opportunities. While nonparents can focus on their jobs in laserlike fashion, parents are rarely in a position to do the same. Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer, either directly, because she’s taking an unpaid leave of absence, or indirectly, because she’s missing out on opportunities to climb the corporate ladder.

Even when we compare a nonparent and a parent who are working exactly the same hours and earning exactly the same income, the nonparent has a clear leg up. Most obviously, the nonparent has far more disposable income to play with, which she can save, to become much richer than her parent counterpart over time, or spend, to travel to exotic locales, to eat out constantly, to wear awesome clothes, or to live as I do in a conveniently located shoebox in a great American metropolis. Raising taxes on nonparents could even the score a bit, tilting the balance ever so slightly in favor of those who toil on behalf of America’s future workforce by wiping their butts and painstakingly removing their head lice.

He wants to adopt Mike Lee’s tax plan, which would increase the child tax credit, while also lowering the income threshold for various marginal tax brackets. Result: You’d pay more taxes unless you have a kid, in which case you’d get a big chunk back to apply to his/her upbringing. But I think that’s actually a secondary goal. Here’s what Salam is really after:

These millions of nonparents are not good political enemies to have. But does this mean those of us who favor a more parent-friendly tax code should give up? Not quite. Tax reform along these lines could awaken a sleeping giant in American politics, namely the 36 percent of American voters who have a child under 18 in their household. Unlike the retirees and near-retirees who fight tooth and nail to protect Medicare and Social Security, we don’t have a well-funded political pressure group that defends the child credit. It can’t help that parents are too busy raising children to plot and scheme their way to more favorable tax treatment. But if parents were to flex their political muscles, we might have a revolution on our hands.

He wants parents to coalesce as a voting bloc the same way seniors have. Lower taxes for families is the potential catalyst to raising their political consciousness. Once you’ve got parents voting as parents rather than as Democrats/Republicans, whites/blacks/Latinos, urbanites/suburbanites, etc, all sorts of policy consequences potentially flow from that, and all of them have to do with making American law more family-friendly. I thought there’d be more support among conservatives for that. His problem, though, is chicken-and-egg: He wants something dramatic, like a bigger child credit, to kickstart this process and get parents voting together but right now there’s little support on either side to make it happen. Democrats will be loath to touch it for fear of angering the many childless single liberals in their base; Republicans are loath to touch it because righties blanch at the thought of having anyone (including/especially childless conservatives) see their tax bill go up and, I think, of further coercing one part of the population into subsidizing the choices of the other. Singles already help pay for other people’s kids in various ways, after all, starting with property taxes to fund public schools. (And yes, I know, in a perfect world all education would be privatized. Again, Salam’s writing from the real world.)

Explain to me: What’s the issue here? Remember, all Salam’s really doing is fine-tuning a proposal from Mike Lee to favor parents a bit more. If this is RINOism, someone had better tell the tea-party senator from Utah.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Using the tax code for social “engineering” is deeply embedded. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.
It is better as a society to reward home ownership because it leads to spending that drives our economy. Rewarding married couples with a lower tax bracket is IMO designed to give an incentive towards having stable relationships, ESPECIALLY those that produce offspring. To me, that is one reason I am opposed to recognizing gay couples as “married”. Being recognized as married MAY increase monogamous stability, but they have zero chance of having children of their own.

Contrary to earlier suggestion, it is impossible to have a society without children. The example of living on an island with other childless kinsmen is simply argumentative nonsense.

Count me in favor of the proposition.
I’m not a scientist, but I am a logical beast.

connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:30 AM

Jax, my BS detector tripped when you brought up the Schrödinger equation as being ‘deterministic’.

”Jax, you keep using that word, deterministic. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Hint: Deterministic implies both a subject and an object.

otay, feynman. let me just link you to sean carroll:

Quantum mechanics is where things get interesting. When a quantum state is happily evolving along according to the Schrödinger equation, everything is perfectly deterministic; indeed, more so than classical mechanics, because the space of states (Hilbert space) doesn’t allow for the kind of non-generic funny business that let non-deterministic classical solutions sneak in.

he goes on to describe decoherence in terms of the “many-worlds” interpretation, since it’s a blog for people of about your level of understanding (which is to say, no understanding at all):

This approach (which I favor) restores determinism at the level of the fundamental equations, but sacrifices it for the observational predictions made by real observers.

or, in other words, EXACTLY what i have been saying:

that is to say, even though according to modern theory we can never have the full knowledge of the state of the world as a function of fundamental quantum uncertainty (which has nothing to do with measurement), that state still evolves purely deterministically under the action of the hamiltonian as per the schrödinger equation.

no matter what, the laws are purely determinisitic, even if they cannot be computed analystically , and if if the states that obey they laws cannot be completely characterised.

you are free to tell sean carroll he doesn’t know what he’s talking about via email, should you so desire, but suffice it to say you don’t have a “bs detector” for theoretical physics.

Bigger hint: The Schrödinger equation has no known analytic solution for any but the most trivial cases. Anything bigger than a hydrogen atom can only be approximated with Monte Carlo, variational methods, or perturbational methods, you know all that awful probabilistic stuff that you seem to hate so much.

lulz the imbecile bellows

here is something else i said:

i’ll let you look it up for yourself: it’s called the “schrödinger equation”, and it describes in a purely determinisitic fashion the evolution of the quantum state vector. there is no “magic” in quantum mechanics, and at the linear level to which you could have possibly been exposed as an undergraduate, it’s as simple a formalism as can be conceivable — simpler than classical mechanics! — whether the wavefunctions of systems more complex than the hydrogen-like atom are analytically soluble or not.

biggest hint: there is a huge difference between ANALYTICALLY CALCULABLE EXPRESSIONS and state vectors that evolve according to purely determinisitic laws, whether they have analytic expressions or not.

you don’t even kow what ANALYTIC even MEANS, nor “probabilitistic”, if you’re attempting to connect it to numerical methods involving monte carlo for non-hydrogen-like systems.

THERE IS NO “PROBABILISITIC STUFF” INVOLVED IN COMPUTING NUMERICAL SOLUTIONS TO NON-ANALYTICALLY-SOLUBLE QUANTUM SYSTEMS; NOT IN TERMS OF THE SYSTEMS. THE COMPUTER USES A METHOD OF RANDOM SAMPLING TO EVALUATE THE EXPRESSIONS…BUT ITS THE SAME NUMERICAL SOLUTION (W/IN ERROR) ONE GETS EVERY TIME.

needless to say, of course, the variational calculus has nothing to do with probability, either…it’s just a by-hand computational method of evaluating an analytic APPROXIMATION to an analytically insoluble system…and even WORSE is your invocation of perturbation theory, which actually provides the true analytic solution to a system to anyone who has an infinite amount of time. perturbation theory is simply a method of developing the solution in terms of a power-series, which is perfectly analytical and, importantly, can be (in theory tho perhaps intractably) continued indefinitely until the desired level of precision is reached.

i repeat: you do not have a bs detector for physics. if you had, you’d have detected your own bs.

and that’s moot, anyway — just wished to expose your ignorance on the matters — because determinism has NOTHING TO DO with whether humans can calculate solutions analytically, or simply approximate them. there are many classical electromagnetic fields that CANNOT BE SOLVED ANALYTICALLY.

now, will you claim that classical E&M is not determinisitic — that maxwell’s equations are not determinisitic?

remember what your gbus-book says: only a fool opens his mouth to remove all doubt.

The trivial analytic SE solutions are like saying ‘Look, 2+2=4, and God can’t change the answer! It’s deterministic!’

…wow, so, after all, you really have NO EFFING CLUE what is meant by determinisitic.

NONE.

when people (used to/incorrectly) say “QM is not determinisitic”, they aren’t talking about calculational intractability or analyical insolubility.

THEY ARE TALKING ONLY ABOUT WAVEFUNCTION COLLAPSE. WHICH DOES NOT HAPPEN.

i refer you back to sean carroll. he’s a lot more famous than i — tho he hasn’t told you anything i haven’t already in this thread.

I’m guessing you must be an undergrad or a tenured grad student.

i’m neither, but it’s clear by your incoherent connexion of the variational calculus and perturbation theory to “probabilisitic stuff” that you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference in a million years.

i’m dead sick of gbus-people e-experts thinking their wikipaedia research is of sufficient level to discuss quantum mechanics with a working physicist.

Jax, if you want to have some real fun connecting God to mathematics, look at the Continuum Hypothesis.

…as if i don’t have full familiarity with the continuum hypothesis?

you people have absolutely no clue how much we have to learn, do you?

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 2, 2014 at 1:34 AM

Using the tax code for social “engineering” is deeply embedded. And it’s not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.
It is better as a society to reward home ownership because it leads to spending that drives our economy. Rewarding married couples with a lower tax bracket is IMO designed to give an incentive towards having stable relationships, ESPECIALLY those that produce offspring. To me, that is one reason I am opposed to recognizing gay couples as “married”. Being recognized as married MAY increase monogamous stability, but they have zero chance of having children of their own.
Contrary to earlier suggestion, it is impossible to have a society without children. The example of living on an island with other childless kinsmen is simply argumentative nonsense.
Count me in favor of the proposition.
I’m not a scientist, but I am a logical beast.
connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:30 AM

It’s still cutting a hog. Why do you presume the government has a right to our labors? Why not lower the tax burden of all????

frank on April 2, 2014 at 1:36 AM

It’s still cutting a hog. Why do you presume the government has a right to our labors? Why not lower the tax burden of all????
frank on April 2, 2014 at 1:36 AM

Because I live in the real world?

connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:42 AM

It’s still cutting a hog. Why do you presume the government has a right to our labors? Why not lower the tax burden of all????
frank on April 2, 2014 at 1:36 AM
Because I live in the real world?
connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:42 AM

Well then admit you’re a RINO & shame the Devil.

frank on April 2, 2014 at 1:54 AM

Whatevs. Say hi to Bigfoot and Nessie for me.

connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:59 AM

Whatevs. Say hi to Bigfoot and Nessie for me.
connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:59 AM

Typical leftist response. Can’t retort on the substance, revert to ad homonyms.

frank on April 2, 2014 at 2:02 AM

jaxisaneurophysicist on April 1, 2014 at 10:13 PM

So, I can’t even really read your tripe. It’s not over my head; the problem is much simpler. Do you have a standard QWERTY keyboard? If so, there are three buttons I want to point out to you. The first one is right below the “Enter” key, on the right-hand side of the main typing section. It’s labeled, “Shift”. There’s another on the opposite side of the typing section, with the same label. If you hold these while pressing a letter key, it capitalizes the letter! Amazing, isn’t it, Mister “Jax-I’m-A-Neuroscientist-And-A-Physicist”? If those keys aren’t working, right above the left-hand Shift key is one marked, “Caps Lock”. Now, this one is a little dangerous on the Internet, since it MAKES EVERYTHING YOU TYPE SHOW UP ALL IN CAPS. People tend to take that as yelling, so you don’t want to leave it on all the time. Instead, you can turn it on, type the letter that needs capitalization, and then turn it off. Amazing! Computers can do everything a typewriter can, and more!

Now, my first comment was meant to amuse laypeople, as a jest about how difficult quantum mechanics is to understand for most people. The latter comment was in regards to the difference between Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. To explain the contradiction in a word: Gravity.

This is a site for laypeople, and a discussion thread for taxes and tax credits. This is not an academic message board to discuss the ins and outs. I was responding to your insane, absurd and deranged attack on religion. Your argument, as near as I can make sense of it, is that the existence of science (general noun, not whatever specific application you’re going to try to twist it into meaning) disproves the existence of any deity.

My primary point was that science does not disprove God. On the contrary, an orderly universe can very easily be understood as good design on the part of God. An omnipotent being (or collection thereof) would certainly find such a task possible, by definition.

Besides, you’re basically telling that being (or collection of beings) what they can’t do with their dice.

Asurea on April 2, 2014 at 2:42 AM

blink on April 2, 2014 at 2:29 AM

I have absolutely no way of knowing who is correct here.

Day 2 of physics I was handed back my homework by my teacher who merely said: “rubbish you are capable of fat more than that.”

This being 1981 I had two choices: 1). Crack the books;, or 2) drop physics in favor of wood shop where I could hide in back & smoke doobies with my friends. I chose option 2.

frank on April 2, 2014 at 2:43 AM

I’m SICK of supporting those that HAVE children.
How do I do this?
I just got my property tax bill and it went up $2000 for schooling bonds.

I have no children.
I have a house that I pay mortgage taxes on which go to pay $2k for schools.

My fed taxes are supporting WIC, my state taxes are supporting medicaid for children. They’re also supporting the state universities where nobody gets educated they get indoctrinated.

If I’m to suffer in ANY WAY for those that are having children which is a choice? I’m going to become pro-choice very quickly and I’m also going to start becoming pro-gay since they don’t reproduce as a matter of biological necessity.

Also? I want the check box for a refund because I’m not contributing to global climate change. How’s that for ya? I’m not taking water out of your mouth to bath my rugrat.

Lee and the (what was it?) 36% group who want more, just like the older folks? GMAB! The older folks are on the planet already.
I’ll start protesting to keep people off the planet if it means I get screwed over.

Today was NOT THE DAY allah to put this article up. Property tax notices went out and its not sitting well. Ask me again in a month when I cool off.

athenadelphi on April 2, 2014 at 6:14 AM

But I’ll show up from time-to-time & usually read the articles that catch my interest & read comments in same:)

frank on April 2, 2014 at 1:23 AM

Good to hear. ; )

Bmore on April 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM

Another STUPID idea.

zoyclem on April 2, 2014 at 7:31 AM

Anything to increase revenues while sticking it to the American public and not slowing spending. I despise my government.

sadatoni on April 2, 2014 at 7:35 AM

Count me in favor of the proposition.
connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:30 AM

No, you’re another fool who thinks the rest of us owe you something. Some of us are already taxed enough. Why? so that the government can fund IDIOTIC social experiments. Go CONTRIBUTE your own dime if you want utopia, and quit expecting others to finance it for you.

zoyclem on April 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM

athenadelphi on April 2, 2014 at 6:14 AM

I am all for public schools being paid by the parents. It takes away any reason parentless people have for butting into the schools. Got a hint for you, VOTE.

Me, I am tired of paying for old people who did not have children to live without working. I bet I pay more towards them than you pay for children’s schools.

astonerii on April 2, 2014 at 7:48 AM

‘MORE’? As in ‘redistribution of wealth’? NO.

‘All men are created equally’…they should be taxed equally as citizens, not targeted because they worked hard and became successful or because they do not have a family yet and have a less of a ‘burden’ than married couples / parents.

That is why I support the ‘Fair Tax’ – it is a straight tax across the board, no guessing, no more H&R block or Turbo Tax and navigating through a knee-high tax code trying to find deductions, loop holes, and find out each year how much you owe.

I would also support an amendment that would personally punish politicians (Congress) through a steep punitive personal tax on every single year politician who allows deficit spending rather than a balanaced budget. Throught the 1st 3 months of this year the United States set a new record for the highest amount of collected tax revenue in our nation’s history…and millions are still waiting for the deadline – more taxes coming…YET our government is ALREADY ‘IN THE RED’…record setting tax revenue yet deficit-spending!!!

I wish we coud tell Congress if they want to spend more money than we have, if it is that ‘good’ of a cause, go ahead and spend YOUR personal money and then put in a VOUCHER for reimbursement consideration by a board made up of average, hard-working American citizens.

easyt65 on April 2, 2014 at 8:01 AM

It’s over.

Realville, or real world. The idea should be at this point to decide whether it is better to help the beast limp along now or hasten its implosion. The government lies and meddles in everything. Even last years deficit hailed as a reduction – still pretty damn bad however – was in truth around a trillion like every other year under this administration. The unemployment rate is rigged – private polling shows 2 points or more higher rate, and when you count underemployment brought on by Obamacare and their willingness to put the chronically unemployed on federal disability status, we are probably pushing 11% or more. Inflation in the things that matter are raging higher than the “official” rate. And now DC is the center of all the wealth in the country.

Screw em. I say we just break it as fast as we can. Arm up and let the war begin.

Zomcon JEM on April 2, 2014 at 8:14 AM

Come on, Hotair. Really? Aren’t families already paying in kind lower taxes through the the tax code, Child Tax Credits, etc? So as a single male, I will be penalized for being responsible and not having children out of wedlock while those who have kids with multiple partners get benefits? Nuts.

stop2think on April 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM

I would prefer the parents of welfare babies pay more taxes

Willys on April 2, 2014 at 8:34 AM

All you childless folks getting your hate-on over this topic, consider this: every single one of us parents knows what it’s like to be childless. We were all childless at one time, most of us paid taxes for years while childless. We know whereof we speak. And not a single one of you knows what it’s like to raise a child. Some on here talk about having kids as if it’s something only the well off should consider. Like polo or sailing.

You can have a difference of opinion without the derision. But if you want a war between parents and childless, bring it on. We’ll be packing heat just the same, but our side OWNS the future.

Frank drops the ad hominem accusation immediately after calling me a RINO.
Actually, I don’t personally know anyone more conservative than me. I have little pity for the homeless. Unemployment payments have gone on about a year too long. I’m catholic, but am very conflicted about our new pope. He’s a socialist, and not sure he appreciates the generosity of capitalists.

I’m a survivor, regardless of what happens.

Flat tax is the fairest probably, and I’m fine with that. But it ain’t gonna happen. Not without a revolution. Of course, that may happen. And if it does I will be fighting on the same side as you guys if it does.

connertown on April 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM

They are slowly killing the constitution, one meaning after another. The tax code is written to favor whoever gives the most money to which ever politician is manipulating it at the time. We are all supposed to have equal protection under the law. Period!

Kissmygrits on April 2, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Excuse me but some of us wanted kids but were unable to have kids for health reasons so I think we were punished enough. So whoever came up with this stupid idea can go F themselves.

bbinfl on April 1, 2014 at 5:39 PM

Well, no, go F yourself. I am truly sorry you couldn’t have kids. But I am paying 300k to raise each of my 3 kids (latest “estimate”, I make ‘em work). My middle just got into MIT. You want to live off him when you get to be 70? Until you’re 90?

Go F yourself.

WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 5:46 PM

WryTrvllr: you CHOSE to have children. People like bbinfl and myself – we had no say in the matter. If you have children then going in you KNOW that there are costs associated with raising that child. It’s not our responsibility to help you pay for the children you have. Because we don’t have the child deduction, my husband and I file as “married but withhold at the higher single rate”; we already pay the maximum allowed by law and we usually owe at the end of the year as well – state and fed.

I’m all for funding the future of our country – and I already do that thru my property taxes to the local schools. You choose to send your kid to MIT? Fine – why should it now be MY responsibility to pay for that luxury?

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 9:05 AM

All you childless folks getting your hate-on over this topic, consider this: every single one of us parents knows what it’s like to be childless. We were all childless at one time, most of us paid taxes for years while childless. We know whereof we speak.
connertown on April 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM

So – you KNOW for a fact what it’s like to be childless – and know that you will remain that way despite what you might really want?

Give me an f-ing break – you can’t claim to understand what it’s like to be childless w/out choice…if you have children. You have had a period of time in your life when you didn’t have children but ultimately, when you decided it was time to have them – you did. For those of us who reached that time and then, thru no choice or fault of our own, could never have them … we resent the burdens you people with children would place on us because of something that we had no control over.

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 9:08 AM

Count me in favor of the proposition.
I’m not a scientist, but I am a logical beast.
connertown on April 2, 2014 at 1:30 AM

No you’re a slave, begging his master for more chains.

oryguncon on April 2, 2014 at 9:22 AM

connertown on April 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Funny perception on your part. Seemed to me the primary “hate-on” you speak of was coming from the folks with children. I will give you this as testimony to this very point. Your words.

We’ll be packing heat just the same

Bmore on April 2, 2014 at 9:22 AM

Additionally this is just a very sad commentary on your part.

I have little pity for the homeless.

Bmore on April 2, 2014 at 9:24 AM

I’m all for funding the future of our country – and I already do that thru my property taxes to the local schools. You choose to send your kid to MIT? Fine – why should it now be MY responsibility to pay for that luxury?

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 9:05 AM

Why is it your responsibility to pay for your local schools by force through property taxes? Have your local schools done a good job? Are they not propagandizing children to vote away their rights and yours in a few decades? You are funding your ideological enemies! Those property taxes mean the state owns your land, not you. You’re responsible for that land’s upkeep though and they’ll often fine you if you don’t maintain it.

oryguncon on April 2, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Should childless Americans pay more taxes?

If you want a nation of, by and for the crack whores and shiftless, jobless lotharios the answer is ‘yes’.

How about a tax deduction for chastity belts–so long as a responsible third party holds the only key?

MaiDee on April 2, 2014 at 9:51 AM

orygunc

on on April 2, 2014 at 9:25 AM

Well, in truth I do resent paying taxes to fund schools that my husband and I will never take advantage of however I do see the inherent obligation in providing funding to provide for the children of my community.

That said – my community is small, rural and largely conservative; an oasis in the New England (CT, specifically) liberal wasteland. There is no indoctrination going on, these educators aren’t my enemies. My neighbors and their children aren’t my enemies either. And to the matter under discussion – I already pay my fair share (and thensome). My childless state should not force me to pay more.

At that – I would draw the line.

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM

My absolute preference is to cut all taxes, cut the government back to ONLY its Constitutionally provided powers and make everyone better off.

That’s clearly a pipe dream right now.

Second, IF we are going to steal the labor of the young to pay for the healthcare and retirement of the old, I think there ought to be some penalty for those who benefit from that system at that cost to other people’s children. If it means higher taxes, that’s one option. Another option could be that if you haven’t raised 3 workers (adoption is, of course, perfectly acceptable) to replace you, no full benefits. 2 is 66% benefits, 1 is 33% benefits and 0 is 10% benefits. (So if you don’t need or desire government support, no need to have kids. Just make sure you have provided enough.)

And, of course, that only deals with the intergenerational theft of Social Security and Medicare. It says nothing of the other borrowing we’ve been using to fund this massive federal behemoth.

Incidentally, I’m not angry at people for not having kids. They should be free to make their decisions as they wish. I’m angry at the citizens of this country who have voted to enslave my children before they were even born. I really don’t care about how much taxes I pay or don’t pay for my children. What I care about is the massive debt burden our most selfish society has put on the next generations.

Our society has burned through the capital built up by previous generations (the infrastructure problems are one symptom of this) and borrowed against future generations prosperity. This current ruling class is taking everything it can get from the past and stealing all it can from the future. THAT is what makes me angry. Not current tax rates.

I’d be happy if we had a means of making people face the consequences of their decisions, rather than leaving it to my children. This proposal is a STEP in that direction.

It’s clearly not the best option, though.

makattak on April 2, 2014 at 10:49 AM

FIVE WORDS: FAIR TAX – KILL THE IRS!

ihasurnominashun on April 2, 2014 at 10:57 AM

So don’t pretend it’s your right to benefit from them MF
WryTrvllr on April 1, 2014 at 8:32 PM

Ok scumbag show me where I said I have the right to benefit from your kids. I said I shouldn’t have to pay extra taxes because we were unable to have kids.

How about you tell me what right you have to benefit from mine and my family’s, some who paid with their lives, service to this country to protect this country and punks like you who think everybody owes them something because you have kids. I think I have done more than enough to earn my keep. If you and your kind don’t like it I don’t give a flying f***.

bbinfl on April 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM

You do realize these people could care less about you, right. To some of them you are nothing more than an ATM for the choice they made regardless as to whether you had the ability to have kids yourself.

bbinfl on April 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

bbinfl on April 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

I hear you. And none of this discussion is new…it comes up every so often under the guise of “doing it for the children”. And while I don’t have anything wrong with kids or the people who have them, I will NOT subsidize – more than I already do – the choices that others make.

If we are going to penalize anyone with higher taxes, let’s go after the women who allow themselves to get pregnant without the benefit of a committed relationship. Or the “families” to continue to breed while on welfare…because the kid is just another deduction to them. Those are the ones who need to be penalized in some way.

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 11:19 AM

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 9:08 AM

You didn’t want kids. Ever heard of an adoption agency?

You’re simply using your infertility as a strawman here. Completely irrelevant point when it comes to taxes, since an adopted child would grant you even more tax breaks. You did not want any, clearly, as actions speak far louder than words.

You child-free conservatives sure sound a whole lot like all of the liberal yuppie douchebags you claim to despise…

nullrouted on April 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM

nullrouted on April 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Um…did you actually READ any of my comments? I didn’t CHOOSE not to have children and with my health issues, no adoption agency would allow me to have a child. I did not make the choice to not have children.

If you can’t see the difference and say I made a choice because we can’t naturally have children or adopt – then there is no point in conversing with you further.

KrisinNE on April 2, 2014 at 11:27 AM

I also think most of you lack a basic education in economics when it comes to this ‘school tax’ argument you keep making. Regardless of what you may think about whether contributing to the education of ‘other people’s’ kids has value to you, an economist will quickly educate you on the fact that it does.

You have to live with the politicians they vote for, right? Wouldn’t you prefer they be educated?

You have to live in the same neighborhoods they do, right? Wouldn’t you prefer they stay in school?

Let’s just take the most basic stat that 75% of ALL CRIME IN THE US is committed by high school dropouts. So yes, please, don’t put any more money into the system that could benefit ‘other people’s kids’ because ‘you didn’t have children.’

When you get robbed by one of them someday, I hope your self-righteousness will make you feel better about it.

nullrouted on April 2, 2014 at 11:31 AM

Better Question: Why should I pay for your apparently pleasurable (to you) fornication?

And while we’re on the subject of your Child Delinquents, STAY OFF MY LAWN!

CiLH1 on April 2, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Just get rid of the income tax, the most tyrannical of all taxes.

That is all.

Spliff Menendez on April 2, 2014 at 11:39 AM

Better Question: Why should I pay for your apparently pleasurable (to you) fornication?

And while we’re on the subject of your Child Delinquents, STAY OFF MY LAWN!

CiLH1 on April 2, 2014 at 11:35 AM

Who do you think is going to pay for your social security and medicare? That money is not coming from no where.

astonerii on April 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM

While nonparents can focus on their jobs in laserlike fashion, parents are rarely in a position to do the same. Every time a sick child keeps a parent home from work, her earnings suffer, either directly, because she’s taking an unpaid leave of absence, or indirectly, because she’s missing out on opportunities to climb the corporate ladder.

Even when we compare a nonparent and a parent who are working exactly the same hours and earning exactly the same income, the nonparent has a clear leg up.

This reminded me of an episode of Shark Tank I watched recently. There was a couple that had invented infant pants with squeakers in the knees. They went on Shark Tank because they said they needed more capital so they could have more of their product readily available. But the problem was they have only sold 500 of the pants in 3 years.

The wife said it’s because the husband has his own job and she can’t take care of everything as well as raise their two kids. Mark Cuban said, “Well, there is someone out there that could have this idea and devote all their time developing it, so what can you bring to the table that gives you more of an advantage?” She took offense to that and said Mark didn’t like her because she was a mom. Mark said, in effect, that he has no problem with her being a mom, but that puts limits on her ability to grow this business they are asking for.

I don’t know that changing the tax system to benefit parents more than anyone else is the right avenue, so much as revamping the whole system to be more in line with a flat tax. Perhaps there would still be tax credits available for various things, but too many Americans pay zero taxes, pushing that burden to others.

Effay5 on April 2, 2014 at 12:05 PM

astonerii You are partly correct. Of course the country needs children to maintain growth and as future tax payers. But the point of this thread is asking taxpayers who have no children to help subsidize those who do through higher INCOME taxes. Childless couples (or couples whose children are grown up) ALREADY subsidize families with children through higher PROPERTY taxes. As you well know, a good chunk of property taxes are for schools.

Furthermore, many couples with children (and many are single mothers)never pay income taxes and worse, neither will their children or grand children. therefore a good number, millions in fact, will NEVER contribute toward paying for anybody’s social security or medicate–in fact the OPPOSITE will occur.

MaiDee on April 2, 2014 at 12:13 PM

You child-free conservatives sure sound a whole lot like all of the liberal yuppie douchebags you claim to despise…

nullrouted on April 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM

If you were trying to sound like a complete scumbag, you succeeded.

Wendya on April 2, 2014 at 12:49 PM

My absolute preference is to cut all taxes, cut the government back to ONLY its Constitutionally provided powers and make everyone better off.

That’s clearly a pipe dream right now.

Why? If we’ve come to the point where all of us are powerless to change the government, what is that form of government called?

You child-free conservatives sure sound a whole lot like all of the liberal yuppie douchebags you claim to despise…

Which is the point a lot of people have been trying to make. A lot of so-called conservatives are actually Progressives; they just favor different issues and have taken a different label for themselves.

Another Libertarian on April 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM

I also think most of you lack a basic education in economics when it comes to this ‘school tax’ argument you keep making. Regardless of what you may think about whether contributing to the education of ‘other people’s’ kids has value to you, an economist will quickly educate you on the fact that it does.

This is the collectivist argument in a nutshell.

Another Libertarian on April 2, 2014 at 1:19 PM

The ultimate form of financial stability comes from a stable currency. Then from that you also need no confiscatory taxation, property and gun rights to protect all of that.

Yeah.. we’re not doing so good on any of those fronts. Btw, it’s a violation of equal protection to tax single people more. A family of 5 uses up a tremendous amount of resources. As a single person I get sick of seeing you child beating Christians getting huge tax subsidies to raise your army for Christ. Lol

fatlibertarianinokc on April 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Who do you think is going to pay for your social security and medicare? That money is not coming from no where.

What happened to getting rid of these sorts of tax slavery as a conservative principle?

Another Libertarian on April 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Who do you think is going to pay for your social security and medicare? That money is not coming from no where.

astonerii on April 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM

Who says we’re all depending on having Soc Sec and Medicare? I’ve been involuntarily paying into those socialist programs my entire working life and don’t count on seeing a red cent of it. It’s a giant Ponzi scheme ripe with fraud and abuse with the lion’s share going to people who’ve never contributed. I don’t count on the Gov’t for my well being and could have done a much better job saving and investing the funds the Gov’t takes from me and squanders. If you’re really counting on the Gov’t and today’s youth to subsidize your retirement enjoy 3 hots and a cot down on the plantation.

Buttercup on April 2, 2014 at 2:14 PM

Who do you think is going to pay for your social security and medicare? That money is not coming from no where.

astonerii on April 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM

What happened to getting rid of these sorts of tax slavery as a conservative principle?

Another Libertarian on April 2, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Great question.

Buttercup on April 2, 2014 at 2:15 PM

Should childless Americans pay more taxes?

My 87 year old mother is our dependent. We pay her mortgage, Rx, and give her $ for bills and groceries because she cannot live on the $585 she gets on Soc Sec each month but soak me for more taxes because the %40 I pay is just not enough.
Jerks they have no idea what average people deal with in life and family.
Fact is if the piggies took ALL our money they’d still have their face in the trough groveling for more.

Buttercup on April 2, 2014 at 2:54 PM

“Should childless Americans pay more taxes?”

No.

Kevin M on April 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM

Some on here talk about having kids as if it’s something only the well off should consider. Like polo or sailing.

connertown on April 2, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Not necessarily well off, just in a position to accept the financial responsibility. Only the prospective parents can and should do that. It’s not an unreasonable expectation.

Some people remain childless even in marriage. What about those who can’t have children of their own for one reason or another? Adoption? That’s a gauntlet that even determined prospective parents can’t always run successfully, to say nothing of its expense. You can’t just go out and get a kid like a quart of milk — there are dozens of bureaucrats who will look you up and down and decide whether you are suitable, based on criteria that may have little or nothing to do with child welfare. Sure it’s an alternative, but not one to depend on.

In the age of sacrosanct and subsidized abortion, it’s contradictory and unfortunate that it comes down to government-created incentives for to choosing to have children. How about a tax on those who choose abortion, rather than on the merely childless?

Tax credits are not the same thing as being on the dole — being allowed to keep more of your own wealth simply because you have children may be an incentive to have children, but it’s a penalty to people who don’t. How about we all keep more of our own wealth?

cheeflo on April 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM

By the way, anyone who is taking welfare from Social Security and Medicare had better tread lightly when talking about other welfare programs like food stamps. Unlike food stamps, which only go to the poorest of the poor, Social Security Welfare goes to anyone who reaches a certain age and has worked any job for 40 quarters.

Worst of all, Social Security Welfare and Medicare comes right out of the paychecks of working people, exactly as they were designed to do when they were designed with the communist mindset that pervaded FDR’s 1930′s.

So people shaking their canes at others for not ponying up enough money out of their paychecks for the benefit of said Social Security moochers should at least respect that others are poor in this horrible economy and not begrudge them the macaroni and cheese that poor families are forced to live on.

$70 billion a year for 50 million people to afford cheap food, versus $700 billion (or over $1 trillion depending what agency stats you are looking at) for Social Security mooches. Add another $700 billion (or $1 trillion) for Medicare and we are looking at potentially over $2 trillion a year coming right out of the paychecks of working people to pay off the moochers. And these tax victims are the same people getting foodstamps in many cases.

Government takes over $2 trillion a year from the paychecks of working people just to fund Social Security and Medicare. We should never worry about that paltry $70 billion rounding error attached to the Farm Bill every year until this massive theft is addressed.

Another Libertarian on April 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM

You child-free conservatives sure sound a whole lot like all of the liberal yuppie douchebags you claim to despise…

nullrouted on April 2, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Go look in the mirror.

zoyclem on April 2, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Who do you think is going to pay for your social security and medicare? That money is not coming from no where.

astonerii on April 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM

No one is having kids for the purpose of providing for old people. For a conservative to make that argument is to accept the notion that the communist system is permanent. Weren’t all of these socialist programs supposed to provide a safety net until the nation evolved to the point where these things like SS and welfare wouldn’t be necessary because we will someday be able to provide for ourselves for our entire lives?

Buddahpundit on April 2, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Tax credits are not the same thing as being on the dole — being allowed to keep more of your own wealth simply because you have children may be an incentive to have children, but it’s a penalty to people who don’t. How about we all keep more of our own wealth?
cheeflo on April 2, 2014 at 3:44 PM

On the contrary, many of these tax credits are “refundable”, meaning they’re treated as payments. As a result, most of the people who use them most heavily get back more than they pay in. So… Yeah. It’s a form of welfare. I explained in detail back on page 3 of the comments how it’s abused.

Asurea on April 2, 2014 at 6:18 PM

The question sets the perception that the childless pay more taxes. Its a false perception.

The question is: How many people are surviving per amount of income?

A childless person can be head of household and have dependents, for which they would claim adjustments.

The reality is: A single, dependent-less individual is paying less per person surviving on that income.

Saltysam on April 2, 2014 at 8:08 PM

Just to clarify…

The proportion of tax paid per person/per proportion of income is higher than the childless/dependent-less individual.

Saltysam on April 2, 2014 at 8:15 PM

Asurea on April 2, 2014 at 6:18 PM

You cannot receive tax credits for dependent children if you owe no tax. The tax credit is not redistribution like EIC is.

However…the “earned income credit” will come into play as a result of claimed dependents on your AGI, which is redistribution. Again though, as I say above, this is not limited to individuals with children. A single, childless individual who is head of household can claim dependents.

Saltysam on April 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

I would normally say no, but in the current context I think childless couples should pay more to offset the fact that we are borrowing against what our children will generate in the future. If you aren’t contributing to the labor of future generations then you shouldn’t have claim to the labor of the children that ARE there. One way to do that is to tax them now so they pay as they go.

(Not that I think my kids should be responsible for my ‘share’, but the childless are most likely to vote in ways that put the burden on our children)

MC88 on April 2, 2014 at 9:22 PM

The state I live in pays people to manage their own forest land, no strings attached. Rationale being, 30 years, down the road, when the landowner sells the timber, it Generates JOBS and is a RESOURCE. Not just money in the pocket of the landowner. So yeah, you did subsidize it (if you live in this state) buy you make out BETTER in the end. (It’s called investing)

bbinfl on April 2, 2014 at 11:04 AM

Yeah dkwad. You’re the only person on the website with family that has served. Speaking of being a parasite, you ARE aware that social security taxes go up every year, aren’t you? Not the rate, but the total amount that rate is applied to. Look it up, and tell me again how you not claiming anything

Come on, Hotair. Really? Aren’t families already paying in kind lower taxes through the the tax code, Child Tax Credits, etc? So as a single male, I will be penalized for being responsible and not having children out of wedlock while those who have kids with multiple partners get benefits? Nuts.

stop2think on April 2, 2014 at 8:32 AM

Live in a city? Most single people do. Care to explain to me why I should have to pay more in taxes to subsidize all the extra infrastructure (law of entropy here, stop2think) your preferred location of living requires?

Or are you going to pretend cities don’t suck revenue from the entire state?

Well this has been fun. We’re 17 plus trillion in debt, but no worries, Social Security is in the black, oh and we’ll be having this discussion again when the fertility rate hits 1.5.

Maybe then we can be more honest, and even include age at childbearing into the mix, to, you know, keep it honest. And accurate.

WryTrvllr on April 2, 2014 at 11:55 PM

I make good money and get taxed at a high rate accordingly. I do not have a long list of deductions so I take the standard deduction. I pay 16k in state and federal taxes a year. Add to that the sales, property, licensing, etc taxes. Yet you “conservatives” don’t think that is enough because I haven’t had any kids that you assume will support the next generation. I have previously stated the amount of SS and Medicare I will have payed in by the time I can retire at 67, and that average life expectancy says I will die before receiving all I have paid in. That would be me leaving some money for your kids, not mooching off them. You should be grateful.

The act of conceiving a child is no guarantee that the kid will be a contributor to society and it’s tax pool. That kid may very well end up unemployed, underemployed, on disability, etc. Should the parent’s SS benefits be reduced if their kids end up a failure?

Self righteous parents in here trying to justify wealth redistribution based on assumptions. If you don’t want to put the burden of debt on your children don’t reach out your hand for a greater child tax credit when in the end that money you are getting increases our debt that eventually will end up on the backs of your children.

deuce on April 3, 2014 at 2:35 AM

Stop it already. Single people, no children, already pay more than a fair share. I pay property taxes, which pay for schools I don’t use. I pay the same amount for sewer costs in the city as a home with more than one person. I don’t use the sewers as much as say a household with 3 or more people. I pay the same amount for garbage, and only need it picked up once a month because I do not create a lot of garbage. So single people with no children actually bear higher costs per person than a household with more than one person.

BelleStarre on April 3, 2014 at 8:23 AM

As a conservative Christian, I have to thank Hot Air for helping me feel much less troubled by progressive politicians. The anti-Christian bigotry and anti-family screeching of far too many supposedly compassionate conservatives here has made it clear to me that you are in fact no better than progressive anti-family, anti-Christian bigots. It has been an eye-opening experience to see so much hatred among people I had assumed were allies in the two areas of greatest importance to me: faith and family (children). That’s been helpful in setting my mind at ease over the leftward tilt of our political and social culture. After all, if people I believe are my allies see children as a grubby tax burden and faith as a mental disorder, I find I am free of feeling inclined to lend my support automatically to them, and I have much less to fear from the ‘other side’ when the extremes of both sides are in fact aligned against my values.

Thank you all. It has been liberating.

xNavigator on April 3, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Strange imagination.

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 8:59 AM

Stop it already. Single people, no children, already pay more than a fair share. I pay property taxes, which pay for schools I don’t use. I pay the same amount for sewer costs in the city as a home with more than one person. I don’t use the sewers as much as say a household with 3 or more people. I pay the same amount for garbage, and only need it picked up once a month because I do not create a lot of garbage. So single people with no children actually bear higher costs per person than a household with more than one person.

BelleStarre on April 3, 2014 at 8:23 AM

For you Belle

http://www.gallup.com/poll/167705/having-children-major-driver-spending-patterns.aspx

The obvious answer, Belle, is that the government is taking far too much already. If we could “starve the beast” that would be, by far, the best solution. It would allow people who’s fertility rate dropped below replacement value with the bank collapse in 2007/8, and who want to have more, but can’t afford it, to do so.

But since we’re on the topic of I pay my fair share again, explain to me, then, why we’ve been running >1 trillion dollar deficits, going on 7 years running?

WryTrvllr on April 3, 2014 at 9:31 AM

The taxes are just too high, with or without children. The economy is to blame that many young adults are forgoing marriage, children, since career growth is stagnant. They have just enough money for one. But overall, it is not dependents, but the mortgage interest deduction that skews the tax bill so badly and this hurts anyone without a mortgage. Changing the tax code to make the second tax bracket go to 200K would level the playing field for so many, right now when you are a young adult and starting out, you hit $75K and you have the same $35K to spend as someone not even trying. Same for families with two earners…$150K gives you each $40K to spend. Not fair, kids or no.

Fleuries on April 3, 2014 at 9:38 AM

*Tab Closing*

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 9:58 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/malaria_01.shtml

because, after all, a nation is, first, and foremost, a collection of PEOPLE.

WryTrvllr on April 3, 2014 at 10:01 AM

Weak disputation.

xNavigator on April 3, 2014 at 10:05 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Whew. Just look at those marginal rates. It’s almost like they wanted people to stay single.

But no worries, all those generous deductions and exemptions MORE than compensate./s

WryTrvllr on April 3, 2014 at 12:02 PM

Effective income tax rates

While the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is 39.6 percent, average rates that a household in the upper income bracket pays are less. Much of the earnings of those in the top income bracket come from capital gains, interest and dividends, which are taxed at a maximum of 20 percent. Also, only income up to $106,800 is subject to payroll taxes of 15.3%, which are paid by the employer and employee, which further reduces the effective rate.[18]

Wow. Now I know why so many people don’t trust wiki. I pay less than the 39.6%, in part because FICA only applies to the first 106,800.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Writer must work for the CBO of something.

WryTrvllr on April 3, 2014 at 2:19 PM

or. or something. and that was from the wikipedia article I quoted just before. I have to assume the moron could at least copy the tax tables accurately.

WryTrvllr on April 3, 2014 at 2:25 PM

You cannot receive tax credits for dependent children if you owe no tax. The tax credit is not redistribution like EIC is.

However…the “earned income credit” will come into play as a result of claimed dependents on your AGI, which is redistribution. Again though, as I say above, this is not limited to individuals with children. A single, childless individual who is head of household can claim dependents.

Saltysam on April 2, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Additional Child Tax Credit. Any part of your Child Tax Credit that isn’t consumed by taxes can be refunded to you. Form 8812.

It’s a refundable credit, meaning you can get back money you didn’t pay in, since it’s treated as a “payment” you made. As I mentioned back on page 3, I work in ID Theft-related tax fraud for the IRS. ACTC is one of the biggest losers for the American taxpayer, as it’s one of the most-claimed fraudulent credits by illegal aliens.

As to EITC, the dependents do have to meet certain qualifications, the primary ones being either age or disability.

Asurea on April 3, 2014 at 4:29 PM

So kind of some people to have kids and send them to Ivy league colleges for my benefit. I expect to work ’til I die, so pay for your own offspring commie bastards.

S. D. on April 3, 2014 at 9:17 PM

And that’s great. Reset the system so you can only reap the benefits of your own children. I’ve received nothing from you comrade. Make sure you self insure as well. What’s that you say? Not an option for 99.999%? Sucks being you.

Get off my lawn.

WryTrvllr on April 4, 2014 at 8:15 AM

WryTrvllr on April 4, 2014 at 8:15 AM

.
Dittos . . . . . : )

listens2glenn on April 4, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Oh boy, I can see it now. If you don’t have children you will have to prove why you don’t have them. How long before the government has a night vision camera in your bedroom to find out how often you do the nasty? Not enough times, comrade, do it some more.

I’ve never taken birth control and over 25 years of trying didn’t give me children. It’s my and my husband’s business how aggressively or not we wanted to pursue invasive methods and procedures to have a child. Sometimes God has other plans.

Greyledge Gal on April 4, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Or maybe they’ll just shack you up with some Neanderthal before you can collect your bennies.

either way…

Get off my lawn.

WryTrvllr on April 4, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Oh and that reminds me….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCk_RSpUs_M

But, then again, I am a sick B@stard

WryTrvllr on April 4, 2014 at 7:54 PM

All of this, of course, raises a question. Why do I, yes I, out of my own pocket, teach my kids to hit at 400-600 yards? Why do I, yes I, out of my own pocket, let them get their pilot’s licenses?

There’s a PRECIOUS few of you out there who know.

The rest of you can rot.

WryTrvllr on April 4, 2014 at 8:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5