Is anybody else as upset about this as I am-

[SilverLily]

What do you mean by "pro-child"? Do I enjoy having children and am glad I have them? Yes. Do I think everyone out there should have them? No. So I guess I am "pro-child" for ME, but not for everyone else.

First of all, having a child does not end with the birth. Sure, as you say, anyone with no talent could have a child. But to raise one to be a contributing member of society is NOT something your cat in the bushes behind your apartment can do.

Do I think that it entitles me to pay less taxes because I have children? No. I don't think there should be any tax credit for having children. But I sure would take the tax credit if I qualified for it! Why? Because I think most people pay way too many taxes. I think the whole system needs to be reformed, and not just for the people who have children. But that is another thread!

 

[Mskanga]

Just strikes me that something as easy to do, and requiring no talent, as birthing a child would entitle you to more $ back at the end of the year.

Unless you experience that , don't assume it's so easy, some people go through hell to have a child.

Don't use that age old argument that kids cost more money, so you deserve to pay less in taxes; they are a luxury that you decided to have.

That luxury that you talk about, may be the doctor or the nurse that one day may be taking care of you in a hospital. While it may have been your decision to not have children , and I respect it, I wouldn't clasify having children as being a luxury, in my eyes it is a priviledge, and if you don't want any , that's ok with me. Trust me, my sister is just like you.

I choose to spend my money on things other than kids, and spend my days mopping up the messes that many parents (who are clear examples of the phrase "it takes no intelligence to reproduce") make of their children.

That was a choice that you made and I respect, I chose to have children and I wouldn't change it for anything in the world. But what really strikes me here is how you think of your parents, clear examples of the phrase "it takes no intelligence to reproduce . I hope that's not how my children will think of us when they get older, I hope they can see the whole picture.

 

[hmp2z]

Hehehehe, I would be seriously surprised if all of the people getting this tax break are raising their children to be contributing members to society. In fact, if that were true, I might actually want to have children myself!!! But if it were so, they would give the tax break to the poster who wrote in and has kids in college. If you can get 'em to college, you've done a pretty good job with them. On the other hand, if they're in jail at age 15, why do you get $400 each year they're age 0-15?
Just curious, and no one seems to know the answer. Or if they do, they're not telling. Why are people with children entitled to more tax money back, just because they chose to have offspring? And by doing this, isn't the government rewarding those who chose to have offspring? I've heard many denials here, but if this is really a tax break for the middle class, then why isn't every middle class tax payer getting a break? Why is it only the ones who decided to have kids? Apparently no one knows...

 

[SilverLily]

Originally posted by hmp2z
Hehehehe, I would be seriously surprised if all of the people getting this tax break are raising their children to be contributing members to society. In fact, if that were true, I might actually want to have children myself!!! But if it were so, they would give the tax break to the poster who wrote in and has kids in college. If you can get 'em to college, you've done a pretty good job with them. On the other hand, if they're in jail at age 15, why do you get $400 each year they're age 0-15?

I really don't know what you are trying to say here. Most children grow up to become adults who support themselves and pay taxes. The last time I looked, there are more people working and paying taxes than there are people in jail! This doesn't have anything to do with the tax credit...I was just trying to point out that it does take more than a reproductive system to raise a child.

So, if ALL children grew up to be paying members of society, you would consider having children? That is sad. You should do what YOU want to do, not base it on how/what other people's children are doing.

And as I said, I don't think people with children should get tax credits. I guess someone felt that it would benefit society to give families a break. Take it up with your representative if you don't agree.

 

[Steve H.]

Originally posted by hmp2z
Why are people with children entitled to more tax money back, just because they chose to have offspring?

Because the government decided that was the bill they wanted to pass. If they had decided to give the refund to married couples without kids, then I would have been fine with that. And if I didn't like that new bill, like SilverLily said, I would have written a congressman or something like that. Something that any taxpayer has the right to do.

Originally posted by hmp2z
And by doing this, isn't the government rewarding those who chose to have offspring? I've heard many denials here, but if this is really a tax break for the middle class, then why isn't every middle class tax payer getting a break? Why is it only the ones who decided to have kids? Apparently no one knows...

Every tax payer is being given a break under the tax cut, it's just that you've apparently been too busy hollering about the child credit portion of the bill that you haven't taken the time to read about the fact that the bill includes a lot of other tax cuts, one of which, BTW, is the beginning of the elimination of the "marriage penalty", which, I would assume, you'd be happy about.

 

[Mskanga]

I would be seriously surprised if all of the people getting this tax break are raising their children to be contributing members to society.

I think I majority of those people at the very least , try to achieve that. You mentioned you are work at an inner city school, so I am assuming you are a teacher. I would hate to have a teacher who would think like that.

But if it were so, they would give the tax break to the poster who wrote in and has kids in college.

Not to offend anyone , but more often than not, I see people with low income get all kinds of free tuitions or at least reduced, and I'm not saying it's not right , so don't even go there, but at the same time I have to pay full price for my children, so where is the fairness there? I'm glad that those programs are there and people who really need it can use them.

 

[amw5g]

Originally posted by Steve H.
Every tax payer is being given a break under the tax cut, it's just that you've apparently been too busy hollering about the child credit portion of the bill that you haven't taken the time to read about the fact that the bill includes a lot of other tax cuts, one of which, BTW, is the beginning of the elimination of the "marriage penalty", which, I would assume, you'd be happy about.

Yes, this is correct, all tax payers are having their tax rates curtailed (at least temporarily). However, I think the main beef here is that some people are being given not just a reduction in the tax rate, but also a $400 check based upon their private decision to have a child.

I'm of the belief that the burden of funding government transfer payments should be shared proportionately. These payments (WIC, 'welfare', unemployment benefits, medicare, etc) were designed to be temporary and by and large they are. You can't legally be on welfare in perpetuity (I think the cap is 4 or 5 years with no more than 2 years consecutive). Thus, everyone has to pay their share so that more goes into the system then comes out. When you can't pay, you don't have to, but that needs to be a temporary situation so that you can add back into the kitty when the time comes.

What bothers me is that the benefit to society for child reering seems to be outweighed by the cost borne by society. Having children is a personal decision and I believe that no one should have to pay for my child anymore than I have to pay for theirs. If the government feels that it's in the business of subsidizing then it should also be in the business of regulating who can/cannot have children. The government must also prove to me that the investment it's making in increasing the nominal wage of parents today (via these credits and refunds) will pay ME a reward above and beyond what it's costing me today.

To make sure I'm tying this back to the original poster, I think the majority here is in agreement that those who are (over)paying should reap the rewards of a tax credit. Where we differ is to what extent fiscal policy can/should comment on our personal choice to bear children and to what extent the government should support our choices at the expense of other tax-paying citizens.

My take on it.
Regards,
Andrew

 

[AirForceRocks]

Why are people with children entitled to more tax money back, just because they chose to have offspring?

They are currently entitled to it because the tax code says they are. Is it fair? No, I don't think it is, but the tax code is full of unfairness.

Is it fair that the more you make, the higher the marginal tax bracket?

Is it fair that if you are blind you get more exemptions than someone that isn't blind?

Is it fair that people that don't pay federal income tax get money back anyway?

I would say "no" to all three, but I don't think it is such a big deal. There is fairness and unfairness throughout the code. If you don't like it, elect like-minded people and get it changed.

I've heard many denials here, but if this is really a tax break for the middle class, then why isn't every middle class tax payer getting a break? Why is it only the ones who decided to have kids? Apparently no one knows...

Apparently you don't know that all middle class taxpayers are getting a break.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Well at least you two agree with each other. I'm sure that helps in the marriage.

 

[Steve H.]

Originally posted by amw5g
Yes, this is correct, all tax payers are having their tax rates curtailed (at least temporarily). However, I think the main beef here is that some people are being given not just a reduction in the tax rate, but also a $400 check based upon their private decision to have a child.

I'm of the belief that the burden of funding government transfer payments should be shared proportionately. These payments (WIC, 'welfare', unemployment benefits, medicare, etc) were designed to be temporary and by and large they are. You can't legally be on welfare in perpetuity (I think the cap is 4 or 5 years with no more than 2 years consecutive). Thus, everyone has to pay their share so that more goes into the system then comes out. When you can't pay, you don't have to, but that needs to be a temporary situation so that you can add back into the kitty when the time comes.

What bothers me is that the benefit to society for child reering seems to be outweighed by the cost borne by society. Having children is a personal decision and I believe that no one should have to pay for my child anymore than I have to pay for theirs. If the government feels that it's in the business of subsidizing then it should also be in the business of regulating who can/cannot have children. The government must also prove to me that the investment it's making in increasing the nominal wage of parents today (via these credits and refunds) will pay ME a reward above and beyond what it's costing me today.

To make sure I'm tying this back to the original poster, I think the majority here is in agreement that those who are (over)paying should reap the rewards of a tax credit. Where we differ is to what extent fiscal policy can/should comment on our personal choice to bear children and to what extent the government should support our choices at the expense of other tax-paying citizens.

My take on it.
Regards,
Andrew

I can't disagree with anything you said here. Well, except for the part about the government having to prove anything to you. As I've said previously, I don't necessarily agree with everything that the government does and don't think that the tax code in place today is particularly fair. But until they change the tax code, I'll live with the way it's set up now. If they decide to take away tax credits for children, that's fine. But in the meantime, as long as there's provisions in the code by which I can collect additional money, I'll take it.

 

[Carl]

Liberals should be honest with what they want. Someone who in fact does not pay taxes, but gets earned income credit can not get a "tax cut." So, liberals, be honest. What you really want is for the low income people to get additional welfare - not a "tax cut." You may be right in what you wish, but do not ask for "tax cuts" for these people. That is not really what you want.

 

[wvjules]

If you think about it, people with children are contributing more to the economy than those without children. We buy kids clothes, shoes, etc seasonally since they're always growing out of them. We buy more food for our home, we even buy bigger homes to hold our "herds". Therefore, the extra contribution we make to the economy deserves a$400 rebate. Afterall, we're gonna spend it on our offspring anyway.

 

[FleurdeLise]

Originally posted by hmp2z
I choose to spend my money on things other than kids, and spend my days mopping up the messes that many parents (who are clear examples of the phrase "it takes no intelligence to reproduce") make of their children. I teach in an inner city school, so am not going to buy this "poor parents who DESERVE a tax break" argument.
Heather W

Run. Really. Run like hell.You sound completely overwhelmed,bitter and unhappy teaching inner city kids.

 

[amw5g]

Originally posted by Steve H.
I can't disagree with anything you said here. Well, except for the part about the government having to prove anything to you. But in the meantime, as long as there's provisions in the code by which I can collect additional money, I'll take it.

Nor would anyone but an altruist blame you either. I'd certainly not return the check they sent me.

But my votes for my senators and reps will be in part based upon their stance on that issue. I see taxes as a way to fund the wants of society today and for tomorrow. And since we live in a democracy, wherein the legislators are elected by the people, it is their responsibility to ensure that their fiscal decisions are in line with their constituents. That's why I feel they need to prove to me the value in making dependant credits or any other type of tax policy (e.g. education credits or deductions for charitable dontaions). It's the same reason that I expect them to consider our opinion when they make legislation- it is their duty as elected officials. If I don;t like it, I vote to the contrary or I can move.

-Andrew

 

[jfulcer]

Originally posted by hmp2z
Hehehehe, I would be seriously surprised if all of the people getting this tax break are raising their children to be contributing members to society. In fact, if that were true, I might actually want to have children myself!!!

Being in a city has given us the most wonderful opportunity to see Inner City schools in our area with a 54% graduation rate, and this is just for elementary school. I see how parents just don't care, don't participate in their children's lives and really shouldn't have been allowed to reproduce. I can understand how you, as a teacher in those schools, could be rather jaded when it comes to children in this environment. It's a sobering sight, to say the least.

That being said, I don't have a 'reason' for the tax break for children other than it's just a tax break. My guess it's in place to help parents raise children. If I added up all the amounts that I spend on my kids (yes, my choice) that little $400 credit is just a drop in the bucket, if that.

Do you own a house? There's tax breaks for people who own houses. Should we be questioning why you get a break when those that are renting don't? There's tax breaks for those who itemize their returns. There's breaks everywhere, and penalties too. I wish there was a tax break for teachers in inner city schools. I wish there were a tax break for teachers in any schools. Penalties to ambulance chasing lawyers. (with apologies to lawyers here on the DIS)

Life isn't fair. The Grass is always greener on the other side. Write your congressman, like the article says. If you really feel that strongly about it, write a <i>personal</i> letter, not the 'form letter' on the site. Send one to the president too.

 

[katerkat]

Originally posted by wvjules
If you think about it, people with children are contributing more to the economy than those without children. We buy kids clothes, shoes, etc seasonally since they're always growing out of them. We buy more food for our home, we even buy bigger homes to hold our "herds". Therefore, the extra contribution we make to the economy deserves a$400 rebate. Afterall, we're gonna spend it on our offspring anyway.

Just to be contrary....

You should see how much I spend at Petsmart on my boys! Food alone costs nearly $50 a month! Then you've got litter, and toys, and vet appointments with vaccinations and neuterings... And my boys don't have a cheap litterbox, either, they have a fancy expensive Littermaid. And several cat trees and cat beds, scattered throughout the house.

But does the government give me a tax break for these guys? I pump money into the economy and the government doesn't care!

 

[amw5g]

Originally posted by wvjules
If you think about it, people with children are contributing more to the economy than those without children. We buy kids clothes, shoes, etc seasonally since they're always growing out of them. We buy more food for our home, we even buy bigger homes to hold our "herds". Therefore, the extra contribution we make to the economy deserves a$400 rebate. Afterall, we're gonna spend it on our offspring anyway.

Hrm...sounds like a pretty good argument. However, it's worthy to note that families also consume more that isn't paid for necessarily by the family itself- public education and insurance come to mind.

So, to contribute more to the economy, you would have to making not only what a childless couple makes, but also what the family cosumes beyond what you are directly paying for AND you would have to spend that surplus on US consumer goods or invest in in domestic assets (i.e. buy some stock or bonds).

Also, I doubt that beyond the house, most of the items that families buy were produced outside the US .

Let me take a chance to reiterate here that I'm not anti-kid or anti-parent. I'm just pointing out that the theory that families add more to the economy is not as clearcut as it may first seem to be.

Regards,
Andrew

 

[caitycaity]

to be honest -- dh and i would contribute less to the economy with kids than we would without.

think about it:

right now we are dinks in our twenties with very little in savings. we choose to spend most of our money now b/c we can. we do have a limited amount of savings towards retirement, but that's it. we are big contributors to the economy.

when we have kids, we will be a bit older, and saving more towards our retirement. and with kids, of course, we will also start saving for their college funds. now having kids/not having kids will have no impact on our salary, so there is a finite amount. with kids -- we will end up saving more of our money than spending it as we would if we were single. we wouldn't be saving for anyone's college education.



at any rate, to sum up my feelings on this:

1) i don't think it's fair that there is a per child tax credit
2) i realise that life (and the tax code) are not fair
3) i let my elected representatives know how i feel on this issue
4) regardless of number 2, i have the right to express my displeasure about number 1. if you don't like it, ignore me.

 

[Mskanga]

This tax cut does not only involve the child credit , there are many other things that are also changing ( e.g tax witholding braket ). Why do some people focus on the child credit alone , is beyond me.
If this was the only tax credit that they were coming out with now, I would say you have a point there, but I believe other people will be able to get other tax breaks that we may or may not be able to use.

 

[caitycaity]

Why do some people focus on the child credit alone , is beyond me.

i focus on that alone b/c that is the only part of the tax package that i don't like.

just because parts of something are good, doesn't mean i have to agree with the whole thing.