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

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

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

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

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

  • gloriousspearfish@feddit.dk
    0·
    2 years ago

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

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

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

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      0·
      2 years ago

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

      • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 years ago

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

    • do_not_pm_me@thelemmy.club
      0·
      2 years ago

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

  • davemeech@lemmy.ca
    0·
    2 years ago

    Unpopular as advertised, sure. But man, what an absolute weapons-grade bad take, with beginning to end poor reasoning.

  • Leg@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    The fact that there exists a mind who can think this is a good take has me deeply concerned for the future.

    Upvote.

  • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 years ago

    Until the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society

    Just remember that after the age you can work, you will be a drain on other people’s children.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    Parents pay less in taxes because they’ve contributed a human to the system which will inevitably be taxed.

    It’s an incentive for procreation.

    Frankly the incentive isn’t good enough.

  • JonsJava@lemmy.worldM
    0·
    2 years ago

    Upvoted because you’re dead wrong, in my opinion. Your argument incentivizes the demise of the human race by saying “stop having kids to save money”. Society is made up of generations. Get rid of the youngest generation, you remove humanity.

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 years ago

      I thought the whole eugenics thing was generally agreed to be bad, especially when enforced by economic class, but guess it’s in fashion again, sort of like it was ~100 years ago?

      • lightnegative@lemmy.world
        0·
        2 years ago

        Eugenics is how we turned wolves into dogs and selectivity bred specific working instincts into them. It’s how we bred disease resistant crop varieties or crops with heavier / larger fruits.

        Wait, if it works everywhere else, surely it works on humans too?

    • corroded@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      2 years ago

      Children are not a drain on society, they are society. You cannot have a society for longer than a single generation without children.

      Nowhere did I suggest that people should just completely stop having children. The fact is that children are extremely expensive, and having more than one per adult is quite frankly unnecessary. At least until the unchecked population growth is under control, reproduction should be disincentivized as much as possible, and society should not be forced to bear the brunt of parents’ poor reproductive decisions.

  • GBU_28@lemm.ee
    0·
    2 years ago

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

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

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

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

    Upvote for using the sub correctly