Parents Should Pay Higher Taxes

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

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

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

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

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

TheAlbatross, (edited )

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

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

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

Xariphon,

Also the idea of yet another way or reason to exclude young people from society, yet another way to make them other or less than is the opposite of what modern society needs, and should be treated as fundamentally offensive.

corroded,

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.

TheAlbatross,

Overpopulation is a myth that results in supporting eugenics.

corroded,

This is so wrong it’s not even funny. Look at CO2 emissions and climate change. Do you really think we’d be destroying the environment the same way we do now if industry wasn’t producing products for billions of people?

TheAlbatross,

These can be addressed in ways other than eugenics. What you’ve suggested here is essentially that. And it only penalizes those without money. The rich can have as many kids as they want.

Cap,
Cap avatar

Upvoted because it truly is an unpopular opinion.

FfaerieOxide,
FfaerieOxide avatar

Do you see no social benefit to reproductive labor?

At the point that they reach maturity and are gainfully employed and paying taxes, they become a functioning member of society.

How can they reach that point if no one has and raises them?

Quik,

Children will (on average) be a net-positive/taxed in the future, therefore societies incentivize having children by letting parents pay less taxes. Also, children will completely form the society of the future, so different groups in a society having children is probably a good idea for a more diverse society in the future. As having children is expensive it is probably a good idea to let less wealthier people also have children, as you probably don’t want to just exclude them.

garzaza77,

you’re right, it’s the parents that aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, not Fortune 100 companies or billionaires /s

Fedditor385,

I would say the problem is not in taxing, it’s in the school system. Kids used to start working at 14, now they study until 30. You have “adults” that are basically still children from tax perspective. We need less school (the stuff we learn, not to ever use it in life again…) and more work.

upandatom,

The world is vastly more complex than it ever was before. I get it feels useless, but learning anything makes us smarter.

Being smarter means we will handle situations intelligently. There is no useless learning.

corroded,

I don’t really have a problem with adults that study until they’re 30, as long as they come out of school being an expert in a field that’s actually useful to society. A medical student just out of high school who goes into pre-med, medical school, then residency will be close to that age by the time they finish their education. Somebody who hops from major to major and eventually gets a degree in philosophy when they’re 30… maybe find something that’s actually useful first. If you’re working and contributing and decide you want to study art history for your own personal edification, go for it.

cosmicrookie,
@cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

Your argument doesn’t really make sense though. If benefits should be limited to the ones who can pay taxes, why have taxes! They could just pay for what they need.

Taxing is a community safety net to make sure everybody gets what they need, even individuals who can’t contribute. What you are describing sounds more like a social insurance where only people who have contributed can be covered (similar to pension)

corroded,

Having taxes ensures that all members of society get the same benefit. Lets say for instance that it costs the fire department $5000 to put out a house fire for a low-income family. My income is higher, so I pay more taxes toward the fire department, but they still get the same response to their house fire that I would. That’s exactly how it should be.

Now lets say that same low-income family has 8 kids. They don’t need to have 8 kids (they don’t need to have any), and regardless of whether they’re a low-income household or part of the 1%, chances are a good number of those children won’t grow up to produce a net gain to the rest of society. The parents both work entry-level jobs, so they’re at least productive members of society. The 8 kids are still in school and produce no immediate benefit to society. Why should I be paying for their children when their children produce no benefit to any of the taxpayers; they could have just as easily aborted every pregnancy and not only would they be better able to support themselves, there would be 8 less non-productive individuals for the taxpayers to support. Once those 8 kids start working, then yes, my taxes should go to help support their healthcare, housing, food, etc; they might be the person making my sandwich, or they might be the person doing my brain surgery. The point is that they are contributing what they can.

Anyone who is productive in the world should receive the same social benefits as any other person who is productive in their same societal group. Children are not productive. They have the possibility of being productive, but not until they reach maturity. Until they reach that point, the only people who should be paying for them are the ones who made the poor decision to bring them into the world in the first place.

KombatWombat,

It is true that before reaching adulthood children are a financial burden for society, but primarily they are a financial burden on parents. Tax breaks help make it more affordable and a viable option for more than just the wealthy.

But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage. Some people are not responsible enough to be good parents, or otherwise are not in the right circumstances where it would make sense. But generally children are an investment in society’s future, and very much worth the costs of supporting with projected future contributions.

corroded,

But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage.

This is going off on a bit of a tangent, but you’re absolutely right. Having children is the most selfish act possible. Nobody on the planet asked to come into existence; we’re all here because of a choice our parents made. Regardless of your place in the world, no human experiences their entire life without pain and suffering. I am personally very happy with my life, but there have of course been ups and downs. By producing a child, you’re guaranteeing that another person will experience suffering and sadness. Nobody lives forever, so you’re condemning another person to death.

Having children (to some degree, not unchecked) is necessary for the human race to continue to exist, but the idea that producing and raising a child is a selfless act is as far from the truth as you can get. If you consider a theoretical world where everyone was suddenly sterile, the human race would cease to exist within a very short time. A lot of other things would cease to exist: Sadness and heartbreak, murder, rape, war, terrorism, poverty, starvation.

One might argue that brief periods of happiness give a reason for continuing human existence, but is this really true? Most people, if they’re lucky, go through life in a neutral state; we might not be happy or sad, but we’re “doing okay.” If suffering is a -1 and happiness is a +1, with everyday life being a 0, then every person is going to ultimately average out to somewhere around zero. By having a child, you’re making an irrevocable choice that you want another human being to live a life that’s either neutral to a point that’s statistically insignificant or predominantly negative, and you’re making this choice because something in your brain is telling you to. It’s the epitome of selfishness.

fine_sandy_bottom,

Breathtaking.

arin,

China had a one child policy for decades, now look at how they are scrambling panicking at their loss of young adult labor and aging population of seniors that can’t work.

No calculating government will shoot their own balls. Lol China…

angrystego,

Only rich people should have children - that’s a seriously unpopular opinion. Upvoted.

Dasus,

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,

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?

Dasus,

Congratulations, that’s the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on Lemmy.

negativeyoda,

Yeah. Just what the world needs… a bunch of neglected kids who will rob me in 15 years.

Your parents should have taken assistance so you could have been weaned on something other than paint chips.

Better yet, everyone should stop having kids so humans will die out. I’m not sure who will produce food for us or wipe our ass in the nursing home someday, but we’ll get those sweet, sweet tax breaks in the meantime

Churbleyimyam,

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.

Woht24,

Further, he was a drain on society until he was of age too.

This is such ‘fuck you, I want mine’ mentality.

corroded,

I was a drain on society until I started working. My parents should have paid higher taxes to compensate, or perhaps thought twice about having a child in the first place. I can’t go back in time 40 years and change tax laws to support what I’ve learned as an adult, but I can certainly advocate for better laws now.

Furthermore, I will not be a drain on other people’s children once I reach the age that I can no longer work. At some point, I will reach an age where my physical and mental state no longer allows me to be a productive member of society. With any luck, that will be very close to my death; hopefully, I’ll die while still gainfully employed. If that doesn’t happen, though, my retirement savings will be more than enough to last me through the very few years between the point that I stop working and pass away.

Randomgal,

Okay but hear me out: Less children, more robots. GG

Leg,

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

Upvote.

ShadowAndFlame,

I believe, as Jonathan Swift did, that we should simply eat the children.

FanciestPants,

It was a proposal, and a quite modest one if I recall. Also hella satirical in case anyone thought Swift believed that.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • unpopularopinion@lemmy.world
  • DreamBathrooms
  • ngwrru68w68
  • modclub
  • magazineikmin
  • thenastyranch
  • rosin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • GTA5RPClips
  • provamag3
  • ethstaker
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • osvaldo12
  • everett
  • cubers
  • tacticalgear
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •