Why do you get to pay less taxes because you have kids.

[Emilyngh]

 Not saying it is this way all the time but the household that could really actually use the tax break to help with their kids probably don't spend it on the kid. Can anyone say big screen tv and a cable bill. Just the same as standing behind somebody using their vision card to by grocieres and buying a 30 pack of Budweiser and a box of marbolos with cash.

Unless their child is starving and freezing without any clothing or shoes, pretty sure that the $1k per year max tax credit is spent on the kid.   It's funny accounting to pretend that the at least $1k a year spent on food and basics (possibly diapers, etc) for a kid is not from the tax credit, but the tv they might have purchased is.

[acroy]

The tax code is what it is because Uncle Sam has decided to subsidize buying a house, giving to charity, investment losses, and having children. Heck I think I saw that you can deduct parking expenses, so I guess driving a car in an urban area is subsidized too!

These activities make up the American Dream. According to the tax code.

Also, we have a massive primary education system that childless people have to help pay for, and guess what, our taxes go to pay for welfare as well.

[Jamesqf]

People are able to live longer now than ever before.  Someone living to 90 or 100 is not uncommon any more.  You're always going to be able to find the occasional random outlier in data (like your mining geologist).  The bulk of people over 80 are going to need some pretty extensive/expensive medical care.

Not really accurate.  Yes, people live longer, but the also live healthier (or could, if they chose).  So back in Bismark's day most people were old and decrepit at 65, and might live 5-10 years beyond that.  Nowadays old and decrepit might start at 75-80, and people live 5-10 years beyond that*.  Seems like we've added a decade or so of healthy & potentially productive life, no?

*Ignoring stuff like advanced 'life support', which is basically keeping a dead body from decaying too obviously.

[luigi49]

mostly kids stimulate the economy

[Zaga]

Exemptions (you get one each per child, and one for yourself, too) were originally intended to make it so you didn't pay taxes on the amount of money you needed to survive.

Obviously, this was not adjusted to inflation for a long time, because if it was then each exemption would be $20k+, instead of the $3900 that it was in 2013.

This is also why these exemptions phase out. In the eyes of the government, they give you the exemption because you need it. Once you make enough money, you no longer need it.

I think the math still works just fine, when you put the exemptions on top of the standard deduction.

DH and I are married filing jointly.  For 2013 the standard deduction was $12,200.  Add in the personal exemptions of $3,900 for each of us and you have $20K of our income not taxed in 2013.  Yeah, I think we could survive on that.  Maybe not in our current house, probably not able to save for the future, but we could do it.

[lr]

Yes but the parent is in control of the money.

Babies are bad with money. They drool over every purchase.

...the household that could really actually use the tax break to help with their kids probably don't spend it on the kid.

I'd argue the rich waste society's resources worse than the poor, but whatever. Everyone should spend more wisely.  Let's not stereotype poor people with stories about TV's and cigarettes.  Let's look at actual research.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens-when-the-poor-receive-a-stipend/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

we have a massive primary education system that childless people have to help pay for...

acroy, I'm with you. These childless people continue to expect working parents to subsidize decades of the education, food, and housing for all past, present, and future dentists, farmers, and human beings everywhere, and yet they barely pay anything for the public schools that help keep their future surgeons from becoming their future carjackers.  When are these these people going to pull their own weight?

[dragoncar]

OP, have you considered that these tax breaks might not be about grown-ups and their lifestyle choices?  A few thousand bucks can prevent children from growing up in poverty, which hurts everyone.  That's why the tax breaks go with the children, not the parents.

Yes but the parent is in control of the money. Not saying it is this way all the time but the household that could really actually use the tax break to help with their kids probably don't spend it on the kid. Can anyone say big screen tv and a cable bill. Just the same as standing behind somebody using their vision card to by grocieres and buying a 30 pack of Budweiser and a box of marbolos with cash.

Is this not a generalization?  We use our tax refund to buy educational materials for our kids and pay summer camps, homeschool classes, etc.  It all goes back to them.  I have never purchased a TV. Not sure why you think that people that have kids misuse money more than other people?

It's a generalization.  You seem to spend your money wisely, but in general people don't.  It's not that people with kids misuse money more than other people, it's that most people misuse money and people with kids get extra money from the government.  Also, money is fungible as pointed out above.

On a public policy scale, I see the value in giving extra money to parents.  I think there are better ways to ensure that kids are well cared for, and also think that ideally the burden should be placed on parents to care for their own offspring.  On an individual level, why would I be happy that I'm subsidizing breeders?

[Hedge_87]

http://m.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/american-schools-vs-the-world-expensive-unequal-bad-at-math/281983/
Doesn't look like all my money is doing any good. I know it is supposed to be a comedy but the first five minutes or so of the movie idiocracy sums it up pretty well. On another point everybody seems to think that since I don't like this tax deduction that I've just abandoned the future generations of this country. I donate time to big brothers big sisters, help with a youth group at the church, and have taken vacation days to help my wife with field trips (she is a special ed teacher).

[Left]

Think of it this way... Single people pay more because they have to pay a "lifetime's" share to the government to get things like SS/medicare/etc...
Having kids means you made another generation of tax payers... So parents get taxed a bit lower so the kids can grow into future tax payers?

Not a good argument but I haven't seen it put this way before :D

[AlanStache]

SS is an "earned benefit", we pay into it with the expectation of getting cash back in the end.  Yes cash can not be eaten so a next generation is still needed and it is mildly like a Ponzi scheme, and I would still like the next generation to pay for the common defense.  It has sort of bugged me that the child credit is taken as a given without any real justification behind it, even those that say it encourages people to have kids dont seem to really believe that it does.

[Undecided]

@Undecided:

You're right, it does cut both ways and that was my point.  My numbers aren't spot on, just a quick estimate, but the principle holds.

The tax code isn't fair to singles, marrieds or anyone in between, particularly when "fair" means "I get a the same or better deal as all other taxpayers."

If the principle is that there is a "marriage penalty," I don't agree that it holds. I looked at several scenarios and many of them are very close while others would see decreased taxes for a married couple vs. two singles with the same component incomes. Perhaps your situation is one in which you do pay significantly more (although on the numbers you posted it's not obviously so for every couple with that split), and I don't mean to challenge your individual assertion, but I throw this out there in the name of combatting the false impression that there's some general marriage penalty.

[lr]

On an individual level, why would I be happy that I'm subsidizing breeders?

Did you have a rough childhood? Are you joking? Tax policy aside, my heart would break if my kids ever described parenthood that way.

[iamlindoro]

How has this thread stretched into two long pages without anyone using the word "complainypaints?"

OP, honestly this just sounds like enormously sour grapes.  You have a job, your youth, and frankly, live in one of the most advantaged countries in the world.  You have the ability to take *your* situation, and turn it into FI/RE.  Don't worry about what everyone else gets, and any perceived cost to you.  Focus instead on how tremendously lucky you are to be in your place in life.

You don't have to like every government policy, but you owe it to yourself to not devote an instant to "poor me" thoughts.  You'll be happier, and you'll have a lot more time to devote to worthwhile pursuits.

[dragoncar]

On an individual level, why would I be happy that I'm subsidizing breeders?

Did you have a rough childhood? Are you joking? Tax policy aside, my heart would break if my kids ever described parenthood that way.

Not particularly.  I don't think the world needs to increase reproduction rates though.  The world would certainly be better off if people having kids in the us adopted instead. 

[lr]

Gotcha. I thought the breeder comment was a slight at parenthood itself, based on a lack of empathy for families

I did not see your broader point, about how and where people should reproduce, coming.

[Self-employed-swami]

I would actually go further and say that there should possibly even be more incentives to have kids...at least as far as I'm concerned, there aren't enough incentives for me to have kids in the US.  If I got a year of maternity leave and daycare and other incentives that made it easier and less expensive for me to have a kid, I might consider it to be worth my while.  As it is, it seems like more trouble and expense than it's worth.

Move North! We get 50 weeks paid maternity/parental leave (can be split between either parent in the first 2 years of the kid's life) at 55% of your last years income, to a max of ~$520/week.

And daycare subsidies in every province that doesn't have centralized government daycare 

[Hedge_87]

How has this thread stretched into two long pages without anyone using the word "complainypaints?"

OP, honestly this just sounds like enormously sour grapes.  You have a job, your youth, and frankly, live in one of the most advantaged countries in the world.  You have the ability to take *your* situation, and turn it into FI/RE.  Don't worry about what everyone else gets, and any perceived cost to you.  Focus instead on how tremendously lucky you are to be in your place in life.

You don't have to like every government policy, but you owe it to yourself to not devote an instant to "poor me" thoughts.  You'll be happier, and you'll have a lot more time to devote to worthwhile pursuits.

I know I know. I'm working on the whole circle of control and being happy for what I got. Which compared to most of the worlds population is a whole hell of a lot. Just was having a minor relapse when I started this thread.

[iamlindoro]

I know I know. I'm working on the whole circle of control and being happy for what I got. Which compared to most of the worlds population is a whole hell of a lot. Just was having a minor relapse when I started this thread.

Great attitude (and I mean that!).  I love it! Go out and do it!