Wow, I just checked back, ya'll took this thing from mocking an article that makes some ridiculous financial and social assumptions to all sorts of places. XD
I will just reiterate:
1. Again, I used to be a child myself. I realize in a society that has children that isn't some weird hateful anti child regime, there have to be some accomadations made for them that are going to affect the general public. What those are and how far they go is a matter of considerable debate, and this reasoning can lead to some very silly initiatives ("It's for the children!"), but the point is, kids exist. Even if you don't have any of your own you have to deal with that fact. I certainly think there's a need for people without children to be socially conscious and voluntarily contribute to the welfare of kids in ways they agree with.
2. I for one support the idea that parents should be the ones who have legal rights over their children (while acknowledging children are not property). But it's quid pro quo: if you have power over something, you must also have responsibility over that thing in any sane society. Look, if I were to have a child, I'd want certain guaranteed rights over how that child was raised/schooled/etc. But that means I don't get to ask other people to contribute to my choice to have the child. Now if they want to contribute voluntarily, that's different.
You get what I'm saying? There's not a perfect analogy for this, but it's like if we don't tax your church in the interest of freedom of religion, we also can't use tax dollars to donate to that church. That's not a direct comparison but it's the best one I can rattle off.
Maybe it's more like if you have the right to say any thing you want and you say something stupid and people roundly mock you for it, that's the price of being able to speak freely. Not quite the right analogy either.
3. I don't think it's good to use the tax code to pick winners and losers and subsidize certain life choices over others. The thing is cutting parents a break on taxes and not treating people preferentially for federal income tax purposes are not mutually exclusive. If I were king and I chose to keep income tax, I wouldn't have child related deductions or credits, however I'd also institute much, much lower base tax rates so you'd still be better off even without them. That's my solution, it's not one that will ever come to pass but there you go.
4. I do agree generally that the status quo is people without children do subsidize people with children overall, unless you're just openly hostile to children you're bound to have special laws, etc. covering them). I personally am not against that as a general notion, it's the form it currently takes that I don't like.
I'm not saying there needs to be no government spending concerning children specifically either, I'm generally for smaller government and privatization of the education system but even I acknowledge we're still going to have to have special agencies, incarceration facilities, etc. for juveniles for various reasons. I hate to focus on the bad eggs like that but if someone else's kids are damaging the property of myself and others, we're going to have to do something about that. But that in my view isn't subsidizing parents, that's just keeping public order. The point being we can have reasonable government spending on child related services that isn't a backdoor wealth transfer.
5. Someone made the very good point that no society of any size is going to spend all your tax money as you wish it would. I agree with that, but I also want to point out when the vast majority of money is going to things an individual does not support or think are reasonable, you disenfrachise that person. That's not good; people who have absolutely no voice for their ideas in government, who also aren't allowed to "opt out" of the systems that government creates, have no incentive to be civic minded and the more you marginalize them the more problems you are creating for yourself no matter how much you disagree with that person's desires, ideas, etc.
It's my opinion that no good can come of telling people "you don't like it, tough". I'm not saying this was anyone's attitude here in the forum, it's just something I see in real life sometimes that bugs me; it seems anyone who isn't a SWPL or something close to it is being more and more marginalized sometimes. I wish we were moving toward a more voluntary society overall rather than one that insists that using the government to force everyone to pay for things a plurality wants is the only legitimate means of accomplishing things, that's all I am saying.
As far as what childless or child free or whatever you care to call it people can do for children, I'll list some examples of things I've done:
1. Support the organizations that do activities you think are appropriate or good for kids.
2. Think about local solutions that benefit all parties. For example, my apartment complex wanted to demolish the playground. I actually joined the protest because without the playground there isn't a designated safe area for the kids in the complex to play in, and that's not beneficial to anyone. Also while it's true I'm paying for the playground with my rent checks, I've also got to think about the community I live in, do I really want it to be a place that's not accomadating to children at all?
I could go on but those are all the points I wanted to throw in to this interesting discussion about... a lot. XD