Should the US Continue To Offer Federal Income Tax Deductions For More Than Two Children
Posted: Tuesday, April 12, 2011
by Rose-Marie Chaperon
Chaperon Consulting, LLC
So, What Do You Think? Should the US Continue To Offer Federal Income Tax Deductions For More Than Two Children When Americans Have Such High Natural Resource Consumption Rates?
Reactions from students
Student 1 –
I personally do not feel that the government should have any impact on people's decision about how many children they should have. I do however, feel that many people that cannot afford more children should really look at their situation and decide what is really best for their family as far as how many children that they can afford to raise and to provide for them what is necessary. The best way to accomplish this would be through government education programs on being parents and also financial planning.
I am still a bit on the fence about some of the tax benefits that are given to families with children, especially the earned income credit. I have seen so many people that get this money abuse it. If given this money than I think there should be some way to control how a family can use it. They should not be able to just waste it on junk. There should be specifics on how it can be used. I know that developing such a program would be difficult but, I think that it would be more beneficial to the families receiving it. As far as limiting people to claiming only 2 children when they have more to me just looks like you are penalizing people for the number of children that they have. The child tax credit currently has no limit just a different way of calculating the credit as the number of children increases.
Response to the above student:
I like your gentle way of addressing the issue of human ignorance on managing money. Yes indeed, many people receiving money for families through tax incentives do not know how to manage money. While you and I might be happy to have a million dollars, I am not sure if I (for one) would know how to manage it the best. Such is the case for many people that they really do not know what to do with $2000. Your point is well spoken.
Another response:
Did you realize that in your article China's One Child Policy. One Child Policy in China Designed to Limit Population Growth that this law does not apply to everyone in China? According to this article "Citizens living in rural areas and minorities living in China are not subject to the law" and this is because the population is not as high. They are only trying to control how many people are living in the cities and large communities. If you have ever watched the history channel, there are way to many people living in one apartment and there is not enough housing for all of them. It was meant to slow the population by one generation. I would hate to live in a big city in China. So, the people have a choice, they just choose to live in a city where the population is being controlled.
They do have legitimate reasons for this policy. One of the reason they have decided to do this, " China, with 1.3 billion people, will soon surpass the U.S. as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. China’s population, like the U.S., has grown by over 50 percent in the past four decades. Around 2025, China’s population will reach a peak of nearly 1.5 billion people before stabilizing and then gradually declining" and this effects everyone in the country.
In 1979, Mao Zedong believed that it was the obligation of the people to reproduce causing this tremendous growth in their country. You may believe that the policy is wrong, but isn't it also wrong then to have a ruler tell you that you must have children and that it is your obligation to have children? This ban was put in place and the rule was only supposed to be for a period of five years and they are currently thinking of lifting this law to certain regions. I am for population control if it benefits a country as a whole. Good post!
Response:
I appreciate your feedback. However, I still feel that controlling the population by controlling people is not the answer. I do not agree with China's "one child policy" no matter where they enforce it, it is still wrong in my opinion. One area that I feel needs to be more controlled is in immigration. If we cannot support the people that are here than we should limit how many can enter our country. But, that is a different concern on it's own.
Response:
I do agree with the fact we need to control our immigration problem. They also suck off the system and are rewarded by our government and that is not right. Our country should take care of its own people that are in poverty, but parts of our system encourage the poor people to keep having babies and that is wrong. It is not fair to the children to have to live in poverty. So, by eliminating the rewards to have children, maybe the poor people that are having children like dogs have litters of puppies could be eliminated. In the end, it is the children who pay the price for their parents actions. How does that benefit society? I grew up in poverty and had a baby at a very young age, but I knew not to have anymore children because of my situation. As things got better, it was a personal choice not to have anymore children.
You do not have to agree with controlling babies being born in poverty because their parents are rewarded. I love children and they should not suffer because of their adult parents making bad decisions. I am not saying this should apply to everyone, but for people on public assistance that suck the government and the tax payer, who are the ones being given money when they do not pay taxes, this should be controlled. There are people who really need this type of assistance and cannot get it because they have no children, how is that fair?
So, do you believe that I should go have those 10 babies I have always wanted and push that off on the taxpayer? Would that be fair to those children? No, it would not. There has to be some control, especially for those in poverty. If you can afford them, have all the babies you want, but if you are dependent on the system you do not have the right to be having 2, 3, or even more children. I would get a wonderful tax return for sure and would not have to pay taxes out of my checking along with my pay check and my husbands pay. Do you agree with having a limit at least on how many babies are born in poverty or do you still think this is okay? Why is it as much taxes as my husband and I pay that we still have to pay at the end of the year? Where is our incentive? Just wondering.
Thank you for your comment.
Student 2-
If we are going to take family planning advice from any nation in the world, let's skip the advice from China. I have a theory that I easily found research to back it up. In the United States we give tax breaks on larger families. The more children you have, the more tax money we give. As a result, we do not have a child labor issue. Child labor laws are strictly enforced in the United States.
More often than not, parents of juvenile workers have little choice but to send their children off to work; as school fees increase beyond the means of most rural families, educational opportunities for rural children grow increasingly dim. Further, the earnings of children, however meager, represent a substantial portion of much-needed income to poor families. Parents of juvenile laborers rarely have a clear idea of the adverse working conditions and physical risks inherent in industrial work. Moreover, the juvenile workers learn themselves are often reluctant to complain, knowing well the critical nature of their financial contributions to the family. In other words, in China parents must send their underage children to work in order to pay bills. If China gave tax breaks on children, they would not have to send their underage children to work.
As for overpopulation, drive in any North Dakota highway. There are tons of room to build apartment complexes and small towns. If things get too bad we can build larger, taller apartment buildings like the ones in New York City.
Student 3
I feel that in the old days, big families were common because they helped with things such as farming the land to feed their family. Also, catholic families were big because of the " go forth a multiple" aspect that they interpreted from the bible. I think that children are a blessing, but they are also very expensive. I have four teenage children and the expenses just keep getting bigger with age. I did not truly think about how hard it would be to raise them until i got to much older. Now, I understand the meaning of living within your means. With that being said, I feel that with today's down turning economy, the tax incentives are a good thing. The government is also giving tax breaks for things such as, adding energy efficient windows, making work pay credits which gives credits up to $800.00 for a married couple, and college credits for those who go back to school.
If the government is going to help with these things, I feel that they should also help with making sure families can survive as well. But, they should also pass tougher laws for environmental safety. Make it tougher on companies and individuals that cause any type of pollution, as well as stopping the destruction of trees and open lands. In addition, being that over population is so wide spread; maybe they should give incentives to families for keeping the number of children at two.
Student 4:
Is it right to encourage people to have a large family based on a tax incentive? According to the government is paying poor people and some do not even pay taxes. This is harmful to society and to the economy. Families who are at the poverty level do not pay any fair taxes and this is pushed off on others who pay their fair tax and yet they are given more money because they are having children. Why should a family that has no children have to owe the government when those who do not pay taxes get a large return just because they have children? This is not fair to those who decide not to have children or those who have children that are grown. It is bad enough that those who choose not to have children or those who have grown children that they still have to pay for the free education by paying taxes for the school system. Granted, we need the children to have an education, but why should couples who choose not to have children or the elderly couple down the street have to pay taxes for that? If a person is not working, they should not receive any income tax return because they never paid taxes in the first place.
The bigger the family the more natural resources that are consumed. They are bound to use more electric. This means that bigger families eat more livestock and vegetation which in turn means more water for supply. The greater demand the more resources need to be increased. As for China's one child policy, this could be effective. This may alarm some, but our population is growing at a rapid rate and sometimes things need to be controlled. This should mainly apply to those who are on federal assistance and keep having babies to get more money; they also get more money from the government without paying their fair share of taxes.
Student response to student #4
I felt the same way when I had to write a check a couple weeks ago to the IRS for $6,500 I was penalized for not having any dependents. Then again I look at the money I am paying the government as a contribution to America's future. These parents who are unable to take care of these children need all the help they can get. These children did not ask to be born; therefore they should not have to suffer because their parents are not able to provide for them.
As far as China's one child policy, the Chinese government should not have that much right to express its believe on females reproductive rights. As long as people are able to take care of their children, they should be allowed to have them. If we allow governments to tell us how many children we should have, what will prevent them from telling those of us who made a decision not to have children - that we must have at least one child to populate earth.
Another response to the above response:
Thanks for your comment, but if there was control there would not be so many children being born into poverty. If you can afford to have the children than have as many as you want, but if you cannot and are dependent on the taxpayer to raise your children that is wrong. China is so overpopulated they had to do something to control it. In 1979 the ruler expected people to reproduce, he believed it was their duty to have as many children as you could so then they reach an overpopulation problem and they had to do something. I would rather control that than killing innocent babies by forcing abortion. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer, but I do not think that bringing more children into a poverty stricken country is the answer. The parents need to be controlled so the children do not suffer.
Student #5
This is a hard question to answer because I have three kids. On the circumstances of the natural resource rate, I don't know if the US can afford a Federal Income Tax Deductions with the problems we have in our society these days. I would hate for them to take it away because it helps me out. Kids are expensive and when you have to buy things for their needs than it adds up. Now having way too many kids can be a problem like the Octo-mom lady who wants kids for her own selfish needs is not right. To make our society stronger, we need to be able to help our fellow American get buy through hard times. I don't know if I could live in China with their “One Child Policy”. There are lots of orphan kids due to this policy. How are you going to tell someone that they can't keep their kid because they have too many. One day when we can no longer produce and have children than our population growth rate will decrease dramatically. I watch on a TV show about Japan and how their population growth rate is slowing down due to death and not enough birth rate. After what happen with the Tsunami could cause the growth rate to decrease even more.
Student #6
This is my opinion about someone trying to say how many kids one can have : Are you kidding me ? Seriously ? I personally get really upset and bothered when someone decides that they have the right to say how many kids one can have. That is a personal decision. And if you are able to provide for them and all then no-one can say anything. Even if someone would need help still. I feel that, that its a women`s choice and her mate to determine if they would like more than 2 children. I cannot think off the top of my head what type of tax deduction this is that we are talking about. But I think it is where the government gives you money back because you have a child. And if this is then yes I think we should keep this in place. We all need help and that few extra dollars that we would get would be put to good use. It would help us kind of not worry so much about things.
Student #7
The US is considered to be “pro-natal,” meaning that it has national policies in place that encourages people to have more children. One of these policies is the fact that people with more children receive larger income tax deduction. Is it fair to those of us who do not have children? Should we be compensated for not been responsible for destroying the US natural resources? Perhaps not. 2 months ago when I had to write a $6,500 check to the IRS for taxes due, I was upset when my account told me, it is partly because I do not have any dependent to claim. I became envious of those who have dependents to claim on their taxes. Then I thought about it, not having children was my choice, why should my decision affect those who have children? kudos to the government for helping families with children!
I am glad we live in a country where the government offers some type of incentives to parents with children. I am sure a lot of parents can use that incentive to take care of their family. There is no doubt in my mind that the world is overpopulated, if law makers reduce the federal income tax deductions to families, will that prevent people from having more children? I highly doubt it! Income tax deductions or not, people will still have children as long as they can. In some instances, we see women who are unable to take of these children having children, in my opinion that is a much bigger problem.
Rebuttal Response:
Do we really want to encourage people who are on welfare, and economically dependent to have more children?
Response to the above question:
I do not want to encourage them to have more children, at the same time I am not in a position to tell them not to have children. I respect that a woman's right to reproduce should be her decision. My point is I applaud the government for landing a helping hand to these careless parents who do not know when to stop having babies. If these women lived in a third world country, I can assure you they would have stopped after the first child was born. The US is the land of opportunity, these women are simply milking the cow.
Student #8:
I think they should continue to have federal income tax deductions but they should only be able to claim only two kids and not anymore. There are many people out there that seem to use the system when it comes to having children. People should have children because they want to and not to get free money. Children are expensive and they may use that money towards the kids like I do. Whatever money that I get from my return, I put it into their savings for their future. According to the IRS website, your adjusted gross income has to be less a certain amount and more than a certain amount. There are many different ways people are qualified for a tax deduction when it comes to kids.
A rebuttal response to the above student:
If you think they should cap the tax credit to 2 children, should they also cap the welfare system to 2 children as well? What will happen to these mothers who keep on having a child every year simply to benefit from the welfare system? I wonder how they will be able to feed these children if that was the case. I am not a big fan of giving people $$ just because they have children, at the same, I do not want to punish children because of their parents' poor decisions.
Another rebuttal response:
I liked your comments and wanted to jump in. If these women who are having babies based solely on the money, a cap would make them think first before having more. What about instead of giving them more cash money or a tax incentive they receive a few more dollars a month in food stamps? The one problem I could foresee happening is that some people sell their food stamps to get cash. If they know that there is no tax incentive to have more children maybe they will not produce them. I also think that the tax incentive should be capped and that those who do not pay taxes should not receive the same benefits as those who do. This may discourage them from being baby machines. It is sad that children are such an incentive for money when it costs so much to raise them. People just do not think. Another suggestion would be instead of giving it to them for nothing make it mandatory to volunteer in their communities for 20 or so hours a week. This way it may discourage them having more children and then they may think, "if I have to volunteer, I would be better off working a real job" and this would also be beneficial to the community.
I was 18 years old when I became pregnant and I had to go on public assistance. I did not like it, but what choice did I have. Back in the 80's it was only about $200 a month in cash and even less in food stamps. Here is the difference; I did not keep producing children. I was ashamed I had to go on public assistance and knew that I wanted to get off of it and that is what I did. I actually think that the cap should only be one child to discourage so many people from taking advantage of the system. When I was trying to get off, it seemed like the government actually made it more attractive to stay on it. When you figure what the minimum wage was back than and the money I was receiving in cash, food stamps, and medical card I felt I made out just staying on the assistance I was being offered. These programs should be for those who truly need it, not the ones who keep reproducing for the benefits.
Response to the above comment:
"Baby machine" Woman you are too funny!. When I first came to this country I noticed that most women who lived in the urban areas had at least 4 children, a living boyfriend or a fiancé of 20 years, a new Cadillac or a New Lexus parked in front of the low income houses they lived in. I used to ask myself how is it that they are able to afford these nice cars and jewelry without full time employment. Later I found out that they depended on a check from the government to survive and the more children they had the more $$ they received.
Now, that I am older and I am happy with my decision not to have had the opportunity to add children to the crazy over-populated world, but my tax $$ are going to these women or as you call it "baby machine". Am I happy about it? Not really! Should I be upset? Actually I am not, because if .001% of what has been taken from my income actually makes a difference in the life of a child, to me that is a miracle.
America is the land of opportunity, everyone take advantages of the opportunities differently than others do.
Response:
Glad I could make you laugh. LOL! Seriously though, I do not mind helping those who want to help themselves. I had one child at the age of 18 years old and do not believe in abortion so I had him. I love him to death and have no regrets. I was on public assistance, but I did not take advantage of the system by becoming a baby machine. I actually have pride and was ashamed to be on public assistance. We cannot change the past, but we can change the future by not increasing the poverty level. It is sad to see people take advantage of the system by bringing innocent children into the world because of money. It just goes to show the evil of money when put in the wrong hands.
I still see people living in poverty on government assistance that have more material items than my husband and I who work very hard. Thankful I am not a materialist person. My husband works in environments that will probably kill him one day and why should he not have incentives? Why are incentives given to those who do not work or that are not productive members of society? I think that the children should not have to pay the price because their parents are careless (by not using birth control) and a child should not have to live in poverty because of a monthly check. I think those on public assistance should be mandated to do something constructive for their communities at least. What would you say to designing a program like that? I would bet that most on public assistance would be against it, but if mandated it is possible that we would see the poverty level drop. One can only hope.
Another response:
25% of our children live in poverty. Doesn't this penalize the kids rather than the parents?
Another response:
25% - I thought the number was much higher than what it is now. In a way it penalizes the kids because they are the ones going to bed hungry at night. So my point is if .0001% of my tax dollars can help a child in poverty, why not let it.
Student #9
I have five children. I do not feel that someone who has children should be entitled to more than someone who doesn’t. However I do not have any issues with the current system. I believe that if families with children should get a tax break and those without children should get some other incentive equal to that of the other. Some individuals want children and cannot have children. Why should they be penalized for that through taxes? Yes those who have children may use more energy but I know some individuals without children who consume a lot of energy as well. There is a difference in using energy for need and using it for enjoyment.
Response to the above student:
It is nice to see that you feel this way. I agree with you. My husband and I choose not to bring children into this world because it is just messed up and we pay high taxes. Why is it that the people on public assistance receives $8,000 on their income tax return while not even paying taxes; just because they have children? Our system is messed up because it is rewarding people for having children when, like you stated, there are people who cannot have them and they are penalized. Take the elderly couple who is on a fixed income and their children are grown. They paid into the school system for many years and I believe that when you are an elderly person that you should not have to pay the school or library taxes any longer. That extra cost should be picked up by those who have children in the school system, not those who have no children, the elderly, or the people who cannot have children.
The more children one has, the more resources that are used up; supply and demand. They need more livestock and vegetation, which in turn requires more water. The bigger the family the more electricity that is used. Children are horrible at turning lights off and seem to over flush the toilet or leave the water running or dripping. It is nice to see that someone with so many children understands this. Nice job on your comments.
Student #10
I do not think that the government should decide how many kids people should have. I think that people should be able to deduct the amount of kids they have on their Federal Income Taxes but I dont feel that people should be getting such high returns because they are low income. I think the deduction should be the same for everyone. There shouldn't be an earned income credit. Too many people rely on this money and arent productive members of society throughout the year. Many times this money isnt even used towards the children. People should not be rewarded for having kids they cannot afford. My husband and I work very hard and are full time students. We also have 2 kids and 1 on the way, we struggle financially and receive no breaks from the government. It is unfortunate that people have come to expect free money while others have to work hard to make ends meet.
On the Department of Human Services website, low income people are being encouraged to take advantage of the system by getting as much as they can for free. They say that even if you didnt work much, you should still file to get the earned income credit, they even advertise that you can get up to $5,657. People need to be encouraged to find work, support their families or educated on proper birth control instead of producing more children to get more money.
Response:
Wow! I learned something new today. A person who goes all year long without a job can still receive money from the IRS simply because that person has a child? Good Lord!, the US is the land of opportunity for real. I think it is better to be unemployed than it is is to be employed. If I am unemployed with minor children, I can get free housing, food stamps, Medicaid, a monthly check and at the end of the year I can file my taxes and received money from uncle Sam. People who are employed, have to deal with the stress of high production demands, high traffic, high gas prices, high cost of medical insurance and deductible, they have to pay taxes and sometimes what is left from their income is not even enough to feed their children a healthy meal. If we think about this, the working class should be pissed at the government.
This Article has been viewed 2,130 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.