4 ms·

>The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing. Ah yes, the lofty government subsidy of x < $600 on average per family that has enough taxable income

by smeeth 6y ago

>The government already heavily subsidises child-rearing. Ah yes, the lofty government subsidy of x < $600 on average per family that has enough taxable income to receive the CDCTC (x < $100 all families with children)[0]. The cost of raising a child for an average family is $12,000 per year[1]. > Child-rearing is given an arbitrary pass that other equally charitable actions wouldn't get. Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years and a boatload of money to create another person in the workforce who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes. Considering GDP per capita in the USA is ~$62,000 and rising, I think it is pretty safe to assume that your average-ly skilled single childless person contributing anything less than 20 hrs/week to just about any charity isn't even in the ballpark of "equally charitable." >This model might not be viable forever as the world population keeps growing. This is a whole other can of worms. Yeah, this is the "The Population Bomb"[2] argument that could possibly be the case but so far has no real evidence beyond hypothesis to support it... since 1968. [0] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/141776/understanding-child-care-subsidies-in-the-tax-system_1.pdf https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publicat... [1] https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-child https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2017/01/13/cost-raising-chil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

nicbou 6y ago
Great answer! I didn't know about The Population Bomb. I was more worried about climate change. As far as I know, the planet can feed a few billion extra people. > Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years [...] to create another person [...] who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes Let's not forget that this person will eventually retire and require increasingly expensive care. That makes me curious. If the current economy can only function with a growing population, then it takes > 1 person to subsidise your upbringing/retirement. Does that mean that 1 human life costs more than the output of a human's entire life?
- jelliclesfarm 6y ago
  Only if we are Luddites. The argument that we need more children to take care of the elderly is moot ..and false.
alisonkisk 6y ago
You forgot the $10k/yr public/charter school tuition. Those people making $62K are getting paid for their work, not donating it.
thedufer 6y ago
> Ah yes, the lofty government subsidy of x < $600 on average per family that has enough taxable income to receive the CDCTC (x < $100 all families with children)[0]. You chose one particularly inexpensive subsidy, and ignored everything else. 200 days/year of free childcare is not free. Maternity/paternity leave is coming out of someone's pocket. Many social programs are heavily skewed towards children (SNAP participants are around 1/2 children, despite them only being 1/4 of the population, for example). I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things - modern society makes having children expensive, and it's obviously best for all of us if we ensure some base level of care for them. But we don't have to pretend it isn't happening.
- smeeth 6y ago
  Yeah, that was a conscious choice of mine. I adhere to a narrower definition of what a subsidy is than you do: a benefit conferred by government to promote a specific behavior. In the case of SNAP I think you've confused secondary/tertiary effects of a subsidy with a subsidy itself. In the case of education, I think you've confused an externality of an investment in education with a subsidy. I'm not sure you can even consider maternity/paternity leave a government subsidy considering what federal law exists for leave is unpaid (maybe if you consider the continuation of healthcare benefits?). I can see how some would think I'm splitting hairs here. Taken to its logical conclusion, I could argue with your broad definition that just about any subsidy or tax on anything is also a subsidy or tax on raising children. E.g. families have more cell phones and higher cell phone bills, so taxes on cell phone bills are also taxes on having children. Gas taxes are a tax on extracurricular activities for your kids. That's a little much for me, I prefer to call them what they are, secondary/tertiary effects of a subsidy or tax.
  - thedufer 6y ago
    > Taken to its logical conclusion, I could argue with your broad definition that just about any subsidy or tax on anything is also a subsidy or tax on raising children. E.g. families have more cell phones and higher cell phone bills, so taxes on cell phone bills are also taxes on having children. Gas taxes are a tax on extracurricular activities for your kids. That's a little much for me, I prefer to call them what they are, secondary/tertiary effects of a subsidy or tax. I can't see this as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation of my stance. In the SNAP case, the key point is not that children benefit from it, it's that children benefit to an enormously out-sized degree - they're over-represented by a full 100%. I pretty deliberately did not say the words you're putting in my mouth - any tax or subsidy that affects children to an approximately equivalent degree as others are obviously not related to this discussion. As to the education bit, I don't see why the reason we're spending a ton of money subsidizing children affects whether we're subsidizing children - which education very clearly does. You can wave away any subsidy that way, if you so choose.

by smeeth 6y ago

nicbou 6y ago

Great answer! I didn't know about The Population Bomb. I was more worried about climate change. As far as I know, the planet can feed a few billion extra people. > Raising a child is spending 20-40 hrs a week for 18 years [...] to create another person [...] who will spend ~40 years generating GDP and paying taxes Let's not forget that this person will eventually retire and require increasingly expensive care. That makes me curious. If the current economy can only function with a growing population, then it takes > 1 person to subsidise your upbringing/retirement. Does that mean that 1 human life costs more than the output of a human's entire life?

jelliclesfarm 6y ago
Only if we are Luddites. The argument that we need more children to take care of the elderly is moot ..and false.

alisonkisk 6y ago

You forgot the $10k/yr public/charter school tuition. Those people making $62K are getting paid for their work, not donating it.

thedufer 6y ago

> Ah yes, the lofty government subsidy of x < $600 on average per family that has enough taxable income to receive the CDCTC (x < $100 all families with children)[0]. You chose one particularly inexpensive subsidy, and ignored everything else. 200 days/year of free childcare is not free. Maternity/paternity leave is coming out of someone's pocket. Many social programs are heavily skewed towards children (SNAP participants are around 1/2 children, despite them only being 1/4 of the population, for example). I'm not saying we shouldn't do these things - modern society makes having children expensive, and it's obviously best for all of us if we ensure some base level of care for them. But we don't have to pretend it isn't happening.

smeeth 6y ago
Yeah, that was a conscious choice of mine. I adhere to a narrower definition of what a subsidy is than you do: a benefit conferred by government to promote a specific behavior. In the case of SNAP I think you've confused secondary/tertiary effects of a subsidy with a subsidy itself. In the case of education, I think you've confused an externality of an investment in education with a subsidy. I'm not sure you can even consider maternity/paternity leave a government subsidy considering what federal law exists for leave is unpaid (maybe if you consider the continuation of healthcare benefits?). I can see how some would think I'm splitting hairs here. Taken to its logical conclusion, I could argue with your broad definition that just about any subsidy or tax on anything is also a subsidy or tax on raising children. E.g. families have more cell phones and higher cell phone bills, so taxes on cell phone bills are also taxes on having children. Gas taxes are a tax on extracurricular activities for your kids. That's a little much for me, I prefer to call them what they are, secondary/tertiary effects of a subsidy or tax.
- thedufer 6y ago
  > Taken to its logical conclusion, I could argue with your broad definition that just about any subsidy or tax on anything is also a subsidy or tax on raising children. E.g. families have more cell phones and higher cell phone bills, so taxes on cell phone bills are also taxes on having children. Gas taxes are a tax on extracurricular activities for your kids. That's a little much for me, I prefer to call them what they are, secondary/tertiary effects of a subsidy or tax. I can't see this as anything other than a deliberate misrepresentation of my stance. In the SNAP case, the key point is not that children benefit from it, it's that children benefit to an enormously out-sized degree - they're over-represented by a full 100%. I pretty deliberately did not say the words you're putting in my mouth - any tax or subsidy that affects children to an approximately equivalent degree as others are obviously not related to this discussion. As to the education bit, I don't see why the reason we're spending a ton of money subsidizing children affects whether we're subsidizing children - which education very clearly does. You can wave away any subsidy that way, if you so choose.