4 ms·

One issue is that the childless will wind up requiring more state care as they age (since they won't have family to care for them). A possible solution would be

by _red 5y ago

One issue is that the childless will wind up requiring more state care as they age (since they won't have family to care for them). A possible solution would be to slightly increase taxes on childless to make up for that difference.

InsaneOstrich 5y ago
Childless people already pay more taxes since they don't have dependents to claim
- dcolkitt 5y ago
  Child tax deductions don’t even come close to canceling out the lost revenue of a potential future taxpayer over their lifetime. Especially given today’s near zero interest rate environment. Look at it this way, properly incentivizing children would mean that the average couple with two kids would pay zero net taxes over their life. With zero rates a non taxpayer who reproduces at replacement has the same equivalent fiscal value as a childless full taxpayer.
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Helping to support people who have children is a pretty popular policy I think. People like public schools, right? Let's just do that, but more. Punishing people for not having kids is obviously ridiculous.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    But I (happening to have two kids) consume government services now in addition to creating the linked supply and demand for government services that my kids represent. It doesn’t seem like “promising my kids will pick up the tab at replacement rate” is enough to be stable.
    - dcolkitt 5y ago
      Hmm... That's a fair point. The wrinkle is not all government services scale linearly with users. For example, if there were twice as many Americans we probably wouldn't need twice the defense budget.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  The child tax credit is completely irrelevant compared to the cost you incur or social benefits you share by having a child.
- mc32 5y ago
  But they also didn’t produce a taxpayer who would contribute to the pot.
  - rchaud 5y ago
    But they also didn't take up a space at a taxpayer-subsidized daycare or kindergarten or state university.
    - mc32 5y ago
      Sure but then they mostly aren’t keeling over three years after retiring.
- dantheman 5y ago
  They also pay more taxes because they pay for schools and lots of services that those who have children take advantage of.
  - voganmother42 5y ago
    And that they themselves took advantage of, even the childless were children
calt 5y ago
> A possible solution would be to slightly increase taxes on childless to make up for that difference. Not getting dependent/child tax credits already does this.
Jtsummers 5y ago
"Because you have no family to rely on and your savings are insufficient to care for yourself we (the state) have to care for you. Therefore, we will tax you and people like you more in order to further reduce your savings and make you even more dependent on the state in your dotage." That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.
- mc32 5y ago
  It’s because from the start it was never set up as a “savings account”. You didn’t just get your contribution plus interest minus overhead.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    What are you responding to? I really am having trouble parsing your reply. What was never set up as a savings account? My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes. The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state. I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.
wing-_-nuts 5y ago
I already pay more income tax because I don't have dependents. A good portion (most?) of my property taxes go to schools I will never utilize. If anything, not having children is an altruistic choice that should be rewarded with lower taxes. Perhaps it will if carbon taxes ever become a thing.
- swader999 5y ago
  These children will carry the tax torch when you retire.
  - wing-_-nuts 5y ago
    My non-existent children won't cost the taxpayer anything in government services, so I guess we're even?
    - swader999 5y ago
      Yeah it should work out.
bee_rider 5y ago
It is better to treat these as separate issues. Some people need additional assistance from the state as they age. We should decide how much support we'd like to provide, and provide it without bias. We might also want to encourage some level of additional population growth. This is best done by providing support for parents. It is better to incentivize behavior by providing services that help people do the things we want. Attempting to punish people will just cause anger, and even if the punishment is doled out for good reason (which, I'd say it isn't a good reason in this case), some level of misstargeting is inevitable.

by _red 5y ago

InsaneOstrich 5y ago

Childless people already pay more taxes since they don't have dependents to claim

dcolkitt 5y ago
Child tax deductions don’t even come close to canceling out the lost revenue of a potential future taxpayer over their lifetime. Especially given today’s near zero interest rate environment. Look at it this way, properly incentivizing children would mean that the average couple with two kids would pay zero net taxes over their life. With zero rates a non taxpayer who reproduces at replacement has the same equivalent fiscal value as a childless full taxpayer.
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Helping to support people who have children is a pretty popular policy I think. People like public schools, right? Let's just do that, but more. Punishing people for not having kids is obviously ridiculous.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  But I (happening to have two kids) consume government services now in addition to creating the linked supply and demand for government services that my kids represent. It doesn’t seem like “promising my kids will pick up the tab at replacement rate” is enough to be stable.
  - dcolkitt 5y ago
    Hmm... That's a fair point. The wrinkle is not all government services scale linearly with users. For example, if there were twice as many Americans we probably wouldn't need twice the defense budget.
bpodgursky 5y ago
The child tax credit is completely irrelevant compared to the cost you incur or social benefits you share by having a child.
mc32 5y ago
But they also didn’t produce a taxpayer who would contribute to the pot.
- rchaud 5y ago
  But they also didn't take up a space at a taxpayer-subsidized daycare or kindergarten or state university.
  - mc32 5y ago
    Sure but then they mostly aren’t keeling over three years after retiring.
dantheman 5y ago
They also pay more taxes because they pay for schools and lots of services that those who have children take advantage of.
- voganmother42 5y ago
  And that they themselves took advantage of, even the childless were children

calt 5y ago

> A possible solution would be to slightly increase taxes on childless to make up for that difference. Not getting dependent/child tax credits already does this.

Jtsummers 5y ago

"Because you have no family to rely on and your savings are insufficient to care for yourself we (the state) have to care for you. Therefore, we will tax you and people like you more in order to further reduce your savings and make you even more dependent on the state in your dotage." That doesn't seem like a terribly effective "solution" unless the goal is to maintain the status quo, especially given the vicious cycle it introduces.

mc32 5y ago
It’s because from the start it was never set up as a “savings account”. You didn’t just get your contribution plus interest minus overhead.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  What are you responding to? I really am having trouble parsing your reply. What was never set up as a savings account? My comment was pointing out the absurdity of taxing a specific group of people more because in their old age they will become a greater burden on the state than another group. Consequently forcing them into becoming dependent on the state by reducing their ability to save and invest for themselves. It's a vicious cycle and the original commenter doesn't seem to recognize the absurdity of that position. In the OP's proposal, I'd have higher tax rates because I've not yet had children. But once I do have children, what, do I get it all back? Or am I just forced to suck up the unnecessarily reduced income for the past 20 years? What if my children (god forbid) don't survive to adulthood themselves. Will I start getting taxed more again due to this tragedy? Of course, this already happens now as you lose a dependent for tax purposes. The position is absurdist unless the objective is to further reinforce dependence on the state. I'll point out that the OP suggests increasing taxes on the childless over what they are already taxed now. Which suggests a greater swing than just the loss of a dependent on your taxes in the case of the death of your children. Adding insult to injury, as it were, for my last question.

wing-_-nuts 5y ago

I already pay more income tax because I don't have dependents. A good portion (most?) of my property taxes go to schools I will never utilize. If anything, not having children is an altruistic choice that should be rewarded with lower taxes. Perhaps it will if carbon taxes ever become a thing.

swader999 5y ago
These children will carry the tax torch when you retire.
- wing-_-nuts 5y ago
  My non-existent children won't cost the taxpayer anything in government services, so I guess we're even?
  - swader999 5y ago
    Yeah it should work out.

bee_rider 5y ago

It is better to treat these as separate issues. Some people need additional assistance from the state as they age. We should decide how much support we'd like to provide, and provide it without bias. We might also want to encourage some level of additional population growth. This is best done by providing support for parents. It is better to incentivize behavior by providing services that help people do the things we want. Attempting to punish people will just cause anger, and even if the punishment is doled out for good reason (which, I'd say it isn't a good reason in this case), some level of misstargeting is inevitable.