http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/07/pf/taxes/childless-parents-taxes/index.html
The CNN article I've posted is a reaction to a piece written on Slate. In the article, the writer argues that those without children should pay higher taxes. More specifically, "any non-parent who makes more than the US median income of roughly $51,000.
He justifies the suggestion by arguing that parents take on the burden of keeping the US from becoming an "economically moribund nation." He believes that the value parents add to our economy is worth more than what they recurve in tax breaks.
His suggestion has been refuted by many because of it's implications. For example, if somebody is physically unable to have kids, should they be charged?
8 comments:
So should people who are not married (or legally cannot marry, that's another issue) have to pay taxes valued at the benefit that married couples receive? This is a flawed notion. Children do benefit the nation but we should not penalize people who choose to not have children or simply cannot. Additionally, people do not have children to keep the nation alive, they have children out of choice. I plan on having children someday but I guarantee the $3600 tax benefit of claiming a dependent is not driving my decision to do so.
If there is one form of government policy that's more difficult to pass through Congress, it's taxes, more specifically, RAISING taxes (for anyone!). A policy that requires childless parents to payer higher taxes is befitting of the title "Big Government." In public finance, we learn about the role of government, and reasons why the government must intervene in the economy. I wonder which one of the seven reasons for intervention this policy legitimizes?
I think it's unfair to tax people on whether they have children or not. First of all, whether or not you get taxed should not be a driving factor in if you have kids or not. Also, there are a lot of grey areas where it would be hard to determine if the person should be taxed or not such as adoption. It's also true that some people cannot have kids or can't afford to have them, so they shouldn't be taxed more just because of that.
I agree with Mainza, passing a higher income tax bill through Congress will be very challenging. Especially when people without kids already do not get a $3,900 personal exemption that is deducted from Adjusted Gross Income that they would receive per dependent (child) they claim. As a graduating senior who will expect to make more than the US median income within my first couple years in the workforce and not have a child for the foreseeable future, I have to disagree with, Slate columnist, Reihan Salam's claim.
If slow growth of population or an aging society is the problem, rather than taxing people who decide not to have kids, government should encourage people to have kids by providing better welfare or providing subsidies.
If slow growth of population or an aging society is the problem, rather than taxing people who decide not to have kids, government should encourage people to have kids by providing better welfare or providing subsidies.
I think parents without kids already have tons of tax breaks for low income people, as mentioned in the article such as earned income tax credit, child tax credit, child and dependent care tax credit. All parents also benefit from the dependent exemption. People who have kids already pay lower taxes, and in some cases, even get refund from the government despite paying nearly no tax. Therefore, I do not think the government should do anything else to make non-parents pay higher tax, because the current tax policies now are already in parents’ favor.
This is a very interesting article. But will higher taxes go through? This makes it seem like every decision we make comes with repercussions, but I don't feel like our country is that protective. I understand where he is going but I do not think people will be okay with it. Especially because not everyone can have children. But people can affect children as well so then should we charge people more if they affect children in a bad way? This could go in so many directions. It does not seem positive in any way.
Post a Comment