(This is the Tantrum, in which Dadwagon’s writers debate one question over the course of a week. For previous Tantrums, click here.)
Last Friday I sat down at my desk and wrote out a few checks. Actually, a lot of checks. Or rather, a few checks that added up to more than I’ve ever disbursed at one time. To be really, really specific, I paid out roughly $13,000—some of it to the government, most of it to a retirement account (so that it won’t go to the gubmint). And, of course, my accountant, the renowned Ronald MacDonald (yes, Ronald MacDonald), got a bit of it—which I’ll deduct come March 2011.
As much as it hurt, I felt weirdly proud. For one, while this gargantuan payment hurt, it won’t break me. I’ll have enough left in the bank to buy groceries for a month or two, but I may have to change my drinking strategy. Second, it’s evidence of my independence, which at the age of 35 should already be clearly established, but somehow always feels in doubt. If I was desperate, there would be people to ask—my wife, my parents, the people streaming out of the Bergen Street F-train stop at 6 p.m. But I didn’t have to—I’m my own man, at least for the remainder of 2010.
I also, of course, have to thank Sasha. Without her, we would’ve been hit harder. How much, I can’t really say (though I’m sure Ronald MacDonald knows). I love the fact that just having a kid gets you a deduction, now matter how late in the year the kid was born. Sasha arrived in December 2008, which was good for our balance sheet. (I pity parents of kids born January 1st!) If I were a bit more technically minded, I might work out exactly how much she’s saved us versus how much she cost us, but I know the ultimate answer: Cute as she is, my daughter is a lousy short-term investment.
If things were different, though, Sasha might make better economic sense. Take child care, for instance. This year, despite having paid thousands and thousands of dollars to various nannies, we can’t deduct any of it, since [explanation deleted for fear of incurring the wrath of the IRS]. Next year we may be better off, although the maximum child care credit we can claim is $3,000, which is only about a quarter of her annual tuition. Yes, we neglected to put a bundle in our Flexible Spending Account, a mistake we’ll remedy in 2011, but even that maxes out at $5,000.
Should things be different? Um, sure, why not! I’d love to deduct Bugaboo maintenance, shredded-book repair, educational field trips to the local bar, and the alarmingly high percentage of food that lands not in Sasha’s mouth but on the floor. Add that all up and the government would owe us money. Awesome.
Seriously, there are good reasons the government should do everything it can to offer families at all economic levels (and especially the lowest) as many kid-related rebates, deductions and tax credits as possible.
First, I’ll address the liberal side of our readership: Actually, there’s nothing to tell you here, since you already agree with me. Oh, but maybe you’ve only recently been indoctrinated? So let me clue you in: Families should get tax breaks because, you know, kids are cute, and organic groceries, bilingual preschools, and non-constricting baby-slings are hella expensive.
Now, the conservatives: If the government makes it too financially difficult, taxpayers will have fewer kids. Which means we’ll end up with a labor shortage, which means we’ll have to import more immigrant labor, both legal and illegal, and those immigrants WILL have kids, especially because there’s no way you’ll let the government provide family-planning advice in English, let alone in Mexican or whatever those people speak. In other words, make having children economically desirable and you take care of a host of other related issues.
Finally, people in the child-free movement: One day you will be old, and dependent on the care of younger people who aren’t related to you. If those people grew up poor because of a punitive tax scheme (okay, a not-friendly-enough tax scheme), who knows what they’ll put in your Metamucil, or whatever it is that old people eat?
You know, I just realized something. As a dadblogger, I should be able to deduct all associated business expenses, which pretty much covers … everything Sasha-related! Oh, wait, except first this blogging thing would have to make some money. Maybe next year…
I absolutely, positively could not disagree more Matt. I feel the same way about this issue as I did when I was childless, my daughter was born at the end of October 2008.
People who have children are a bigger cost to a society than those who do not, yet we make them pay less for particiating in society?
Think about it, a family (as compared to a single person or a childless couple) is a much larger burden on services – more garbage created, space in parks given over to playgrounds where childless people are not allowed (for good reason of course) and all of the cost associated with public education.
We have a major problem with school funding all over our country and we give tax breaks to the people who actually use that service. Why should those of us who benefit the most from taxes end up paying less? A friend of mine from high school has ten children (!!!) and gets such a tax break that he pays practically nothing but his children cost our society an amazing amount of money.
And I’m on the “liberal” side of your readership, I consider myself a Socialist. I certainly believe in less taxes for lower income people and very high taxes for the rich, but children should not be a factor in how much people pay. Unless we make pople pay more for having more than a certain number of children (I’d say extra taxes if you have more than two).
I think this attitude that so many parents have that they deserve to pay less taxes because we bred is very wrong-headed and selfish. They worry too much about our burden and not enough about society’s as a whole.
That’s a good point, Deni, and maybe I should’ve addressed it. So: I’d be happy to pay higher property taxes (and other local taxes) to fund not just my kids’ schools but those of other families as well. But then there should be a trade-off—more deductions from the federal government.
That is certainly a whole other issue, the insanity of our school funding being based on the whims of the housing market.
But I see your point, there are other taxs besides the federal income tax, sure. But it has always seemned to me that families get a break most of the time and childless people pay more than their fair share.
Boy do I agree with you Deni! I am a female and consider myself a moderate libertarian…have for about 7-10 years which means, I was before the media tried to color us republicans to those that don’t know any better. Before that, I just considered myself dead center, with some in common with this party and some in common with that party. I consider myself moderate b/c I disagree with their environmental stance (another topic altogether) and while the ideals of their platform are completely logical to me, in practice I feel they would fall a bit short of an ideal society (eg–educational system being completely private).
That said, I don’t object to my tax dollars being spent effectively in the public education system and all children should have access. This is the best way to help a child. However, when I do my taxes and count all the deductions for procreation, it just doesn’t add up. I can hear the din of the women at the various baby showers that I’ve been to gasping that I am heartless and hate children. Not so at all, I just cannot look at the math and bring myself to ignore fairness and expect someone else to pay for my (hypothetical) children….my responsibility. Single people shoulder FAR more of the financial burden for children anyone looking at this objectively could possibly believe is fair. But hey, that won’t change b/c it would lose too many votes. Might does not make right. And one of my favorite quotes: Any government robbing Peter to pay Paul can count on Paul’s support.
I support tax breaks for child number one, but no additional support beyond that.
Additionally, when I think about the waste produced by families with children, it sickens me (don’t get me started on ignorant people who throw their batteries in the trash, effectively damaging our remaining clean water sources, or women who feel they have a right to tampons with Plastic applicators). I think diapers with plastic should be banned. I talked to a couple about to become parents about cloth diaper services. They thought that would be “gross.”
I say if you aren’t willing to rais your child in the least damaging ways to the environment, than you have no right to procreate.
I don’t support tax breaks of any kind for people who have children. If you can’t feed them, don’t breed them PERIOD! I find it highly offensive that I am taxed more because I am single and child-free only to pass that savings on to someone who decided to have kids, especially when they knew that they could barely feed themselves let alone other mouths. One of the reasons that I am child-free is because I knew that I could not afford children thus I engaged in responsible sexual behavior. And then my property taxes go to support a school system where I have no children enrolled. Growing up my parents faced the same nonsense while they endured the additional burden of paying tuition for the private schools my siblings and I attended. Complete nonsense!
I hear breeders speak all the time about how raising children is expensive. Yeah, well my Porsche is expensive too. Why don’t I get a tax break for that!
Then you here the argument made that breeders are raising additional tax payers…What piffle!
1) There is no guarantee that your brats will grow up to be productive members of society.
2) Given the state of children today (and their parents): Godless, moronic, insolent, spoiled, and self-absorbed, what kind of future is being invested in?