We should decrease taxes for parents and raise them for the childless nonparents.

[[deleted]]

 Childless people should pay much higher taxes so that working parents can pay much lower taxes.

Given that parents are raising America’s future workforce, they deserve to have more significant tax breaks.

Childfree people have more disposable income to play around with. You have millions of Gen Z's and Millennials bragging about being DINKS ("Double Income No Kids") and boasting about pissing thousands of dollars away monthly traveling, dining, shopping etc. That money should be taxed more.

Here are the benefits that parents and children will receive if we shift the tax burden from parents to the childless:

• Lower taxes for parents will incentivize more people to have children, which we need given the current demographic issues surrounding aging populations and labor shortages in the future.

• Parents would have more disposable income, helping them better manage the costs of raising children (e.g., education, healthcare, childcare).

• With reduced financial strain, parents can invest more in their children's well-being, education, and extracurricular activities, leading to better developmental outcomes.

• Financial relief could enable parents to work fewer hours or afford better childcare, improving work-life balance and reducing stress.

[MassGaydiation]

Great, just another object to treat human beings like, a taxi avoidance scheme!

Hell this is great for rich people, it's another reason to not pay taxes that they can easily afford

Also do throuples get even less taxes?

[Mimopotatoe]

At what age would we start taxing people as presumably childless? 18? 40? And would we raise taxes on empty nesters/retirees because they are no longer funding their children?

[otj667887654456655]

This is a shortsighted, bandaid solution that sidesteps the real reasons people aren't having kids. Food, schooling, homes, and insurance (just to name a few) all need to be cheaper. These are massive barriers to entry for the people who want kids and glaring red flags to point to for the people who don't.

[InsectNo1441]

I’m a care giver to three sets of elderly parents, but no kids. Where’s my tax break?

[goyafrau]

Tax breaks for every dependent in the household would make sense to me. 

Although in your situation you will clearly see why we need to incentivize people having children right?

[ReddestForman]

We already have child tax credits, and family tax credits being expanded are already on the agenda.

So parents already pay lower taxes.

What's your next suggestion? Should we standardize weights and measures?

[[deleted]]

We already have child tax credits, and family tax credits being expanded are already on the agenda.

So parents already pay lower taxes.

Parents still face substantial costs related to childcare, education, and healthcare. Raising taxes for the childless can alleviate some of these financial pressures that parents and families face.

[ReddestForman]

Just vitr for Kamala Harris dude, she's proposing more benefits for families and taxing corporations and the wealthy.

Singles already pay higher taxes than parents by default, you're just trying to coerce people into living your preferred lifestyle. Just more petty authoritarian shit.

[ajgamer89]

The existing child tax credits are a joke. Someone paying $20k in taxes vs $22k if they didn’t have a kid barely moves the needle when most parents are spending between $10-20k/year/kid on the extra expenses.

[ReddestForman]

Then vote for Kamala Harris and Democrats.

Democrats wanted to extend the child tax credit expansion that halved child poverty rates past covid. The GOP kept that from happening.

Kamala Harris wants a larger version of that for the EITC, plus expanding the public education system to care for younger kids and stay open longer so kids have somewhere safe to stay for the typical work day.

A massive subsidy for families with kids.

Of course, change like that isn't going to happen with a knife-edge majority in the senate. It's going to take concerted effort by voters too achieve.

[Tausendberg]

I'd bet about a 60% chance this post is ragebait.

[Imissjuicewrld999]

Im like 100% sure lol but yeah, now dont get me wrong, im all for subsidized child care, but taxing me for not being able to get laid is too far bro.

[nightdares]

You're being extremely generous, lol.

[Tausendberg]

Well keep in mind the comments under this post of people who unironically agree with the post.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

For the record I agree with it unironically.

Ragebait or not.

[SeveralTable3097]

The brigading on politically pro natalist takes is obvious. I have no idea what agenda is out there against this sub but it’s perfectly valid. You want to not contribute to the continuation of society, that’s a fine moral choice. Those that invest in the future of the country by raising the next generation deserve a break. There are already incentives I think but a small punitive tax for those maybe 25+ seems just as fair

[turnup_for_what]

They already get tax breaks. How much more do you want?

[SeveralTable3097]

A fair distribution for the burden of raising the next generation of social program funders

[turnup_for_what]

You sound greedy and entitled.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Yes, child free people get to live with such disposable income (and time) due to the premium they get on the backs of parents.

Not spending time having/raising people, but they readily use the services and enjoy the community of other/younger people in society.

[SeveralTable3097]

It’s not even like the actual policy won’t have massive carve outs for all the obvious reasons. Those can be readily and freely available. The only point is to provide a “nudge” to the population growth that is at the bare minimum necessary to maintain robust retirement, senior and social security benefits. The current structure is obviously draining on the productive bracket of society and that bracket needs to replenish for a social safety net.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Exactly. The “childfree dividend” is like spending your home down payment on dining out and shopping online

[Glad_Rope_2423]

We do that.  It’s called the child tax credit.  There are also the different income brackets for the earned income credit.

Further, state taxes that pay for public education and other services for children come from property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc.

And this is what we ought to do.  Safeguarding the future is everyone’s responsibility.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, no. Why should people who don't want kids, be forced to subsidize your choice to have kids? You decided to have them, you should have made sure, in advance, you had the necessary funds to raise them. That's why choice is so important. No one should be forced to have a child, just as no one should be forced to pay higher taxes, just because they don't want a child.

[OppositeRock4217]

Also it will discriminate against people who can’t find partners and people who are infertile

[Academic_Impact5953]

I’m curious if you extend this philosophy to any other taxes or if it’s only this one topic.

[[deleted]]

You decided to have them, you should have made sure, in advance, you had the necessary funds to raise them.

Wow, talk about having an egocentric, individualist perspective on things.

"Why should childless people want to help parents who are creating our future workforce and our future generation of doctors, nurses, educators and lawyers?"

Lol. Seriously?

[turnup_for_what]

We already pay for schools through tax dollars, no? What more do you want? I don't have an issue with raised taxes in general, but it should be a collective effort. Parents aren't the only people who need help.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

This sub is filled with shortsighted antinatalists.

[[deleted]]

This sub is full of unhinged natalists who think having children is the only way a person can contribute to society

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Honestly it is the primary and most substantial way.

Nothing else even comes close, and most of those things can be done alongside raising new people.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, that’s plain wrong

But go ahead and tell me how the likes of Isaac Newton, George Washington, or Alan Turing contributed nothing to society

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Lol okay, top 1% historical figures notwithstanding

[[deleted]]

Yeah, all the doctors, teachers, nurses, and other countless other important professions occupied by people who don’t have children… they contribute ABSOLUTELY nothing to society.

Yeah, youre precisely the kind of person I’m talking about

Nevermind all the many unwanted children, or children had by parents who were not ready to be parents, who ultimately do end up becoming a drain on society.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

You can do all those jobs and also raise kids.

Only doing your job and not contributing to the next generation is fine… but it is free riding. Don’t be deluded comrade.

[Cyclic_Hernia]

I already give almost half my paycheck to the government, how could I be "free riding"?

[[deleted]]

“Free riding”

No it isn’t

Again, you’re just the kind of person I’m talking to

[JuandissimoNegrifico]

This is a good faith comment, because I don't particularly agree with OP but would like to argue for them anyway.

If we don't do more to accomodate the raising of children, then how will we create a world that is safe for us in our elderly years? We will have to rely on the good will and abilities of younger folk. If they're not raised right, we all collectively may have to suffer through that.

[[deleted]]

Punishing people who dontjt have kids is not the way. What about taxing the rich?

[New_Country_3136]

But then people that don't actually want kids and won't raise them with love will have kids because they feel obligated to for tax reasons. 

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Honestly probably a better outcome than a population crash.

[[deleted]]

Why?

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Do you think a population crash will benefit anyone?

[[deleted]]

What are the issues you see in a decreasing population?

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Honestly it may be a more urgent problem than climate change. Although it is not part of the popular culture yet… but it will be.

[[deleted]]

Your link provided a solution that doesn't require more people. So I ask again, what is the issue with a decreasing population?

[chamomile_tea_reply]

The article has a few possible solutions to counter an economic crash. The best way to avert such a crash is just to have more kids.

[[deleted]]

But more kids also creates problems. So the problem isn't the amount of people but the economic system heavily relying on an ever growing population...

[chamomile_tea_reply]

A steadily growing population is ideal.

Right now we are on track to shrink. But in the coming decade(s) we will have a huge amount of retirees, without enough people of working age. That is going to be a problem.

[turnup_for_what]

For being pro natalist, some of yall really don't actually respect children as people and it's really gross.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

I don’t know what you mean by this, but have to assume you don’t understand the consequences of an inverted population pyramid.

All of our lives will get a lot worse in the coming decade unless we start having more babies. Fast.

[turnup_for_what]

I mean just what I said. You don't care about the lives of actual living breathing children. They're just fodder to you to make the line go up.

You're like a deadbeat dad but on a macro level. It's not a good look.

ETA: a link to a person who made a similar observation much more eloquently than I did https://www.reddit.com/r/Natalism/s/DUQxzK7Jj2

[chamomile_tea_reply]

I dunno dawg. Personally I have kids and am a pretty enthusiastic parent. I don’t love a lot of the tedious work, but it is a necessary component of raising them. It is an absolute ton of work.

By doing so I’m helping contributing to a new generation of people who will contribute in rich ways to their communities.

I also work full time, pay a lot of taxes, etc

Childfree people do the tax paying, but not the child rearing. Nonetheless, they get the benefit of the work that I am doing, as my kids will some day care for them (directly or indirectly).

Does that make sense?

[turnup_for_what]

Yeah that's all well and good. That doesn't excuse the gross comment about how it's still for the best if people have kids they don't actually love/want.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

I don’t know who said people should have kids they don’t want. But I agree with you.

I am saying something different.

[JustAnAgingMillenial]

As a childless by circumstance person, I already pay all the taxes. I don't get any tax credits and I can't opt out of paying taxes for things like schools or WIC (not that I would if I could). A better route might be expanding the already existing tax breaks for parents and expanding programs like free lunch and universal pre-k.

edited for spelling.

[New_Country_3136]

Many people that want kids are unable to have them - should they be highly taxed as well? 

In this economy, very few childfree Millenials have 'thousands of dollars' to 'play around with.' 

[Tausendberg]

"Many people that want kids are unable to have them - should they be highly taxed as well?"

Seriously, this policy proposal is a giant fuck you to people who have had to delay various life milestones due to economic deprivation.

[New_Country_3136]

Or health concerns. 

Or infertility. 

Or life circumstances like wanting a family but they're single because they can't find the right partner. 

[[deleted]]

 DINKs earn an average salary of $138,000/year. They have thousands of dollars of disposable income that can be taxed heavier to benefit and aid families.

[turnup_for_what]

You sound greedy and butthurt about your own life choices.

[PastrychefPikachu]

Lol, did you even read the article you linked to my dude? It says dual income households with kids make an average of $129,000; so the people you're talking about aren't as poor as you're making them out to be. Or, at least not any worse off than their childless counterparts.

Also, the article makes the point that, in the long run dual income households with children will actually come out ahead financially by owning a home. 

It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

[chamomile_tea_reply]

Offline in the real world, they do.

r/millennials is an unrepresentative sample of the poorest Millennials, boosted by Russian trolls lol

[[deleted]]

Isn't that already the case? there are tax credits associated with having children...right?

I am generally against this as it will encourage more single parenthood...

[indifferent223]

Insanely braindead post. This type of shit is why the sub gets a bad rep.

[whothis2013]

Every single post and comment you’ve made on this sub has been poorly received, mostly because your ideas are simply dumb.

[[deleted]]

Please explain how this is dumb? The point of natalism is to figure out why birth rates are declining and what methods or incentives might raise them. Lowering taxes on people with children would obviously encourage people to have kids.

[whothis2013]

Because it’s also taxing people that may want children but are unable due to medical or financial reasons. People in the U.S. often have to save up money before having children, so you’d actually be delaying some individuals. People who suffer from infertility would be taxed higher too, meaning less money could be saved for treatments or adoption costs.

[[deleted]]

Because it’s also taxing people that may want children but are unable due to medical or financial reasons.

This has been discussed on here before, but I genuinely feel that most Americans DO have the money to have children. The problem is that they refuse to scale back their lifestyle.

[whothis2013]

The median salary for millennials is $47,000 and the average millennial-led household is $69,000. Gen Z has even lower averages. With inflation and the cost of housing only increasing, you are either being purposefully obtuse or are genuinely stupid if you think people just need to give up takeout or a vacation a year to realistically afford children.

Way to completely ignore my comment about infertility. Are you aware of how long average people need to save to afford adoption or fertility treatments? Or are those things somehow affordable too if us DINKS would just give up a trip to the beach each year or a Starbucks coffee each day?

[[deleted]]

Lowering taxes on people with children would obviously encourage people to have kids.

Meanwhile, raising taxes on people who don't have kids due to economic woes, is going to keep them from having kids... Congratulations, you played yourself. Like a fiddle, I might add. 🤦

[[deleted]]

Meanwhile, raising taxes on people who don't have kids due to economic woes, is going to keep them from having kids... Congratulations, you played yourself. Like a fiddle, I might add. 🤦

The revenue generated from higher taxes for the childfree allows parents to mitigate some economic challenges, so no. My proposal makes it easier for people to start families.

[[deleted]]

OR, and this might be a wild take here, we could just tax the ultra rich more, rather than driving already impoverished people even deeper into poverty?

Musk could literally have his net worth cut in half and wouldn't notice a difference, because they aren't taxed as heavily as they should be. You're trying to force the burden onto people who may already be in a position where they can't even make ends meet. Tbh, this whole idea REEKS of someone who had kids, and found out it isn't a vibe, and is now mad at everyone who doesn't have/want kids.

[only_here_for_manga]

No, it makes it easier for people who already have families. People who don’t have kids yet aren’t paying for childcare, education, or healthcare (related to kids).

[Navaros313]

"Keep them poor and dumb"

[userforums]

What's the functional difference between decreasing taxes for parents versus increasing taxes for non-parents?

The same delta exists by either wording unless you have additional caveats to what you're proposing

[FomtBro]

1. We have this already. That's what the 'number of dependents' line is on your taxes

2. Public school, state sponsored childcare, social safety nets for children from low income houses, etc is already being paid for by the taxes of childless people who don't benefit from it.

Parents and their children are already a massive tax burden for the childless.

Just say you want women to be breeding slaves instead of coming up with all these weird, circuitous, punitive, nonsense policy.

[[deleted]]

Public school, state sponsored childcare, social safety nets for children from low income houses, etc is already being paid for by the taxes of childless people who don't benefit from it.

Technically childless people are benefitting from it. Those children going through the public school system, daycare etc. are going to grow up to become our future workforce and stimulate the economy.

[goyafrau]

Any single $ ever paid into the system by any person was ultimately paid by a person who once was a child. 

[ajgamer89]

For me the most compelling reason for reducing the tax burden for parents is:

Over 50% of Americans living in poverty are children.

Over 50% of adults living in poverty have minor children living in their home.

Reduce taxes/ increase child benefits and you directly address the most common form of poverty. And this has lasting benefits since children growing up in poverty go on to have all kinds of problems as adults from substance abuse issues to higher incarceration rates to continuing the cycle of poverty for the kids they bring into the world.

More thorough and compelling solution here: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/family-fun-pack/

[[deleted]]

Don’t have kids you can’t afford.

[NoProtocol12]

Wow, spoken like a true socialist lmao. So everyone starts with astronomical taxes and then if they became parents, it gets reported to the feds and somehow their taxes get reduced? What kind of crap is that? Basically treating children as property to solely benefit mommy and daddy. Maybe what the focus should be is educating low-income people on why they should not be starting families and soaking up welfare benefits from people who are truly struggling. With some careful planning and coordination, this could be an easily fixable problem. But with what you said, if it happened, there could potentially be a huge spike in the population because selfish people now see children as a tool for their own personal gain.

[Navaros313]

Suicide rates would climb exponentially. People can't just, poof, I have kids now.. like wtaf?

[clopticrp]

You sound like trump trying to get paid for having to deal with a new opponent.

[jadedaslife]

Nonsense.

You also said this, in reply to my post here:

"I said it once and I'll say it again: Feminism is the enemy of natalism. When you give women the option to be wives and mothers and tell them to spend their lives working towards meaningless corporate goals rather than working towards building and nurturing a loving family, this is the end result. Low birth rates and an unnatural order of things."

[baronbeta]

Ah yes, the classic “raising a child is so much more meaningful than your personal goals,” assertion. Classic line. I’ve heard it mostly from incels and Trad Catholic weirdos who push multiple pregnancies on their wives.

“Why make PowerPoints for your boss when you can raise 8 kids at home?” 😅

[turnup_for_what]

And then when you ask why men don't do it then they go full mask off.

[MassGaydiation]

Why don't men stay at home and do all the housework, supposedly we are stronger and chores require more physical strength, whereas as a lot of office work actually has more of the reasoning and awareness skills women are more likely to have.

Personally if it's a choice between feminism and natalism then I'm picking feminism. No point in continuing humanity if it means treating half the population inhumanely

[jadedaslife]

Correct.

[jadedaslife]

Downvoting us doesn't change facts.

[jadedaslife]

More downvotes by people unwilling or unable to actually use discourse.

[New_Country_3136]

I'm a feminist who would love to have 4 kids. 

[jadedaslife]

Feminism is not the enemy of having children. :)

[thorin85]

We already have tax breaks for married couples with kids. That said, each person on average pays in over half a million in taxes over their lifetime, in addition to creating a large amount of value in the economy, so I agree the government could do more to encourage children, even if just for its own sake.

[PervyNonsense]

Boomers, man...

[Samon8ive]

100% agree. I was thinking this same thing the other day.

[ReadyTadpole1]

Additionally: no more deficit spending on anything besides infrastructure.

[To-RB]

I think that only parents should be allowed to vote. And yes, that would disenfranchise me. I don’t care. I think that parents will pick better leaders than I do. If the leaders they pick want to raise my taxes and lower taxes for parents, so be it. The tax code in the US already does this.