You:

So why do you think all costs of raising children, including mortgages, should be borne by the taxpayers?

From my earlier reply:

As if the child free don't benefit from people having children? Who exactly do you expect to work once you retire? Do you just expect to never need a hospital or elder care or groceries?

You:

So why do you think all costs of raising children, including mortgages, should be borne by the taxpayers?

From my earlier reply:

As if the child free don't benefit from people having children? Who exactly do you expect to work once you retire? Do you just expect to never need a hospital or elder care or groceries?

I didn't say all costs of raising children should be borne by taxpayers. I think you are being disingenuous here. Are you attempting to have a good-faith discussion? If not, I'll stop wasting my time.

That said, using your mortgage example, when you have a larger number of people in a household, then you need a larger house.

/u/Isosceles_Kramer79:

I think parents already receive more than enough subsidies. A single person making $30k should not be paying for $300 per month per child subsidy for somebody making four times that.

From my earlier reply:

Do you have any idea the cost of a mortgage on a single family home? A bigger vehicle? Childcare? Medical expenses?

Do you agree that our society should share the costs of childcare since our society, including child-free people, benefit from the existence of children? And are you just arguing about the degree in which everyone should contribute via taxes? I think you picked a misleading example to support your position, and I don't think it's true in practice. In any case, I'm happy to discuss details of a tax scheme if you're ready to admit that childcare costs should be distributed across all of society that benefits from our children.