Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Demanding More from the Childless
Should the childless pay higher taxes so that families with children can pay less? That is the question asked, and answered in the affirmative, by conservative columnist Reihan Salam in a recent column at Slate.
Salam, who is himself childless, comes to this conclusion after analyzing some of the realities that beset parents who are raising children in these difficult times. His major premise is that it is unjust to impose heavy tax burdens on couples raising children because it is they who are making the sacrifices necessary to produce the generations to come — and to raise them to not only be economically productive, but to pass on the social capital upon which the nation thrives.
The tax system already includes benefits to parents with children. But Salam contends that the burden should be shifted even more to nonparents:
Shifting the tax burden from parents to nonparents, we will help give America’s children a better start in life, and we will help correct a simple injustice. We all benefit from the work of parents. Each new generation reinvigorates our society in its youthful vim and vigor. As my childless friends and I grow crankier and more decrepit, a steady stream of barely post pubescent braniacs writes catchy tunes and invents breakthrough technologies that keep us entertained and make us more productive. The willingness of parents to bear and nurture children saves us from becoming an economically moribund nation of hateful curmudgeons. The least we can do is offer them a tax break.
Salam’s thesis is interesting because he identifies not only an economic concern, but a social one as well.
From a purely economic perspective, he seems to have a point. The population is aging rapidly and, the desires of conservatives and libertarians notwithstanding, it is unlikely that the government will be getting out of the business of Social Security and Medicare any time soon. With Obamacare and entitlement spending sending the nation into economic despair, upcoming generations will bear an ever more oppressive financial burden, and a corresponding loss of prosperity.
To avoid or lessen the coming crisis, the country needs children willing to accept the weight. Parents bear the task of raising their children to accept this responsibility. To do this, parents must make enormous sacrifices. They must set aside many personal ambitions to focus their energy and resources on their kids. Society depends on well reared, morally schooled, and hardworking children if it is to survive, much less prosper, economically and socially. The beneficiaries are not just parents, but the childless as well. It might even be argued that the childless enjoy far greater benefits. As they age, those without children will benefit from entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, without having made the sacrifices accompanying child rearing.
There are many problems with Salam’s argument, of course. From a libertarian perspective, it could be argued that parents make the choice to have children and endure all the attendant sacrifice. That is certainly true. But the childless have also made a choice — and part of that choice means shifting the burden onto those who “toil on behalf of America’s future workforce.” To put it simply, non-parents often enjoy far more lavish lifestyles that parents, yet will still enjoy the wealth generated by future generations that will pay the cost of non-parents’ Social Security and the like. Moreover, non-parents who are able to set aside handsome sums for retirement will depend on generations raised by others to keep the economy going, which will be essential to maintaining the security of non-parents’ investments.
Other problems include determining the cost/benefit ratio in setting the amount of these tax benefits. Salam suggests some very high amounts in tax breaks to parents. That means tax increases on non-parents will be enormous. At some point, the injustice (if Salam is right in calling the present case unjust) may be shifted to non-parents. In addition, their incentive to work may drop. Unlike parents, the childless have greater freedom to leave the workforce, because they alone bear the immediate risk of the exit from employment. A sharp rise in early retirement would reduce the size of the workforce, which would in turn increase the burden on the young and increase the risk of stagnation.
Still, it might be worth trying. The country is in a childrearing crisis. New technologies like smart phones and iPads have given children uncontrolled freedom from parental discipline. Sexy pictures passed around schools, online bullying, and access to some very bad stuff on the Internet, have enormously complicated parents’ lives. As economic stagnation worsens, many parents must spend more and more time at work. Children are less and less supervised. Increased take-home pay could give parents greater flexibility to be home when the kids are out of school. It might also lessen the trend of babysitting by technology. A parent with something left at the end of the day will not be so quickly tempted to let the TV or computer watch the kids.
Salam’s vision is egalitarian, which always leads to risky social policy. But it could be that putting more money in the hands of parents will not only balance out an economic injustice, but also rectify a social injustice that severely underestimates the benefits all people, parents and childless alike, enjoy from well-raised children.
Published in General
Not necessarily. At least for me, the word counter is broken, and seems to allow me to post stuff of indefinite length despite my low-level membership. Have you tried seeing what happens if you post a comment over 200 words?
I guess I could try this, but I’m anxious about a breach of contract (-:
I need to plug Milt Rosenberg’s Episode 64: Men on Strike. He interviews Dr. Helen Smith about her new book of that title. It’s interesting although tangential to this discussion.
Response to #55 Son of Spengler
And #56 Cantankerous Homebody
Certainly there are more boomers than x’ers, but there are also more Y’ers than boomers. So I’d want something more on the demographic front. Something to show that Generation X was systemic rather than an anomaly or that the recent drop off in fertility is the result of a cultural shift rather than an unfriendly economy. Driving at the idea that these subsidies would probably be with our country for generations and they’re a response to bad feelings about how tough some people have it, declining birth rates, and an unusually small generation.
Think farm subsidies here. They were put in place during the great depression because roughly 1/3 of the workforce was tied up in agriculture. These subsidies are still with us and their original reason for being is long since dead. Cont.
It is true that birth rates have been falling since WWII, but hasn’t that been happening in most if not all western nations? Who or what are we meant to be comparing ourselves to? This really gets to the heart of the matter; for me anyway. If our current fertility rate is normal, then what is it we’re trying to buy?
Also, thank you for your insights on Israeli culture. And just both of you in general actually.
Children are assetts that belong to the family. This could be viewed as a sale of that assett to the state.
Since the state needs those future workers to pay for all the votes that were bought it seems they’re all now joblocked.
Response to Pygmy Hippo:
Hi! Like I said I’m not an expert :) I don’t look at a tax credit for children as a subsidy per se. A person who saves is putting present income aside for future consumption. A person who lives on credit is consuming future income today. I see people having children as the national version of the former. Easing the burden on people with children just seems like a prudential and forward thinking policy to me. It’s not as though we are giving them welfare checks, we’re just confiscating less. If we weren’t trillions in debt, with alot of it funding entitlements, this question might not be so pressing.
I recall from a history class that US fertility has been in decline since the 1800s with the baby boom as an aberration. It’s impossible to say where we should be. Will we need labor if the cost of capital is low enough? What revolutionary changes will we have with a young and dynamic population? These are unanswerable questions really. Still, countries are made of people. If want to keep ours going I’d want fertility to be something over replacement.
Low fertility is indeed the new norm, but if by “normal” you mean “fine,” I’d have to disagree. According to Mark Steyn, no country has ever recovered from fertility rates that are below the replacement level, and the long-term results are startling to contemplate, e.g., in fairly short order, a majority of adults have no blood relations once their parents have died. No siblings, no cousins, and eventually no aunts or uncles.
If survival is a legitimate concern of government, as it surely is, it must somehow be concerned with this issue. I can’t comment on what the best tax policy is, except that it ought to be and be perceived to be the fairest possible, which no one would argue is the case at present. I would suggest, though, that married parenthood ought to be more honored than it is, and that at the very least government ought not to do harm to that state, whether in its taxing or any other of its powers.
Why is this even a question? Under existing tax law, families with dependent children can claim exemptions for each child they can declare as a dependent.
Regarding changing taxes to benefit families raising children:
This sounds like talk of a dependent nation. Why do we need to encourage raising more children? So they can grow up to pay for our Social Security benefits later? That sounds like a cruel tradeoff to me. For me, this logic leads to future means testing for Social Security benefits.
If people without children save and would be well enough off in retirement without taking Social Security, then for those people to take SS benefits is an insult to people who can’t survive without it. And this is also what I call being cruel to people still paying into the system.
This is done in Canada. I just got my last child tax credit of $2000 as my son is now 19, over the age but it came as a tax rebate on my salary or taxes owed. Also, the government gives me tax rebates on any lessons for under 18 year olds such as piano or hockey. There is a rebate for hockey equipment bought for kids and if you send them to private school. It is nit the total private school but it is recognized. But it goes against my salary earned. The Conservatives use these famiky oriented tax rebates as their key talking points during elections. All families earning an income love these tax refunds. Also, last election, the hockey equipment for kids rebate would take up half the front page of the newspapers. Think about poli
A
On iPad, apologies for typos and not being able to complete sentence. It does not allow me to correct.
This “childless tax” idea is just foolish, and insulting to everyone, including those with children, and those without.
The idea presumes that childless people are selfish people with NO concern for, or contributuion to their extended family or community.
It also presumes there are motives for childlessness and that they would be only about evading responsibility and living a “lavish” lifestyle.
I don’t have children, I don’t live a lavish lifestyle, and believe me I contribute to the welfare of my parents, siblings, spouses, their children and my community, both financially and socially. I don’t need the government robbing me of the privilege to make choices by taxing me.
Whatever great fortune I amass by being single will be diverted to those whom I choose, during my lifetime and in a legacy of planned giving. (after they government takes their share!)
If a tax on the childless is ever implemented, I am going to become a tax evader and become someone’s baby mama! :)
The giant social “safety net” that has grown to obesity in our country is the perfect example of why a childless tax is the stupidest idea to come across my screen.
By shifting the awareness & responsibility for caring for our community to the government, we have essentially removed that responsibility (and privilege) from individuals and communities.
It seems the whole “childless tax” presumes that childless people do not contribute to raising the next generation. And if that IS the case, what needs to be changed is not the tax code but the human heart.
As a society, more money, redistributing money, confiscating money, borrowing money etc does not solve the problems brought on by foolishness and poor choices.
What brings a better life is the WISDOM to recognize the components of a better life, and build one by making good choices. Maybe there should be a WISDOM tax credit!
In Australia I’m 100% okay with subsidising families with children through the tax system (and family payments where necessary). But I’m an unrepentant collectivist – I basically have no problem subsidising the poor, or the sick, or the lame and the halt either. I think we’re all in it together – and if I’m there for them when they need it, they’ll be there for me. That’s the point of the system.
(But I do think that if people in your society wait for a tax break before having children then you’re no longer a child focused (or friendly) society – people who love children for their own sake are the ones who have most of them, and they and their cultures/societies will inherit the earth.)
This is a really bad idea.
First, I hate this notion of social policy. The best social policy is to just let folks figure themselves out on their own. If they aren’t bothering anyone, leave them be. We don’t need a social policy to help combat the child rearing problem, if such a thing even exists. It is generally accepted among conservatives that trying to tax something out of existence is a bad idea. We never talk about trying to tax something into existence, but this is essentially what is being argued for here. It is equally bad.
Second, what parent’s need to be better parents isn’t more money. They just need to want to be good parents. Good parents will raise their children right in any economic circumstance.
Third, giving tax breaks to parents is akin to welfare. We shouldn’t be doing it. If we want parents to keep more of their money, we should reform the tax code, reform government, reduce the deficit and the debt, get more people working, get the economy going. Transferring wealth from one class of people to another is wrong no matter why you do it. It’s theivery.
what is scary is when the “they” is the government, not a real person, with a personal investment creating a strong community, based on relationships, not tax code. We seem to have outsourced the strength of our communities and society to the government, as some sort of middle man. I don’t think we are getting good results…
THAT’S the ticket! what Spin said!
I’ve discovered that, too. The only way out I have found is to abandon the comment altogether, return and enter it anew.
Lowering the tax burden on parents is not likely to increase fertility rates for reasons set out in various comments. But that is not the purpose. Rather, lowering ratses would ease the burden of parenting children, and thereby to improve the lives of both parents and children. Salam argues that this would correct the injustice suffered by parents. I’m not convinced there is an injustice, but if there is shifting the finacial burden seems like a reasonable approach. It would also avoid government over reach because parents would not be receiving direct subsidies, but only keeping more money.
The dropping fertility rate is a grave problem. I think it was George Gilder who said that a nation where fertility rates continue to drop is dying. While, as I said, the prosed soak the childless plan won’t increase the fertility rate, it could slow it. Many people who want additional children decide against it because they just can’t afford another child. The decline during bad economic times seems to back that up. If parents who already want additional children were to see a lessend tax burden they may choose to do so. This could slow the rate of decline. In such circumsatnces it is not so much encouraging more children, but removing financial barriers for parents who already want another child. That is highly theoretical, of course.
Mike – a subsidy is a subsidy, direct or indirect. The only difference is that it’s easier to pretend that an indirect subsidy isn’t happening – which is just lying to people about what they’re giving and what they’re getting. Surely that isn’t a good idea.
Re too expensive to have children – Western societies are far more properous today than they were in the past. I wonder if the proportion of people who put off having children for reasons of material hardship has gone down, or whether the definition of hardship has changed. Desire is a bottomless well that can never be filled : – (
The thing is, when it’s entirely up to individuals the fear that other people aren’t giving their share holds people back from giving what they can and should. It’s the human response to perceived unfairness – why should I give to charity if they don’t? – and I supsect an issue that increases as societies become larger and more complex – or rather when communities become larger and people more mobile over the course of their lives.
And society and the poor suffer for it.
Tax is a blunt instrument that resolves that. I am strongly in favour of delivering help through community bodies (including but not limited to churches), but taxes only took the place of charity because charity didn’t suffice.
I’ve had time to consider this issue, because I’ve been reading Ramesh Ponnuru essays on the subject. I see his point.
But, as someone in his fifties, who has been single with no children, I’d like to bring up a closely related issue that hasn’t been discussed here. Since the mid-1980’s (the McMartin preschool case was the catalyst) there has been a lot of suspicion towards single adults being around kids.
I’m not bad around kids. I could make a contribution through the Boy Scouts, or maybe coaching in little league (though I never played; so I’d be an assistant). But if I do this, I put myself at a very high risk. If I hug a kid, how closely might I be scrutinized? Even if I decided to do this, there would have to be boundaries that would probably mean a less rewarding experience for me, because I would have to worry about the appearance of impropriety, not just impropriety.
It seems to me that the only contribution you want from me is financial. And it’s a very impersonal “donation” at that, as any tax, direct or indirect, is.
Al:
You have identified a significant problem. I have no idea how to correct the obvious bias against single men getting involved in kid’s activities. My Boy Scout leader was single. Nobody gave it a second thought. But that was 40 years ago. My folks rented rooms to college guys whose influence on us was considerable. We learned a great deal about football, basketball, baseball and motorcycles. We never saw these guys as a threat. The problem is getting worse. It used to be that single men would take charge of things married men had no time for. We don’t see much of that anymore. Even the soccer mom phenomenon is, I think, related. Moms pick up the slack for hsbands who have to spend more and more time at work–sometimes just to keep their jobs.
We actualy need the commitment single men used to make. But like everyting else these days, we just don’t seem to see it.
I am trying my damndest to do both, but it just isn’t that easy. :)