Two Is Enough Why large families don't deserve tax breaks.

Slate ^ | March 29, 2004 | Dalton Conley

[Un Canadien Errant]

The U.S. government encourages families to have children, as many of them as possible. Child tax credits, child-care tax deductions, and family leave policies all reward parents with big broods. The pro-child policies are based partly on romantic notions about mom, family, and apple pie, but they also have a rational goal: We subsidize kids so that our next generation of workers is ready to win in the global economy.

[hopespringseternal]

And I didn't say that population growth is the same thing as economic growth.

Do I need to keep increasing the font size until you finally get it?

[from occupied ga]

And I didn't say that population growth is the same thing as economic growth.

what you said was:

I said that population growth produces economic growth (post #77)

And I said you're wrong. If, as you said population growth produces economic growth then Africa would be experiencing vast economic growth. It isn't. SO I guess that for Africa population growth is not producing economic growth. How are you going to spin this to pretend that it isn't what you said?

[hopespringseternal]

If population growth is the same thing as economic growth, then Africa would be growing economically. That isn't what I said.

I said that population growth produces economic growth. That is a general statement, not an exhaustive treatise on the subject. I can add a thousand caveates and provisions to that statement. Play "gotcha" all you want, but you are just being a jerk at that point. There are hundreds of examples of countries with growing populations and terrible economies, they all are socialist/anarchist hellholes. A growing population does not guarantee economic growth and I never claimed that it did.

The original point is sound: a collapsing population is bad for the economy. I know you don't want to hear that because you are just as much a utopian as the socialists. Your utopia just happens to be a sparesely populated one with everyone else relocated to Quebec.

[Ditto]

Only a complete financial idiot would think the government tax break on dependents is somehow a good deal.

[from occupied ga]

The original point is sound: a collapsing population is bad for the economy

Nope as long as productivity is sustained population decreases don't hurt anything.

Play "gotcha" all you want, but you are just being a jerk at that point. There are hundreds of examples of countries with growing populations and terrible economies, they all are socialist/anarchist hellholes.

And you don't see the relationship between population growth and the production of socialist hellholes? Russia's population is DECREASING at the same time it's economy is improving, but according to you any number of examples that disprove your thesis don't disprove your thesis because of other "caveats" and I'm just a jerk for bothering to post them. I'll just have to bear up under your disapproval.

[hopespringseternal]

Nope as long as productivity is sustained population decreases don't hurt anything.

But anyone can see that at some point, the increases in productivity will be canceled by the decrease in producers.

When your productivity is very low, as in Russia, you can make huge strides in improving it. Our productivity is already very high, it doesn't improve by huge amounts.

And you don't see the relationship between population growth and the production of socialist hellholes?

So who do we have to kill to promote your utopia? Actually, socialism booms even in countries with collapsing populations. Look at Europe.

[from occupied ga]

But anyone can see that at some point, the increases in productivity will be canceled by the decrease in producers.

Yes, of course it will eventually. If the whole country is depopulated then I agree that the productivity would be pretty low. But keep in mind that the black death in the middle ages actually did the survivors some good since the economies and standard of living in europe increased afterwards. So I can't pick an absolute point, but probably much larger decreases than you imagine can be tolerated.

So who do we have to kill to promote your utopia?

Refresh my memory. Where did I say anything about utopia. I can't seem to recall. What I do remember saying is what's so bad about not sustaining current population levels.

[FITZ]

Beside, China's population is not collapsing is it?

I don't know --- one child would be quite below the replacement level --- so maybe it is collapsing. Otherwise I don't think population is exactly collapsing anywhere. I think the main factor is what type of people are reproducing --- if middle class working people are and the middle class is growing then things are getting better, if it's the dependent welfare class that's growing then things are getting worse --- just like with Mexico --- population growth is extremely high --- but their economy is worse than ever and they'll be facing some serious future problems because of the growing number of abandoned children.

[FITZ]

So once again we hear the left assuming that all money belongs to the government, and it uses 'tax breaks' to decide who gets to have some of their own money back and who doesn't. I'll tell you who 'deserves' a tax break, a tax payer-- large family or not. The only large (or small) family (or single for that matter) who doesn't is the professional 'victim' that doesn't pay any taxes in the first place.

Exactly. The government should not be involved in population planning one way or the other --- except possibly to sterilize all those who are too lazy to work and require welfare --- either before or after that first welfare baby they produce.

The government doesn't need to penalize a 1 or 2 child family by confiscating more money from it to give to someone with 4 or 5 children. Slashing the tax rate on everyone would be the best approach --- if someone chooses to have a smaller family because they feel that is better for them then so be it. Those who want many kids should have them --- but without the government promoting it.

[expat_panama]

I don't think population is exactly collapsing anywhere.

Sure it is, and it always has.  Populations grow and die.  That's true for the world population that both grows and declines, and for individual countries such as France that can barely maintain itself.   We all agree that tax-cuts are not give-away's, they are reduced confiscations.  

Should the state encourage population growth?  We're talking value systems here -- what is important to us.  Two things that I say are valuable are justice and the continued existence of the American Republic.  People that raise children make it possible for the country to exist in the future.  Since it is physically impossible to make those who benefit (the future population) pay back to those who sacrifice (forbearing population), most people consider it fair to require current grown children to pay back current parents (school taxes, child support tax breaks, etc.).  Over time, not all countries of the world have gone along with this, but most countries that survive today did. 

There are lot of people alive today don't give a damn about what happens to the world after they're dead.  Screw 'em.  Let's try and leave this planet in the same or better condition as how we found it.

[FITZ]

I think people should have big families --- if they feel they're up to it and can do a good job and can support their children. I don't believe the government should be pushing it one way or another --- and not with financial incentives --- if someone's reason to have a baby was to get their hands on some more money, then they are having the baby for all the wrong reasons. Just slash the tax rates for everyone --- families included. Too many kids are growing up in rotten families or with single mothers who conceived them for money. Sacrifice is part of what a good family is about --- it's not the money.

[agrace]

If members of your medicaid families need translators then they obviously have other issues that might just eliminate family size as a causative factor in their use of medicaid.

[expat_panama]

I don't believe the government should be pushing it one way or another--- and not with financial incentives...

And you're in very good company.  Well, the US has been around 200 years, maybe that's long enough and time for some other country with more realistic values to take up the role of world leadership.  I'm not talking about what I think should happen, I'm talking about what does happen.  Value systems steer actions.  Actions have consequences.