Replies

The article promotes the notion that this relatively small tax credit will lift millions of families “out of poverty”.

That the children of recipients will somehow pay it back implies that those children as a group will grow up to be net tax payers, or tax payers at all, whereas without the subsidy, they would not. What is the evidence for that? Since we are talking about families that require being lifted “out of poverty”, it seems at odds with the history of subsidies, credits, and welfare dependency, all of which tend to become a self-perpetuating cycles through generations.

Logic suggests that those who benefit from the credits will regard government spending and subsidies on “social” goals as a “good” thing, and thus support more Big Government and Big Spending. Since subsidies tend to increase demand, the likely result is more people wanting and “needing” subsidies (aka, transfer of others’ wealth to them) — and voting accordingly.

I expect the program to whet appetites for more and ever higher subsidies, and that the lifetime taxes paid by the recipients and their offspring will be negligible. I forecast that on average they will be unable to pay they own way through life, much less contribute enough tax for the government to recoup whatever their parents received from the tax credits. This is a pessimistic view, but one based in reality. Juan Williams is right that this certainly is a game; it’s just not a changer.