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.

[from occupied ga]

or the birthrate will fall below replacement level.

This is bad because?

[clarissaexplainsitall]

the bad guys don't seem to stop at two. the madrasas are filled. good guys should have a lot of kids to keep from being outnumbered.

[Carolinamom]

My five college-educated children are now tax payers.

[Carolina]

So go to it, Freepers! Do your duty!

Besides, practise makes perfect. <:->

[hopespringseternal]

Growing populations produce growing economies. Collapsing populations produce collapsing economies. That is part of the reason for the amnesty giveaway.

The drawback to the amnesty giveaway is that you are importing people with no sense of civic duty and a vastly different culture.

[WilDave]

Exactly. Soon if the lefties get their way we'll be like Japan: a society with no children and no future. And then who will defend America?

Outsource it. (/Sarcasm)

[baseballfanjm]

Hmmm, I'm the second of six kids. I guess that means my younger siblings are all destined to fail in life.

[Teacher317]

Further promoting the worldwide trend of modern nations depopulating themselves (birthrates well below 2.0), and further enabling the continuing invasion of third-world populations to increase their political power. Hopefully sometime soon we can ALL be like Africa or Southeast Asia! Woo-hoo!

[JimRed]

Let's give criminals an option when it comes to sentence. For most offenses, let's offer to them to be surgically "fixed" in order to avoid incarceration..... I understand the ACLU will fight us on this one, but wouldn't it be nice?

Why would they want to fight us on it? They are, after all, pro-choice. We're just giving the dirtbags a CHOICE!

[Restorer]

This is bad because?

A gradual decline in the birthrate to slightly below replacement level is not necessarily a bad thing. A sudden and precipitous drop to far below this point, as has happened in most European countries, is disastrous.

There are a bunch of problems. The most obvious will pop up 30 years from now, when a large number of retirees will be (not) supported by a much smaller and shrinking contingent of workers.

Combine this, in the case of Europe, with a large and growing group of unassimilated immigrants, and you are facing some major problems.

European countries, if viewed as organisms, are in the process of committing slow-motion suicide.

The US is in somewhat the same position, though to a lesser extent. Our white middle classes have a higher birth rate than Europeans, but what I think will save us is that we do a more effective job of assimilating immigrants. (Although our record here is not what it could or should be.)

[Melinator]

The reasons that additional siblings hamper the intellectual growth of children (and particularly middle-borns) are fairly obvious—parental resources are a fixed pie, and children do better when they get more attention (and money).

Same old misdirection. Taxed into penury at all levels of Government, most middle income families cannot afford to give the best of all worlds to more than one or two children. This author's conclusion: have less children.

The Gov't and it's neo-communist limpets will have their thieving hands held out, palms up, when it comes time to force those same children to pay into the "scheme", but heaven forbid they should have to spend some of the money on "tax incentives? (paging George Orwell) on "extra" children. They GUMBINT need that money for booze, drugs, prostitutes, bailing out foreign and domestic "friends", foreign and domestic Wars, parties, travel, welfare state causes - you name it, it's more important than some slave's children.

The fact that the author of this piece does not even touch upon the obscene tax and "service" rates in the U.S. and the obvious affect they have on the ability of U.S. families to raise children, shows extreme incompetence, or deliberate misdirection.

Is it too strong to say I HATE the BASTARDS? Forgive me.

[Melinator]

Why does this partisan stuff always get in the way? Fact is this commie crap no longer knows any particular political stripe. This commie crap has taken root at the deepest levels throughout the U.S. and Canada. "The People" are now so indoctrinated and ill-educated that they are all but incapable of doing anything except choosing a political party to clutch like a talisman against a world they cannot possibly understand. "It must be the Demon Crats" "It must be the Repub Lick Cans."

People, "They" are running a game on you. They are stealing your money and destroying your personal chances for reproductive success. They are doing it on purpose, so as to favor themselves. Wake up.

No offence.

[bondjamesbond]

Left-wing anti-life mentality strikes again.

They are failing to see the possibilities. Folks should have lots of children, and then just choose the strongest ones later and winnow out the rest. Kind of like planting carrots...

Better not give them any great ideas, huh?

[cupcakes]

I'm sure the leftists only believe in this type of thing as long as actual taxpayers are involved. I'm sure they will fight tooth and nail to keep things like the EITC and child tax credits alive and well among their constituents of welfare mothers and low income single parents.

[cupcakes]

I have no argument there. There should absolutely be strict guidelines on who receives welfare and under what conditions. If you are so irresponsible to end up in that situation, then it would stand to reason you need someone to "parent" you and that would include how the money is spent and under which conditions one receives the money(ie birth control is mandatory).

[antidisestablishment]

According to the US Census, over 25% of the children in the country are being raised in large families (4+ kids). It's a good thing, too. These kids know how to work; they share and they don't think money grows on trees. They are the kids who will be supporting the sorry liberal asses while they try to live off their government pensions.

BTW, kids on medicare are a hell of a lot cheaper than seniors. Plus, they will repay thier benefits multiple times in future taxes. Supporting kids is always a positive equation.

[Un Canadien Errant]

Princeton prof Peter Singer argues (seriously) for this. Which is one of the reasons I will never go the Princeton.
On another note, I wounder if the families with "too many" children should just eat their surplus little ones. Not only would they have less mouths to feed, they could save on groceries too.

[Un Canadien Errant]

As for out sourcing defense, that's already happening. The U.S. military is accepting non-citizens for enlisted positions and has contracted private security firms to provide some protection in the Green Zone.

[Politicalmom]

You will have to talk to my husband...number four turned a year old today, but he seems disinclined to go for a fifth. : )

[KfromMich]

The reasons that additional siblings hamper the intellectual growth of children (and particularly middle-borns) are fairly obvious—parental resources are a fixed pie, and children do better when they get more attention (and money

Interesting how this author just jumps to conclusions about siblings hindering intellectual growth. What about the fact that siblings can help each other with homework and younger siblings can learn from the older ones?