Replies

I said NOTHING about bracketing of tax rates in my post to you.

Yet your analysis requires assumptions based upon their construction. You omitted those facts, making it a deeply flawed analysis when considering the pure impact of the magnitude of a child credit, which is the topic of the thread, because your assertion depends upon it entirely. I promise you: practically every parent in my area would still be paying plenty of taxes no matter what child deduction Mr. Santorum is contemplating.

My post was strictly about your suggestion that tax-PAYERS should have more children, but the article is clear about Santorum wanting to drastically increase the tax exemptions for children, thereby turning tax-PAYERS into tax-FREELOADERS.

Your example relied upon wildly inflated assumptions re the number of children that would result, particularly because tax-paying families are now having kids at below a replacement rate (which should concern you). In fact, the US birth rate is now lower than it has ever been. Few would choose to grow their family from one-to-two to seven kids upon the basis of a a tax deduction. That was just silly. Just the housing requirements alone would make that virtually impossible.

Santorum would increase the exemption to $11,000 per dependent which would quickly eliminate all tax liability for a majority of those tax-PAYER parents you talked about.

Sounds like a lot eh? Human Events reports an average American cost of raising a child at between $10,000 and $14,000 per year.

First, you have supplied no analysis that supports your assertion. Second, it would be true only if the rates and brackets remain the same, which is what I said, which is why I brought up rates and brackets believing just as you do that all able bodied adults should pay a tax. That Santorum does not propose an adjustment there is, in my judgment, the real fault of his plan, not the magnitude of the child deduction he is proposing (and we'll get to that). Right now, the tax code penalizes marriage and child-rearing, which, in my opinion, is a bad thing. I never said I was happy with his plan; I was merely talking about the principle of increasing the deduction for dependents, to which I wish to add another point in a bit.

It costs our family a lot more than $14,000 a year to support a child, particularly when marginal housing, and transportation expenses are included, never mind higher education. And remember, even if we got $11,000 as a deduction, it would not anywhere near cover the cost because of our marginal tax rate. Hence, those who are not raising the kids are currently FREELOADERS on the investment of the parents for the reasons I stated above. They're getting the returns of taxes paid by the children when they become adults without having born the costs, yet those without kids are getting the same return as the parents on the tax receipts and productivity of those kids once they become adults.

Now, as to that other bit, there is another class of dependents from which we as taxpayers would gain a great deal if the deduction for dependents was increased and this cuts directly to the demand side for government spending on this question, something that you are ignoring totally: making it more affordable for more families to educate their children at home and care for the aged in their homes.

Care for the aged and public education are where the real bulk of government spending at all levels really is. And that money goes almost entirely to Democrats.

An analog of this proposal has a good shot at reducing that demand, especially if it is structured as a credit instead, something that is entirely up to Congress. Yes, I think you would agree that society would benefit immeasurably both fiscally and socially if more people could home school and care for their dying parents.

70% of our medical dollar, about 10% of the entire economy is spent on end-of-life treatment. Were the aged cared for at home that number would be vastly reduced both in the cost for services and the quantity of services demanded. I don't think I have to tell you how much the country would benefit were more children home schooled but in addition, both the burden on terribly cash-strapped states and the size of the Democrat welfare state bureaucracy (for both education and juvenile delinquency) would take an enormous hit in short order. You would get back your $11,000 on the cost of public schooling alone.

So yes, I'm all for proposals that strengthen the family, yet I do agree that all able-bodied citizens should be conscious of their responsibilities to all. It is just as (and perhaps even more) important in rebuilding this country to get people to re-assume their familial responsibilities instead of foisting them on government, just as I believe that able-bodied seniors should perform public service such as tutoring and day-care in return for their welfare entitlement, er... "Social Security" (and please don't tell me they've paid for it because we both know that is not nearly true). Taking the transfer of a culture out of the hands of the single moms populating day-care centers would benefit both children, seniors, and society at large.

What is undesirable to me about using income tax deductions is that the case is so hugely different in a high tax State like New Jersey or California compared to, for example Mississippi. In the former case, Santorum's proposed deduction is insufficient, while in the latter it is indeed excessive. Better that it was a percentage than a fixed amount. In principle, I would have preferred an NRST, but the problems with the IRS having its nose in every transaction plus the scale of organized crime that would develop at this rate of revenue demand are untenable. You have no idea the degree to which computerized transactions enable social engineering when those considerations are inserted into a sales tax.

Finally, I don't think I need to add at this point that I regard Mr. Santorum's proposal as half-baked; it is. Yet remember: IT IS CONGRESS THAT WRITES THE TAX CODE. So, I appreciate that Santorum is emphasizing the disproportionate burden parents are bearing in our society, particularly those who pay upper middle class taxes. It means that, should he become elected, this issue will get the consideration it deserves. Our society depends upon it getting fixed.