The tripling of the child deduction is LONG overdue. The idea that it might spur more children is great, we need then to grow up and work to pay into Social Security and make it a viable program. It would also allow for one of the parents to stay home and raise their children. It is long past time that the deduction gets close to the actual cost associated with child rearing. It is good for the family and subsequently the society.
I’d like to see more analysis on the child tax credit as an economic benefit. My suspicion is that it would spur more low-income households to have children, which would then need to be supported by the welfare state in countless other ways for decades to come. It would be dubious to me whether the financial losses on that welfare would pay off with increased social security revenue later on.
The problems with social security are much more fundamental than that. Like any Ponzi scheme, simply finding more new people to pay into the system is not a long-term or permanent solution.
Newt has the real solution to the social security system...private accounts that each individual would control. Like he said, it would require other funding to get us “over the hump” for current retirees as workers’ funds are diverted into personal accounts, but after that short-term pain we would be locked into a solvent system in the long-term. The Ponzi scheme has to stop and a sane system needs to be developed to replace it.
Having more children is a good thing for society, but there needs to be a broader message and effort made to that end. Motivating it solely through the welfare system and tax code doesn’t motivate 100% of the population anyway.
I also don’t believe keeping half the population “barefoot and pregnant” can sustain our economy. The world is too competitive now. In Europe we’re already seeing women performing better in the kind of jobs that are available in modern western countries. If laws have any role, they ought to promote more flex time, maternity leave or protection of a woman’s job during pregnancy. I don’t think children necessarily benefit from being coddled 24/7 throughout their young lives either. The idea that a woman would stay home and do nothing for her entire life but raise children seems like a real waste of potential, particularly once you get to the point where those children are in school throughout the day. To a certain degree, promoting this kind of society would result in my tax dollars ending up paying for someone to sit at home and watch soaps or play video games on Facebook most of the day. I think we all know how families handled their financial burdens decades ago, they didn’t live beyond their means. Funding people with welfare so that they never have to make tough choices about their budgets and lifestyle is not the way to go.
This is essential. Our country would be better off if children had a parent home with them. 90% of married parents want one parent at home with the kids. Maids or institutions are just not enough, mostly.
Ridiculous. You don't think that's discriminatory against those who can't?
How about stop picking winners and losers with the tax code and moving to a flat tax?
Of course that doesn't meet the needs of the statists.
A tripling of the PERSONAL deduction, for any body that emits greenhouse gases and 310K blackbody radiation (regardless of age) would be acceptable. Specifying who does and doesn’t qualify is liberal social engineering.
I believe somewhat differently. When during years of paying income taxes with two children I often thought that it was wrong that government forced someone without children, we had several such married friends, to pony up for our children. I believe it is much better to have people pay for their own children. A similar situation exists with young people having babies others have to support