Comments about ‘Give larger tax breaks for raising kids, childless columnist argues’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 2 2014 9:42 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
mcdugall
Murray, UT

Mike Lee wants to increase the deficit? I thought he was a deficit hawk?

Outside-View
Federal Way, WA

why not begin by simply not phasing out the tax credit for kids who turn 17. Why not wait until they are at least out of high school? That year is one of the most expensive in raising a child. Then you could raise the income limit to at least Obomas magical $250,000 household limit.

Beyond that, credits for parents who help pay for kids to go to school or some type of help for kids to go to college would be good.

Surfs Up
Huntington Beach, CA

I totally agree!!

Capsaicin
Salt Lake City, UT

Shifting money from childless to those with kids does not a better parent make. I seriously doubt it costs $300k to raise a child from infant to 18. Try half of that or even a 1/4 of $300k.

What we need less of, are tax breaks, subsidies, deductions, and loop holes.

All designed to favor one group of people over another. Our tax law shouldn't benefit the rich, the poor, the childless, the large family, black, white, etc.

What wee need is an across the board flat tax with zero favoritism.

We'd be hard pressed find politicians who think like this though. They're all about doing favors for their donors. The biggest injustice of the voter today are the "donor dinners" or fundraiser events with $1000 a plate access conditions. Really? I have to have money to buy my representatives attention? Every politician does it. How bout a blanket ban on all campaign donations as well? There's no reason to go down this road playing favorites with whatever corporation or group a politician favors at the moment.

Kings Court
Alpine, UT

Sounds like more socialism. If parents choose to have seven or eight kids, they shouldn't rely on other taxpayers to pick up the tab.

JoCo Ute
Grants Pass, OR

Utah (and all other states) already tax families without kids in order to subsidize families with kids. Utah spends a little over $8,000 per year per student. That means for the average family with 3.2 children the state spends $25,600 each year. For 13 years of school that's $104,000 per child or $332,800 per family. This number is in actuality an understated figure as every family in the state does not have 3.2 kids. The ones that do have children have 5 (or more). Using actual per family figures and not the ones misrepresented by averaging the total number of kids by the total number of families the real world numbers are $40,000 in educational subsidies per family per year and $520,000 to get all 5 children through High School.

I guess that's not enough for Mike Lee. How much, in the way of financial family subsidies, does Mr. Lee think is enough.

FierceMissus
Idaho Falls, ID

Oh, yes. Please. Penalize me for something that I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. You do realize that I already pay more than most people because we have two incomes and NO DEDUCTIONS or as some people like to call them, children. Also keep in mind that I don't usually get a refund. So, if you really think about it...I already pay for that $6k refund that my part time working neighbor just got because she has kids. Yeah. That's great logic, man. Step on childless couples more than people already do. Great idea.

The Hammer
lehi, utah

When people decide they don't have to contribute to society. Or they make choices that are detrimental to society they ultimately leave society no choice but to tax them for their behavior. As much as I want more freedom to make good decisions there are too many people making poor, selfish choices that effect us all.

Getting married and having kids is the right choice, but too many decide to forgo that choice and live a care free life. In the mean time I raise kids on one income and they grow up and pay the retirement of the single guy or gal who decided to not have kids and who was able to make more on a scale compared to me.

I will not hesitate to support a greater tax increase on single people or a tax credit increase for families with kids. Its the families that keep our society stable and growing and we bare the greatest cost. If single people want to be single and free without any responsibilities thats fine but they will pay for it just as I have to fork over my hard earned money to keep our society growing.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

A next generation is needed by everyone. Even with the tax credits credits parents get, they are the ones who contribute most to the raising of their children. So to take these tax credits away wouldn't be fair.

Fred44
Salt Lake City, Utah

The Hammer

You said "When people decide they don't have to contribute to society". I assume you are talking about those who want to shift the cost for raising their kids to others?

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

How about just lowering taxes for everyone? We need to cut back on programs and reduce the tax burden and allow people to keep more of the money they earn.

Firing those in Washington DC would be the first best step, followed by hiring people that won't sell their souls to everyone except the voters.

What in Tucket?
Provo, UT

This is a no brainer. Marriage is under siege. Who is going to pay for your retirement?

birder
Salt Lake City, UT

The best answer is still a 10 percent flat tax rate for everyone, regardless of income. If it''s good enough for God, it ought to be good enough for man. BTW, not every single, childless person has deliberately chosen that road. I spend my days teaching everyone else's kids and in many cases parenting them more than their natural parents do. I subsidize my classroom out of my own funds, as do many teachers in this state. I have had no raise in 7 years, and in fact, my income keeps going down.

K
Mchenry, IL

The larger the family the more deductions can be made. This is already the case.

slcdenizen
t-ville, UT

The right is constantly ranting about socialism and keynesian intervention in the markets. But when it comes in the form of tax breaks, suddenly they're on board. We can't make direct payments to impoverished citizens, money that would go straight in to the economy anyway, because that's immoral and encourages dependancy. But when a loophole for tax breaks or subsidies are given to those same individuals because they performed the difficult feat of procreating, it's not just moral but absolutely necessary. The right has become intellectually bankrupt.

IDSpud
Eagle, ID

Slcdenizen -- I would say that both the right and left are intellectually bankrupt. It does no good at all to point at only one side or the other as the sole source of our ills. Both sides of the political spectrum are more interested in obtaining and holding on to power than they are to do what it best for the people or country. On this topic, I would argue that it's not about tax breaks/increases, loopholes, or direct payments to the impoverished (due to their own choice or not), but it should be more about true equity, accountability, and responsibility across the board - both at the political and constituent levels.

I know it. I Live it. I Love it.
Provo, UT

FierceMissus,

It isn't penalizing you at all. If anything, you're taking too much from the system as it is. So am I.

The problem with seeing it as a you vs them argument is that you're pitting yourself against other adults. The CHILDREN are the ones who have no control over their existence or income at all. A child has no ability to give themselves a roof or income, etc. This isn't about giving other adults a nicer car. You don't see that many married couples living the "bachelor life" for a reason. Because they pay a boat load of their money into their children.

We shouldn't punish children because of the choices adults make. Point the responsibility finger at whoever you like. But while people point fingers all day long, I'd rather make sure kids have a meal and proper upbringing.

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

So... Welfare is wrong because it takes money from hardworking Americans and gives it it people who have kids they can't support.

But taxing the hardworking single people and childless couples so families who have kids they can't support can get tax breaks is a really good thing...

Hypocrite much?

If taking money from one group to reward another group for their reproductive choices is wrong and socialist and unAmerican, then it is always wrong and socialist and unAmerican.

World-wide there is a birth every 8 seconds and a death every 12, with a current population of 7,000,000,000 and growing by 6,000 people a day.

Ezekiel 34:17-18. "As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?"

Stormwalker
Cleveland , OH

@I know it. I Live it. I Love it: "We shouldn't punish children because of the choices adults make."

So we can count on you to encourage your congressional representatives to increase funding for WIC, food stamps, welfare payments, and child care vouchers for working low-income parents, as well as children's medical care for everything from routine wellness checks to glasses. Oh. And fully funding school lunch and breakfast for poor kids.

Than you so much. Too many people do think the children of the poor should be punished.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments