AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (7 comments)

  1. Seattle Sam

    This simply perpetuates the idea that Congress should be in the business of picking winners and losers via the tax code.

  2. mesa econoguy

    How about getting rid of the moronic, broke social “insurance” programs – the actual problem – instead?

  3. Benjamin Cole

    Not a bad plan and a refreshing change from the GOP’s usual pandering to the wealthiest…

  4. In my humble opinion we ought to quit using the tax code for social engineering and instead model it on what is minimally necessary to generate the revenue required to operate the government. If that must include taxing incomes (which would seem to be something that shouldn’t be disincentived), then at least we should eliminate all “deductions” and “credits”, which are almost always social engineering at best and payoffs to political constituencies at worst.

  5. Benjamin Cole

    Yes, let’s cut the homeowner’s mortgage interest tax deduction…

  6. Joe Marinaro

    So Lee, from Utah a state with the highest birth rate and low taxes comes up with a plan to reward high birth rates and punish high tax states. Go figure.

    People without kids still pay hefty school taxes. If the government is going to start picking winners and losers to this extent with the tax code, then allow those with no children to not pay school taxes?

    Low income parents would essentially be paid by the government to have kids … big time.

    Having children is a choice and a joy. Placing a financial incentive on that choice seems perverse to me. If you can’t afford children, don’t have them. If you don’t want children don’t have them. Either way the government shouldn’t be placing either an incentive or a punishment for that decision.

    What happens if the children grow up to be poor and are not contributing to Social Security and Medicare? Does the government go back to parents and reclaim the tax credits that were given with the assumption that their children would be big contributors to the social programs?

    This silly plan in effect will give parents a reduction in their contribution to the operation of the federal government. Many programs run by that funding benefits children including education, school lunches, medical care, food stamps, student loans, etc. Should folks without children shoulder the bulk of that burden?

    Stop this silly bit of social engineering.

  7. I know quite a number of families who would benefit from this type of relief. Investing in our children’s future by helping mom’s and dad’s today – awesome idea! it has my full support.
    To the rest calling this social engineering, don’t get me started on all the social agendas Washington has been pushing these days. Just TRY to tell me how a family benefited by this tax relief is a special interest group?

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content