this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6315 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

As is stands, parents are able to claim their children as dependents on their tax returns, which lowers their overall tax liability and in effect means that the parents either pay less in taxes or receive a higher return at the end of each year.

Until they reach the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society. They receive public schooling and receive the same benefit from public services that adults do, yet they contribute nothing in return. At the point that they reach maturity and are gainfully employed and paying taxes, they become a functioning member of society.

If a parent decides to have a child, they are making a conscious decision to produce another human being. They could choose to get a sterilization surgery, use birth control, or abort the pregnancy (assuming they don't live in a backwards state that's banned it). Yet even if they decide to have 15 children, the rest of society has to foot the bill for their poor decisions until the child reaches adulthood.

By increasing taxes on parents instead of reducing them, you not only incentivize safe sex and abortion, but you shift the burden of raising a child solely to the individuals who are responsible for the fact that that child exists.

I am a strong advocate for social programs: Single-payer healthcare, welfare programs, low-income housing, etc, but for adults who in turn contribute what they can. A child should only be supported by the individuals who created it.

top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] davemeech@lemmy.ca 2 points 7 months ago

Unpopular as advertised, sure. But man, what an absolute weapons-grade bad take, with beginning to end poor reasoning.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Children are not a drain on society, they are society. You cannot have a society for longer than a single generation without children. They are critically important to continuing any society and penalizing people for deciding to have children is backwards thinking.

The idea that a single family body should be the sole people responsible for the development of a child is also a foolish and somewhat modern misconception. The adage of "it takes a village..." comes to mind. As a society, it is our collective duties to ensure that all members of the society are healthy and cared for. We are communal, social creatures who have long relied on community to be successful and raise our children. This individualist perspective is myopic and counterproductive.

Additionally, the value of a human being simply cannot be reduced to what they contribute to the GDP. Children or adults.

[–] corroded@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Children are not a drain on society, they are society. You cannot have a society for longer than a single generation without children.

Nowhere did I suggest that people should just completely stop having children. The fact is that children are extremely expensive, and having more than one per adult is quite frankly unnecessary. At least until the unchecked population growth is under control, reproduction should be disincentivized as much as possible, and society should not be forced to bear the brunt of parents' poor reproductive decisions.

[–] TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 months ago

Overpopulation is a myth that results in supporting eugenics.

[–] Leg@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

The fact that there exists a mind who can think this is a good take has me deeply concerned for the future.

Upvote.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Parents pay less in taxes because they've contributed a human to the system which will inevitably be taxed.

It's an incentive for procreation.

Frankly the incentive isn't good enough.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You’re assuming the child will eventually pay taxes.

[–] Ddinistrioll@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Unless you're in a country/state with no VAT/sale taxe, the child will inevitably pay taxes.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] Ddinistrioll@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not from the US, but according to this source, only Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon don't have sale taxes. Which means, if I'm not mistaken, that at most only about 2.5% of the US population can realistically never pay taxes (percentage of us pop. per states from Wikipedia)

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago

The post was about federal income tax deductions.

[–] JonsJava@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Upvoted because you're dead wrong, in my opinion. Your argument incentivizes the demise of the human race by saying "stop having kids to save money". Society is made up of generations. Get rid of the youngest generation, you remove humanity.

[–] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Until the age at which they can work, children are a drain on society

Just remember that after the age you can work, you will be a drain on other people's children.

[–] iarigby@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

This isn’t unpopular, this is plain wrong. You seem to be so blinded by your hate of kids that you forget they’re critically essential for the society to function

[–] GBU_28@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Say what you will about humans on earth, annoying kids, etc.

But the state needs bodies. Kids are future workers, and they state wants healthy, capable workers. As such, tax credits are offered not as a prize to the parents, but an investment by the state. The state is hoping parents will have a bit more money for healthy food, housing and education for their kids, thus creating workers who are a bit healthier and more capable.

Human capital is a real thing, at a state level. Lose your input, and you'll grow weak.

You may not have had a perfect, or even good upbringing, but any tax credit your parent/guardian received didn't make it worse. If you did have a good upbringing, think of all the variables that went into that. Tax credits are a small part of that.

Upvote for using the sub correctly