this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024
49 points (57.7% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

6293 readers
441 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
49
Parents Should Pay Higher Taxes (self.unpopularopinion)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by corroded to c/unpopularopinion
 

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 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 103 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago

Also the idea of yet another way or reason to exclude young people from society, yet another way to make them other or less than is the opposite of what modern society needs, and should be treated as fundamentally offensive.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 83 points 7 months ago

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

[–] foggy 74 points 7 months ago (5 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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 7 months ago (5 children)

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] iarigby 57 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Dkarma 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Parents already pay higher taxes on everything they buy for their kids.

You need one jacket. My fam needs 4. I'm paying 4x the sales tax you are. I drive my kids to school ..I pay more gas tax.

The only place parents get a break is on income and the only reason is because we have to pay for at least 2x the stuff.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 48 points 7 months ago (2 children)

LOL, get this libertarian incel fantasy land bullshit out of here.

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 bet you don't even realize how telling this sentence is about you.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

this post is the perfect representation of the far reaching consequences of western hyper-individualism.

community is a thing of the past, the golden rule is long dead, no longer do we have any reason to look out for each other. everything and everyone is reduced to its simple atomic parts; you are responsible only to you and what you create, and nothing else from which you have benefited.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Who do you think will be paying your pension when you get old?

[–] [email protected] 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't suppose OP would want to go on pension and work until they die - after all, they don't want to be a drain on society!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] stanleytweedle 42 points 7 months ago

Anyone that's lived more than a decade as an adult should start to make the connection that kids eventually become your coworkers and neighbors and it's more comfortable to live in a society where they are educated and have reasonable opportunities. I'm happy to pay taxes so other people's kids become marginally less shitty adults than they would be if we actively punish them for daring to create the next generation.

[–] Leg 41 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.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago

Upvoted because it truly is an unpopular opinion.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Woht24 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Further, he was a drain on society until he was of age too.

This is such 'fuck you, I want mine' mentality.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JonsJava 39 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.

[–] Passerby6497 36 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

"The government should disincentivize making more citizens and make it much more expensive to do so" is a take that definitely belongs here.

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.

"Future citizens are a drain in society until they aren't, so we should make their caregivers pay more to the government while they're also paying out the nose to raise them"

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.

"We should be actively sabotaging our society by destroying the incentives to make the next generation"

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.

"If you can't support your child on your own while paying higher* taxes, good fucking luck birther"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (8 children)

By increasing taxes on parents instead of reducing them, you not only incentivize safe sex and abortion,

Ah yes, make sure they have less money to spend on preventing pregnancy. What a well thought out and not completely backwards take you have mashed into your keyboard.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 7 months ago (5 children)

No offense but there is something deeply wrong with your worldview and I think you may need to speak to a professional.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago

A carefully crafted shit take ... up voted!

[–] JigglySackles 22 points 7 months ago

What a horrid take. Here's my up vote for a truly unpopular opinion.

[–] halferect 21 points 7 months ago

The reason they get a tax credit is because it costs a lot to have a kid and raise it and all that cost is taxed so they get a break because they are already putting more in then you as a single person and when the parents die they leave behind a new tax payer and when you die nothing will be left behind

[–] angrystego 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Only rich people should have children - that's a seriously unpopular opinion. Upvoted.

[–] Dasus 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I thought the whole eugenics thing was generally agreed to be bad, especially when enforced by economic class, but guess it's in fashion again, sort of like it was ~100 years ago?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Individuals choosing not to have kids should pay an extra tax that should go to the ones having children.

Choosing not to have children is a perfecly acceptable individual choice, but the consequence is that you become a net negative for the economy.

Taking on the burden of child-raising is an essential task that is net positive for the economy, which has been way underappreciated for too long.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't get this one... If I am a productive worker and self fund my retirement, how am I a net negative?

[–] Jimmyeatsausage 10 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Because you aren't replacing yourself. It might not be net negative while you're alive (though I would be very surprised if your 'self funded" retirement wasn't helped along significantly by the tax code (either tax breaks you get for saving for retirement or tax breaks tour employer gets for matching contributions, etc) the state will outlive you and need a replacement...one you didn't contribute to the system.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You’re saying more children should live in poverty so that former children with jobs get a small tax break.

We all have to foot the bill for your old age care, so makes sense you should pay for the children who will be your nurses in old age.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Boozilla 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Remember folks, in this community we upvote unpopular opinions. Looks like people are downvoting because they disagree.

[–] MeatsOfRage 5 points 7 months ago

That's always how this goes. A better name for this sub that reflects people's voting patterns would be "popular_opinions_on_lemmy_that_are_unpopular_with_my_dad" but it doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

bad opinion, thanks for the laugh, upvoted.

if you caresociety has a vested interest in humans being not shitty. part of that interest can be ensured in public education, but the vast majority of what makes a child a good and proactive member of society must come from the parents. human beings turn out better if they have food, a roof over their heads, education and social guidance, and at least one parent or guardian (even better if it’s two). when they don’t have any of those things? things get really bad really fast.

tax breaks and tax credits are are one fine method to make sure that undue burden is not placed on the ones bringing up the next generation of laborers, without paying the parents outright. you characterization of children as “a drain on society” is at best refusing to see the whole picture, and at worst absurd.

[–] negativeyoda 8 points 7 months ago

Yeah. Just what the world needs... a bunch of neglected kids who will rob me in 15 years.

Your parents should have taken assistance so you could have been weaned on something other than paint chips.

Better yet, everyone should stop having kids so humans will die out. I'm not sure who will produce food for us or wipe our ass in the nursing home someday, but we'll get those sweet, sweet tax breaks in the meantime

[–] KombatWombat 7 points 7 months ago (2 children)

It is true that before reaching adulthood children are a financial burden for society, but primarily they are a financial burden on parents. Tax breaks help make it more affordable and a viable option for more than just the wealthy.

But you seem to be of the opinion that having children is a selfish act that society should punish rather than encourage. Some people are not responsible enough to be good parents, or otherwise are not in the right circumstances where it would make sense. But generally children are an investment in society's future, and very much worth the costs of supporting with projected future contributions.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] arin 7 points 7 months ago

China had a one child policy for decades, now look at how they are scrambling panicking at their loss of young adult labor and aging population of seniors that can't work.

No calculating government will shoot their own balls. Lol China..

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

@corroded this opinion is bad. Upvoting for the unpopularity!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

I don't have kids and I take the train. I still pay taxes to build schools and roads because I know we're going to need SOME of them one day. While I am hugely biased toward the idea of massively-dense islands of housing and services, to cut down on maintenance (and use of) roads, keeping transportation medium and education targets and goals in the hands of voters - an idea that is only barely better than every alternative - allows for direction and guidance later (through voting).

We fund the things we need to keep within our control, should we ever wake up and exert that control.

[–] cosmicrookie 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Your argument doesn't really make sense though. If benefits should be limited to the ones who can pay taxes, why have taxes! They could just pay for what they need.

Taxing is a community safety net to make sure everybody gets what they need, even individuals who can't contribute. What you are describing sounds more like a social insurance where only people who have contributed can be covered (similar to pension)

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

A big problem with modern society is that too much of the population is aging out of working age. Dropping birthrates are considered a big problem for developed countries, one that they will have to fix through incentives or by increasing the number of immigrants.

Tax breaks for parents having kids are an incentive to try to encourage more children, and more children are needed for the future of the country.

Here's a video talking about how falling birthrates are a problem for countries

load more comments
view more: next ›