> we already subsidise child-rearing through taxation. Single, childless people are taxed at a higher rate
In the US, being married is a tax advantage only if one partner earns much more than the other. Otherwise it's a wash.
In the US, the child tax credit is $2K per child per year. In most cases, this does not come close to covering the costs of raising a child.
So, no, for most people being discussed in the article (generally, dual earners in HCOL US areas), child-rearing is not significantly subsidized through taxation (at least not at the income tax level as you implied).
It's so strange to complain that government doesn't cover the cost of your child. You choose to have your child. I'm sure you plan to support your child.
This is like me complaining that government doesn't subsidize my Tesla.
I'm childless, I will very likely be childless my whole life but this attitude is both: very naive, very ignorant and very very reductionist.
I'm happy that my taxes here in Sweden pay for child support, childcare and schools that I won't ever use, because that is the basic fabric of this society.
Also, it's very rare that people think they are going to bear a child to improve society. Adoption would make much much more sense if that was their goal.
In any case, people want to have children, sure.
Then they complain that having a child is so tough so much hardship (e.g. no vacation ever in this thread, child tax credit is not enough). Then, they turn to society to support them in an unfair way
Almost everyone knows the estimated cost and effort upfront. There are tons of materials and prior experience.
It's like me spending all my cash on Tesla and then complain that society doesnt support me enough.
Yes it is a decision. Sometimes selfish, most often foolish, but in all cases needed. And all benefit.
Tax cuts don't really make that much of a difference at the end of the day. Loss of job promotions, inability to take the same financial risks, childcare, education, lack of downtime, etc, all I think have a much bigger impact financially.
But it is also understandable to think that it is unfair to make non-parents pick up the slack for those who are parents. Although as a society we already pick up the slack for those who are unable to work.
Again, it is a question of wether we think there is a social good to have some of us raise children to become, hopefully, taxpaying adults, and if this is a common good, then who and how should bear the burden? Only the parents?
However, this is happening at a smaller, more arbitrary scale. It's not "I support our future through a legally defined contribution", but "my colleague is working 25% less and still gets paid the same, but I need to take PTO to get a haircut".
I think it depends on how you frame it.
1. We should all get equal treatment. Parents enjoys benefits that other employees don't. Their personal life can affect their performance, but that doesn't apply to other employees.
2. We're all in this situation together. To each according to their needs, from each according to their capacity.
I think both are true.