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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Upvoted because it truly is an unpopular opinion.

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

Upvote.

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.

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.

"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"

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.

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

A carefully crafted shit take ... up voted!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

bad opinion, thanks for the laugh, upvoted.

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

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.

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..

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

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

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.

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)

I believe, as Jonathan Swift did, that we should simply eat the children.