It's tax time people. Here is my idea.

I think we should give tax cuts to couples that opt not to have babies. Let's face it- the best way to stop jobless people and shore up the unemployment rate is to simply have less people. Less people means fewer cuts by companies and fewer people on government welfare.

That would also mean less people to make bad mortgages, less banks having to be bailed out, and less money added to the federal deficit. Of course, by having less people we would probably prevent several wealthy entrepreneurs from being born,  but we also have a chance at cutting down the amount of government leechers.

Vote and tell me where i'm wrong.

*please note, I neither confirm nor deny this as my own personal view on the subject.

In this scenario, would you get rid of the tax deductions for claiming dependents? Because getting a deduction for having dependents, and also getting one for not having any... seems odd.

Either way, I don't think it would change much of anything. People generally have babies (or don't) for non-tax purposes.

You'd be giving people a benefit for reducing the future tax pool. Social Security would tank, and who would pay for the national health care once all the old people start working and start going to the doctors every week?

Also, no one really has babies for tax purposes as badgenome said. About the best you'll get is a forced c-section on the 31st if the baby is due on the 1st cause then you get a bonus year

The problem I see with this is that you're trying to solve current and urgent problems using a method which will take at least a full generation to have any significant effect.

One needs to be careful when tinkering with the population. In the places that have taken steps to limit it, the results have generally not been good.

People who contribue more to society tend to have less kids than those who don't. If a woman becomes a doctor, lawyer, business woman, or other important job, compared to a other women she will not start a family until much later and not have as many kids. For people who contribute less to society, having kids can have an economic incentive, be it in the form child support or government aid.

Bingo. Financial incentives aren't helping in Japan, where they'll give you a good deal of funding to have kids (with the demographic crisis and all)

Though this has a higher chance of working, since it's like farm subsidies. They pay you more to do less, which synchs up perfectly with core American values :P

I would say that you shouldn't cut taxes to favor particular social outcomes. That would be against the liberty of the citizens. How would you feel if there was a 'Christian tax cut'?

Instead, we should be reducing the number of special groups that get preferential treatment by US tax law. Close the loopholes, and ensure that everyone is required to pay their fair share.

In such a way, you'd remove some advantages of having children (child tax credits).

On the other end of the spectrum, I wouldn't worry about birth rates. The birth rate in the US is just above replacement, so it wouldn't do us much good to go into the negative ala Europe and Japan. We need to be population neutral or slightly positive...Not dying off. Unless, that is, if you want all the undeveloped nations to be the growing ones in the world

I would just get rid of all deductions period. They make things complicated, are unneeded, and kinda unethical.

I mean, think about it... specifically trying to limit children won't even effect employment for at best 16 years? More like 18+?

Get rid of all the tax deductions and hey, maybe health care reform really could be budget neutral.

That would be terrible. The population would decrease and get older and older, the workforce and thus tax money would decrease, and everything would just be a mess.

No, I think it's a bad idea.  >.>