OK, sir, I apologize for my knee-jerk reaction to your post. Unlike most people on this forum, I have no agenda, and thus can admit when I've responded with malice, sometimes as the result of having too much smoke and wine. Which I did with you. Again, I apologize. As a father with a son who is an aspiring professional in Wildlife Sciences (somewhat related to your profession), I can respect your professional perspective.
But I can't understand how paying people to grow corn (which was done beginning in the 1940's) does not equate to a tax break. OK, don't call it a tax break. Call it a "financial disbursement for the purpose of growing corn". In any event, my point is that a professional auditing accountant would have to determine, based solely upon tax laws and information gleaned from review of the financial books, that people were being paid to grow corn, and that the result was that MORE CORN WAS BEING GROWN.
And this seems to me (and to other economic professionals who've written professional papers that I've read) to be a rather strong indication that anytime the government gives financial incentive (via tax breaks, or direct payment) for people to do certian things (in this case, to grow corn), is that MORE of that thing occurs.
It was confirmed in the 1940's that more corn resulted from such government subsidies. And I submit that it wasn't a result that was contained to the agricultural industry (as other economic experts purport). I submit that it's a general principle that can be applied to other scientific fields, including the human response to tax breaks given for having children.
I appreciate the kind words, and the apology, but it was really not necessary as my jimmies aint rustled.
Youre right, paying somebody to do shit, results in somebody doin shit, in most areas of life. not all of em though. How much would i have to pay you to cut off your own arm with a pocket knife? What kind of tax break might convince you to become a Mandatory Euthanasia Technician at a preschool? Sometimes money isnt a powerful enough incentive to influence behavior.
I grok your concerns, dig your passion for the subject, and largely agree with your assertions in the "big picture" way, but as a matter of individual "family planning" cost benefit analysis, the Dependent Child tax deduction is completely irrelevant to anyone's process regarding future reproduction. The people who plan to have kids would do so, and always have done so (see China's one child policy failure) regardless of any laws. Adoption for example is a prohibitively expensive process for most families, yet they still do it. and they dont do it for the Dependent Child tax deduction. If you got a kid, the deduction is super important, as those yard monsters are super expensive to maintain. If your considering making or adopting a kid, the deduction never even registers on the balance sheet.
As to welfare, you may be correct in a macro-economic sense, as the surety of the "social safety net" that liberals love so much does reduce the counter-incentive to avoid reproduction, but those on welfare (legitimately) usually would prefer to have LESS kids, and are resistant to the idea of having more. Those who are on welfare (again, legitimately) because they have really bad judgement, poor planning and shitty math skills are completely unaffected by the possibility of additional welfare payments, kids just sorta happen to them, and they cant figure out how to stop it. The place where you are
Absolutely 100% Correct is the "Welfare Queen" or "Foodstamp Millionaire" demographic. Assholes who register in multiple jurisdictions for every assistance program in sight that they can use to their advantage and they can turn into at a profit. Some welfare cheats have been caught registering in 4 counties in California. an extra $100 - $200 a month for an extra kid is far less than they cost to maintain, but an extra $400 - $800 a month makes that lil shit factory into a nice stable profit center for their welfare fraud empires. thats where the cross checking, verification and program auditing should focus, rather than painting welfare as a social evil, or a wasteful expenditure.
Even those who think they would never ever ever EEEEVER wind up on welfare can sleep just a little better knowing they wont starve or huddle under an overpass if the economy takes another turn down Obama Road into New Great Depressionville.
Speaking as somebody who has in the past gone from working class and employed to homeless, jobless, penniless and alone in a strange city far from home in the span of one day, the welfare system can make the difference between getting back on your feet, or resorting to knocking over liquor stores to get home.
In brief, when it's needed, the assitance programs are there to help, but they are too easy to abuse.
