Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

J.D. Vance Says Childless Americans Should Pay Higher Taxes. They Already Do.

Donald Trump's running mate has discovered the most politically toxic way to demand the status quo.

Eric Boehm | 7.29.2024 2:35 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
J.D. Vance | Phil McAuliffe/Polaris/Newscom
(Phil McAuliffe/Polaris/Newscom)

In comments from 2021 that resurfaced last week, Sen. J.D. Vance (R–Ohio) said that childless Americans ought to pay higher taxes than those who have kids.

"If you're making $100,000 [or] $400,000 a year, and you've got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you're making the same amount of money and you don't have kids," Vance said back then, during an interview with conservative activist and podcaster Charlie Kirk.

Here's the good news for Vance: It's already true that childless Americans pay higher taxes than most of those who reproduce. That was true in 2021, and it is true today.

That's because of the child tax credit, which has existed since 1997 and has been partially refundable since 2001. For each dependent that can be claimed, a tax filer gets up to $2,000 credit—with up to $1,400 of that total being refundable, meaning that it gets paid out even if the filer doesn't owe any taxes. As part of the tax reform package passed by Republicans during the Trump administration, the child tax credit was doubled from $1,000 per kid to the current level.

To use Vance's own example: An individual who earns $100,000 and has three kids would qualify for $6,000 in child tax credits. A childless person who also earns $100,000 would not get those credits and would therefore pay a higher effective tax rate.

There's one small wrinkle that's worth pointing out: As currently structured, the child tax credit phases out at a rate of 5 percent for individuals who earn over $200,000 annually and couples who earn over $400,000. That means that every additional dollar earned beyond those thresholds qualifies for 5 cents less in tax credits. The maximum tax credit is $2,000, so by the time you've earned $40,000 additional dollars (as a single filer) or $80,000 additional dollars (as a joint filer), you get zero child tax credit. The most charitable reading of Vance's comments is to assume he wants to expand eligibility for the child tax credit so even wealthy families earning over $400,000 annually can access it.

Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign and other Democratic-aligned groups blasted Vance's comments around the internet last week to frame former President Donald Trump's running mate as being unfriendly to childless Americans. That's a fair critique, but there are at least two bigger problems here for Vance.

First, his apparent ignorance of how the current tax code rewards people for having kids undermines his status as the supposed policy wonk on the Republican ticket. Maybe it's a good idea to create tax-based incentives for Americans to have kids, or maybe it isn't—regardless, it's certainly not a novel idea that only a guy who grew up in Real America could have.

This is a little bit like a Democrat running for office in 2024 on a promise to mandate that all Americans have health insurance. You'd wonder if they'd been paying attention.

It's also worth considering how Vance, in that 2021 interview, puts this idea into the context of what the populist right is trying to achieve. Parents should pay lower taxes than nonparents, he told Kirk, because policy ought to "reward the things that we think are good" and "punish the things that we think are bad."

Again, he treats this as if it is a radical break from the status quo, when, in fact, it simply is the status quo. But instead of talking about why parents might deserve to pay less in taxes, he's eager to turn the issue into an us-vs.-them dynamic in order to justify a tax hike.

The second problem is even more revealing in what it illustrates about Vance's skills as a politician. Again, keep in mind that the policy he's proposing already exists. Most politicians would describe the status quo as being a tax break for parents. Vance, however, is eager to frame this idea as a tax hike on childless adults.

Both are true, but only one of those is likely to generate a response like this from Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy, who seems like exactly the target audience for Vance's edgy, tough guy act:

This is fucking idiotic. You want me to pay more taxes to take care of other people's kids? We sure this dude is a Republican? Sounds like a moron. If you can't afford a big family don't have a ton of kids. pic.twitter.com/oPCYMkq3G1

— Dave Portnoy (@stoolpresidente) July 26, 2024

Portnoy's reaction seems pretty rational for anyone who hasn't been steeped in tax policy. As Dominic Pino points out at National Review, Americans aren't generally a fan of politicians "siccing the government on a subset of the population." From a Republican perspective, this was a completely unforced rhetorical error by Vance.

More generally, Vance's comments from 2021 leave the impression that "at some level Mr. Vance really doesn't respect people who make different life choices," opines The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, who compared the moment to Hillary Clinton's infamous gaff when she described Trump supporters as "deplorable."

I'd argue that Vance's comments are a bit worse than how the Journal describes them. As a childless adult, I am admittedly a bit biased here—but the problem isn't merely that Vance disrespects that decision. It's that he actively wants to, in his own words, "punish" it.

In this case, the federal tax code is already doing the punishing that Vance wants to dish out. So the only thing Vance has accomplished is finding the most politically toxic way to describe an existing, bipartisan policy.

In doing so, however, he revealed a nasty part of his character and his views on how government should work. Americans should notice that.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Did Nicolás Maduro Just Steal Another Election?

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyTax creditsTaxesJ.D. VanceDonald TrumpRepublican PartyElection 2024Campaigns/ElectionsChildren
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (171)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. CE   10 months ago

    Yeah, sorry JD. We already pay property taxes to the local school for other peoples' kids to be indoctrinated there.

    1. Idaho-Bob   10 months ago

      Even in my very red county, the school levies pop up every fucking election. There's great wailing and gnashing of teeth when a levy fails.

      1. Mickey Rat   10 months ago

        The gnashing of teeth is likely largely from the teacher's unions, rather than families with children.

      2. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

        Mean old levy taught me to weep and moan.

    2. JFree   10 months ago

      You pay property taxes so that when you sell the house you get the value of that school from the next buyer.

      1. Bruce D   10 months ago

        “You pay property taxes so that when you sell the house you get the value of that school from the next buyer.”

        But the seller pays for that value when he or she first bought the house. When she first buys the house, the childless cat lady has to pay a premium for the value of the good school she’s never going to use, all factored into the purchase price. She then receives that same value back, factored into the selling price, when she sells the house, all even. But, she still has to pay property taxes for the school that she and her kids, because she has no kids, will never use. And, those property taxes could easily exceed any additional property value due to good schools – there are plenty enough bad schools that don’t add to property value. So, yes, childless cat lady does subsidize the children of others.

        1. Overt   10 months ago

          Yeah, don't worry- this is JFear. He thinks he is clever. He really isn't.

          1. Mother's Lament   10 months ago

            A bien pensant's bien pensant. If it's received wisdom it's his firm belief.

          2. Bruce D   10 months ago
        2. JFree   10 months ago

          A school – or any infrastructure or anything for that matter – is not a one-time expense. Infrstructure depreciates and part of property taxes pays for both maintenance of that value and/or improvement of that value.

          she still has to pay property taxes for the school that she and her kids, because she has no kids, will never use. And, those property taxes could easily exceed any additional property value due to good schools

          Well then get involved in how those prop taxes are spent. In particular, make sure the neighborhood and school system understands the difference between facilities/infrastructure (defined broadly as the stuff that accrues to land value – to the price a future buyer will pay for that local education opportunity) v curriculum/teaching (defined as the value that accrues solely to the students). Most decisions nowadays conflate/muddy it all. School choice/vouchers – politicized arguments about curriculum/teachers – decisions to delegate everything up to district level so neighborhood is no longer involved – decisions to restrict facility use – property taxes that are determined outside the neighborhood level - etc.

          1. Bruce D   10 months ago

            "In particular, make sure the neighborhood and school system understands the difference between facilities/infrastructure (defined broadly as the stuff that accrues to land value – to the price a future buyer will pay for that local education opportunity) v curriculum/teaching (defined as the value that accrues solely to the students)."

            Agreed. Spiffy new buildings have zero to do with students learning - most all classes could be held in tents with the same amount of learning. It's the instruction that counts. But, administrators and school board members want "accomplishments" to dress up their egos. That means unnecessary billion-dollar (or hundreds-million-dollar) buildings with their names on it. Everyone in the district, including childless cat lady, will have to pay for it.

        3. jimc5499   10 months ago

          A few years ago a candidate for the local School Board, told me to sit down and shut up when I asked him a question. He told me that since I had no children, I didn't have a say in what the Board did. I told him that I'd sit down and shut up when they stopped taking $3,000 per year out of my pay and stopped taxing my house for another $6,000 per year, now answer the freaking question.

    3. Nardz   10 months ago

      Yea, let's bitch about not making families pay more in taxes.
      Wouldn't want to talk about dysgenic policies like subsidizing Shaniequa popping out kids with other welfare recipients, or inviting Carlita in to have her family's life taken care of by Americans.
      Nope, let's talk about tax PAYING citizens not getting hit hard enough.
      Mustn't show any opposition to white replacement via gay race communism.

    4. ed tantamount   10 months ago

      Yous a foo.

    5. Azathoth!!   10 months ago

      The property taxes you pay for schools are for the education YOU received-- not the one your child will receive.

      The taxes you pay reflect the benefit you got from the education that was invested in you as represented by the value of the house you buy.

      I don't think Vance is referring to the child tax credit. I think he's suggesting that people who have kids --provide the next generation of citizens-- should pay less than the people who deliberately freeload on the system-- in perpetuity. Meaning that, unlike the child tax credit, which disappears when the child turns 18, the deliberately childless tax penalty should kick in every year.

      Have or adopt a child. Simple.

      Keep this going until the last malthusians (of whatever stripe) are dead.

  2. Eeyore   10 months ago

    How does a tax credit equate to paying higher taxes?

    1. Quicktown Brix   10 months ago

      Because people that don't get the credit pay higher taxes.

      1. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

        Ya think? Seems like the treasury just borrows more.

      2. Eeyore   10 months ago

        I miss read the title of the article. I thought it said parents with children pay more.

        1. Quicktown Brix   10 months ago

          Oh. That explains it.

      3. jimc5499   10 months ago

        Funny thing is that people who pay no taxes at all, get the "tax credit" in the form of a check. I can understand applying the "tax credit" to reduce a family's tax burden, but, don't give it as an automatic refund.

        1. Zeb   10 months ago

          Some tax credits are like that and some aren't. There is an awful lot of welfare handouts hidden (not very well) in the tax code.

    2. Nardz   10 months ago

      Because Reason isn't even hiding their leftism anymore.
      They've barely been making a pass at doing so for years, but they're all in with the rest of the MSM on putting no effort into it now.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   10 months ago

        I’m sure Koch has directed them to get Harris elected.

        1. Bruce D   10 months ago

          On what basis? I see no evidence of it, or any evidence that Koch supports Harris. Would you work to get Harris elected if paid by Koch? It’s the Left that usually accuses people of being bought and sold when they disagree, mainly because they’re more easily bought and sold themselves. But, I suppose elements of the Right can also.

          1. Mother's Lament   10 months ago

            Would you work to get Harris elected if paid by Koch?

            How else do you explain Sullum, Lancaster and Petti articles here them? Sullum paid for brand new siding in 2020 by NeverTrumping for Koch.

            1. Bruce D   10 months ago

              “How else do you explain Sullum, Lancaster and Petti articles here them? “

              Because, agree or disagree with them, that’s what they really think and believe. Again, it’s the left that believes people do things because they’re bought and sold, and can’t concieve of anything else. Maybe the right also believes that.

    3. Nardz   10 months ago

      https://x.com/CosmistRussian/status/1818035811251867983?t=3FTTYPjZwDfNk4VhgxYU0w&s=19

      Trump is immensely popular and was just nearly assassinated. Very cowardly people on both sides of the aisle are trying to attack the ticket by proxy - by calling JD Vance "Weird" or endlessly complaining about "Project 2025." Pure Dem op

      1. Mother's Lament   10 months ago

        The real Project 2025

        1. Will bring back 5 for $5 at Arby’s and $5 Subway footlongs
        2. Cigarette vending machines are back, so is the Marlboro Points Catalogue
        3. ​Dine in Pizza Huts with red cups
        4. CD Players and AM Radio back in cars
        6. Subsidized UFC, federal bailout for Red Lobster
        7. McDonalds French fries will be fried in beef tallow again, McRib served year round
        8. 1975 Trans Am for every American
        9. Seatbelts and child seats back to being optional. Parents don’t have to stop so mom can nurse on long trips
        10. Free American flag with every case of beer. Pull tab beer cans
        11. Boys will wear pants unless they can prove they’re Scottish. DNA test required
        12. The Confederate battle flag goes back on the roof of the General Lee
        13. No fishing limit or size restrictions in Minnesota
        14. “Hold my beer and watch this” will be a valid legal defense
        15. Pool slides mandatory for every pool larger than 200 gallons
        16. Skiing with a rope tied to the cars bumper in winter legal again
        17. Bringing back lawn darts
        18. Cocaine in Coca Cola
        19. Rodeo week and Sturgis are national holidays
        20. Keystone Pipeline XL will now end at new refinery row and crude shipping terminal to be built at Martha’s Vineyard
        21. Theft insurance not permitted for businesses that don’t house a revolver under the till
        22. Ashtrays back in restaurants, smoking and real food back on planes
        24. A Harvard degree automatically excludes you from government employment forever
        25. No fat chicks in the SI Swimsuit Edition

        Youth Bonus: Will make anime real. 2D marriage legalized.

        1. TheDudeAbe   10 months ago

          "CD Players and AM Radio back in cars"
          The rest of the list seemed pretty sarcastic. But I actually heard a commercial the other day urging us to contact our representatives to tell them that we support forcing carmakers to keep AM radios in cars.

  3. LIBtranslator   10 months ago

    "Are we sure this guy is a republican? Sounds like a moron!"
    Dave gets the No Schaisst, Sherlock prize for Tickling Testamentary Tautology.
    Vance is a s(h)itting Republican, hates the LP, thinks the LP should only run candidates against Dems... the guy is PERFECT for a Nick Gillespie interview as an "ally," "fellow traveller" or "parallel thinker" provided the Reason foundation gets $200 a minute for chorusing the elegy. (Why get votes when we can be aping Trumpanzees?)

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

      Girl bulliers and pussy grabbers all the way down.

      1. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   10 months ago

        And something nonsensical about Comstock and the 1972 LP planks.

  4. Mickey Rat   10 months ago

    I guess those kids Boehm resents having to "pay for" won't resent having to pay high taxes for his Sicial Security and MediCare payments? After all, he has not left anyone behind to support him in his old age.

    1. P. Henry   10 months ago

      How is this relevant? If Boehm’s generation owes anything to younger generations because of our screwed-up Ponzi schemes of entitlements that debt belongs to everyone in his generation. It has nothing to do with those without kids.

      1. Mickey Rat   10 months ago

        Because hec is going to be freeloading on the productivity of those kids at some point, without contributing anything himself, so they are not simply a present cost to him today.

        1. Bruce D   10 months ago

          “Because hec is going to be freeloading on the productivity of those kids at some point, without contributing anything himself, “

          All the geezers are freeloading, whether they’ve had kids or not. So noble – have kids so they can grow up and pay for the parents. How do the parents have any right to coercively exploit the next generation? Did they have kids with that in mind? Forced Social Security Ponzi scheme is the problem from a libertarian standpoint, not whether people have enough kids to support it.

        2. Bruce D   10 months ago

          "freeloading on the productivity of those kids at"

          If he saved and/or invested his money in some way, his money, directly or indirectly, created the jobs of those kids, profits from employing those kids get paid as dividends or stock price appreciation, obviating any need for Social Security Ponzi..

      2. Nardz   10 months ago

        It has everything to do with not having kids.
        That you don't understand this simply reveals you as a tabula rasa bugman at heart.

    2. Bruce D   10 months ago

      "After all, he has not left anyone behind to support him in his old age."

      We don't know that. For all we know, Boehm is being a good libertarian and is planning his future retirement by investing and saving his own money, and will have enough to retire without needing Social Security. It's only Social Security that is a Ponzi scheme requiring the next generation to pay for the previous. If he receives proceeds from investments means he's living off the increased productivity his investments make possible as well as Social Security contributions from the youngsters whose jobs his investments create.

  5. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

    So the link has the same quote as ENB shows above. It's not clear to me that Vance is proposing policy or simply agreeing with existing tax incentives. Could be an offhand comment in a long interview. But it's a leap to assume he's ignorant of existing law. I don't agree that tax law should reward certain behaviours like having kids or buying EVs but taxation is theft so I don't lay awake at night worrying that the federal government isn't stealing enough. As to childless cat ladies I have to agree that they have far too much influence on the culture and politics. People with kids have much more important things to worry about. You should try it ENB. Seems to have worked for Liz.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

      Shit just realised Boehm wrote this. Apologies to ENB.

    2. Mike Parsons   10 months ago

      "It’s not clear to me that Vance is proposing policy or simply agreeing with existing tax incentives. Could be an offhand comment in a long interview. But it’s a leap to assume he’s ignorant of existing law. I don’t agree that tax law should reward certain behaviours like having kids or buying EVs "

      Ya, the 100k vs 400k portion of it makes me feel he is pointing to the fact that it phases out (an issue I am intimately familiar with). Very annoyingly I came to find out many tax bennies people frequently tout aren't applicable to higher income brackets or are no longer a thing (first time home buyers).

      So im on board with if you are going to have it, let everyone have it. As you say though, I would be as happy if it was a clean slate for everyone and the govt just taxed less (for everyone) without trying to incentivize behavior.

      "Vance, however, is eager to frame this idea as a tax hike on childless adults."

      Ya, if he framed it that way that's an unforced error. You lead with what the freebie giveaway goodies are, and hide who pays for it. Not agreeing in this scenario, but its just a universal rule for politics

      1. chemjeff radical individualist   10 months ago

        Ya, if he framed it that way that’s an unforced error.

        But it's not an unforced error, from the populist point of view. Instead, if you view the world in terms of Team Good (the simple folk of the land) vs. Team Bad (everyone else, i.e., 'the elites', city dwellers, illegals, CHAY-na, 'childless cat ladies', etc.), then it's your job to always frame every issue in terms of Team Good getting rewarded, and/or Team Bad getting punished. So even though in this case, the families of Team Good are getting the 'freebie giveaway goodies', you don't want to make it seem like Team Good has a bunch of moochers, so instead you frame it as Team Bad getting punished with higher taxes for their wicked sin of choosing not to have kids.

        1. Mike Parsons   10 months ago

          "So even though in this case, the families of Team Good are getting the ‘freebie giveaway goodies’, you don’t want to make it seem like Team Good has a bunch of moochers"

          Feels like you are reaching. I dont think someone going with the playbook of "big families good" couldn't get away with simply saying "I want to help out the people creating and raising the next generation" rather than "I want someone else to pay more taxes"

          1. defaultdotxbe   10 months ago

            You sure about that?

            "Increasing child tax credit benefits has been a rallying cry for Democrats since the temporary pandemic-era expansion for 2021 lifted more than 2 million children out of poverty, according to census data."
            https://missouriindependent.com/2024/02/09/congress-is-looking-at-expanding-the-child-tax-credit-again-who-would-benefit/

          2. chemjeff radical individualist   10 months ago

            So, he is doing both. My point is that this is deliberate. He is a Champion of the Good Team and a Punisher of the Bad Team.

    3. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   10 months ago

      Expect more of this. Endless hit pieces about Vance, Trump, or Trump AND Vance. Especially from the hacks like Boehm and Sullum.

      1. Mother's Lament   10 months ago

        That's what the brown envelopes are for.

        1. Bruce D   10 months ago

          Maybe you’d change your tune if you received a “brown envelope”, yourself? Brown envelopes are a left-wing thing. They believe that everyone is bought off and corrupted because that’s what they, themselves, would do. Maybe a little bit of brown envelope projection, ya think?

  6. Eeyore   10 months ago

    I'm sick of paying to send other people's sperm gollums to school.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   10 months ago

      You planning on living past 60?
      Who is gonna provide your basic needs when you are too old to do all the technical and manual labor required to keep yourself alive and well?

      1. defaultdotxbe   10 months ago

        Are we so far gone with entitlements that we can't even conceive of someone planning for their own retirement?

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   10 months ago

          With robots?

          1. Bruce D   10 months ago

            "With robots?"

            The robuts are part of the retirement plan. Buy robots (or a "robot fund") and rent them out. Their wages are your pension or dividends. Free-market, ya know. With increased automation and per capita productivity, less "human workers" are required for the same output.

          2. Fire up the Woodchippers! (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   10 months ago

            Difficult to say, but that Bender guy appears pretty unreliable.

        2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   10 months ago

          What do Entitlements have to do with anything?
          Someone has to grow your food, someone has to truck it to your local store. Someone has to stock the shelves. Someone has to manufacture your medicine and eyeglasses and build your vehicle. Someone has to go to nursing school and medical school.

          1. Bruce D   10 months ago

            And they're all getting paid for it without necessarily being subsidized by the government.

          2. Bruce D   10 months ago

            So long as people like fucking and think babies are cute, that “someone”, the spawn produced, will always be there. The cute baby is its own reward, no need to further incentivise baby production. And when that baby grows up, the money that the childless cat lady invested in industry, rather than in screaming brats of her own, will create jobs for that cute baby when it grows up. And, that cute baby grown up will not have to compete for jobs with childless cat lady’s kids, because childless cat lady doesn’t have any kids against which to compete.

        3. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

          Are we so far gone with entitlements that we can’t even conceive of someone planning for their own retirement?

          We're realistic enough to recognize that that isn't possible for most people. People in the top two quintiles have a shot at accumulating enough wealth to retire decently. The majority do not.

          1. Bruce D   10 months ago

            “We’re realistic enough to recognize that that isn’t possible for most people.”

            Is it that it’s not possible or, realistically, most people aren’t that responsible or farsighted? It’s only the irresponsible childless cat ladies who owe anything to subsequent generations for supporting them, not the responsible ones.

            1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

              It's that it's not possible.

              1. Bruce D   10 months ago

                How is it not “possible”? Seems easy enough for most people to save money each month or ensure they can qualify for a job that has a pension or 401k. Most people may not be responsible enough, but it’s possible. A better solution would be to give tax credits for investing in qualified plans or portfolios, rather than for having kids one may have trouble supporting.

                Personally, I have nothing against dependent child tax credits. I’d rather expand the number of credits so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the income tax, credit by credit by credit…

      2. ObviouslyNotSpam   10 months ago

        Are you assuming that the Social Security system will even exist when Eeyore would theoretically need it? I've long, long written it off.

      3. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

        We need a whole lot of clumps of cells. I'm not being facetious.

        1. Mother's Lament   10 months ago

          But we can just replace Eeyore with fifteen illegal immigrants who'll work for a fraction of the cost of the clump of cells.

      4. Bruce D   10 months ago

        Maybe save for retirement or make sure one obtains a job with a reasonsble pension plan or 401k.

        1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

          Only a minority are able to achieve that. The rest are unlikely to volunteer to die when they can't support themselves anymore.

          1. Bruce D   10 months ago

            Maybe give tax credits as a percentage of what one saves, or mandatory savings (would be better than government Ponzi). Only those who don't save in some form are a burden. Not all childless catladies.

            1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

              Everyone who is not currently producing is a burden. Those who could save can't eat money.

              1. Bruce D   10 months ago

                The money of people who saved represents prior production which is stockpiled, or invested to create jobs for the kids of people who reproduced. Plus, the kids of the breeders don't have to compete with the kids of childless cat lady because childless cat lady doesn't have any kids against which to compete.

                As long people like fucking and think babies are cute, there'll be plenty of kids without having to incentivise it.

    2. JoeJoetheIdiotCircusBoy   10 months ago

      "sperm gollums"...ha! I've never heard that before. I'm going to start using that

    3. ed tantamount   10 months ago

      Well if you understood how the economy works, you wouldn't be so sick. Get well.

  7. Piru   10 months ago

    Everyone without minor children in their home pays more taxes than families with children because of the number of exemptions they get to take. It is the same for childless people, grandparents, etc. It is just the way it is. Unless you want to charge a flat amount for every household, there will always be inequities in what we pay in taxes.

    Now there is a thought: What if we just divided the total annual budget for each fiscal year by the number of breathing people in the USA and charged each person that amount? I bet a lot of voting patterns would start changing.

    1. Its_Not_Inevitable   10 months ago

      Yeah, they would. The something-for-nothing crowd would be hardest hit.

      1. DesigNate   10 months ago

        Pretty sure everyone not making $450k plus would be screwed (assuming a family of 4).

        Edit: sorry, that’s for the national debt. Budget would mean someone would have to earn about $120k plus to pay their “fair share” and have money to do things like eat and live somewhere.

        1. defaultdotxbe   10 months ago

          It comes out to about 18k per person, so a family of 4 would owe 72k, pretty steep if the household income is 120k.

          1. The Angry Hippopotamus   10 months ago

            It comes out to about 18k per person, so a family of 4 would owe 72k, pretty steep if the household income is 120k.

            Or, and I’m just spit balling here, cut federal spending by eliminating the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Agriculture, Transportation, scaling back the Department of Defense from a Department of World Defense to a Department of Defense needed to defend the US, and significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, federal entitlements and it isn’t $72k for a family of four.

            1. Piru   10 months ago

              I like your way of thinking.

              If every teacher and fireman and doctor and gender studies whatever realized how much all these feel good daddy government public trough stuff costs, they might be less inclined to vote for it.

              You want an abortion? Pay for it, your business.
              You want to eat? Get a job.

              Our safety net should only be for people so disabled that they literally cannot work, not for someone with "ADHD".

              1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

                Sometimes the only reason a person cannot work is that no one will hire them.

    2. Nardz   10 months ago

      What if you just stopped supporting families with welfare for 4+ generations?

      1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

        Actual families, that is married couples with children, are the ones we should help, if any. We should not subsidize the reproduction of unmarried indigent women.

  8. JFree   10 months ago

    J.D. Vance Says Childless Americans Should Pay Higher Taxes.

    What's the point of having kids if they aren't accompanied with a $33 trillion credit limit?

    1. Nardz   10 months ago

      Ask Shaniequa and Lorena

  9. Mike Parsons   10 months ago

    "Americans aren't generally a fan of politicians "siccing the government on a subset of the population.""

    Well, I mean they are, its just a matter of who are the wolves and who the sheep at any given moment.

    1. Nobartium   10 months ago

      This has been proven true many times.

    2. sarcasmic   10 months ago

      Trump plans to sic the government on several subsets of the population. Which subset was the one that earned him your vote?

      1. Mike Parsons   10 months ago

        sure ill bite. Re: taxes

        Trump gave me tax cuts that specifically were helpful in that top bracket, which represented a real and significant tax break. Dont know if he could get them passed again, but with him + R's in power, that would be my only shot

        Dems not only demonize the tax cuts, but they want higher taxes on the top bracket, to tax the rich. Im already paying crazy high taxes, and they want me specifically paying more.

        So I am actually the targeted subset, and Trump is not planning on targeting me, and also might help me.

        So thats a no brainer on that front

        1. defaultdotxbe   10 months ago

          And taxes always start at the top and work their way down to the middle, so not raising taxes on the top today means I (in the middle) won't be paying higher taxes tomorrow.

        2. JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)   10 months ago

          Sarc also now supports higher taxes since Trump did a tax cut. Just ask him. If he lies ill give the links.

          1. sarcasmic   10 months ago

            I support fiscal responsibility. My preference is to cut spending. You want to keep spending and decrease taxes. You think math is leftist. Idiot.

        3. sarcasmic   10 months ago

          Tax cuts without spending cuts increase the deficit and debt. It’s irresponsible and selfish to support those policies.

          And exactly what I expect from a Trump supporter.

          1. Mike Parsons   10 months ago

            "Tax cuts without spending cuts increase the deficit and debt. "

            Its my fucking money, tax cuts are always fine. Of course, to be matched with reductions in spending, you dim bulb.

            You think anyone on this site is out here arguing for "well if we could just get more welfare, a few more govt agencies, and 5 more wars, AND my tax cuts please!"

            No shit with spending cuts.

        4. Heresolong   10 months ago

          "Dems not only demonize the tax cuts, but they want higher taxes on the top bracket, to tax the rich."

          Except, of course, if those higher taxes come in the form of state income taxes, in which case they want the rich to have an exemption from paying those higher taxes by shifting that burden to the federal government.

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

      Pretty sure billionaires are a subset of the population but the Democrats have built a political party on taxing them. Not that they actually will but it buys votes.

      1. Mike Parsons   10 months ago

        DEI chair was up against congressional oversight committee recently (maybe today?).

        Lots of questions about how there was an internal email from a high level dept member talking about how they dont hire whites, straight whites, and certain religions

  10. Bill Dalasio   10 months ago

    Without more context to Vance's comment, I really can't judge. He could just be making a stupid comment or he could be endorsing the status quo. The thing I find funny is the streak of anti-natalism coming from the folks who insist we need to import half the population of the Third World.

    Desperately poor people who don't share our language or culture supported on the public teat: good
    Children of residents raised in our culture and predominantly supported by their parents: an outrage!

    It's almost as if there was some strategy of replacement going on.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

      The replacement strategy that Democrats have been promising for decades is a right wing conspiracy theory.

      1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

        I know two people who recently lost their jobs and were replaced by people the business owner literally imported to replace them.

        1. damikesc   10 months ago

          Stories of those people having to train their imported replacements are not that rare.

  11. car-keynes   10 months ago

    Okay, Vance wants your vote if you have kids or agree with punishing childless individuals by refusing to credit them with having children that do not exist.

  12. AT   10 months ago

    Jane, you ignorant slut.

    It's not about taxes, idiot. It's about increasing the American birth rate. It's about encouraging the having and raising of children. It's about undoing all this feminist nonsense and bringing the sheer joys of family and child-rearing back into positions of reverence and honor. And hey, if there's financial incentive to do so - then why not.

    You want to go the tax angle, ask why the American government was so eager to get women out of the home and into crappy jobs that provide nowhere near the sense of fulfillment and accomplishment as being a wife and mother does. I'll give you a hint - it wasn't to encourage a society of Girlboss Karens who hit the wall at 35 and have nothing meaningful to show for themselves but a house full of cats. They never cared about "empowering" women. They cared about getting another taxable income into the workforce - and they did it by convincing women that there was more happiness to be found in toiling as a wage worker than there was raising children.

    This is the same thing that Harrison Butker was talking about - which you ALSO didn't understand even slightly. Marriage, being a wife, being a mother - these things are so supremely rewarding, but society has convinced women that the grass is greener in a daily commute and office slog. In doing so, they've made millions and millions of women unhappy and unfulfilled.

    Hey, if a carrot helps bring women back to a place of happiness and contentment, and leads them to remember the joys of bringing up the next generation of Americans, then I'm all for it. My tax dollars at work. Certainly better than trying to import them, the catastrophic failures of which we've seen all over Europe.

    1. johngray0   10 months ago

      Oh yeah, throwing money at women to make them have more children has never tried. Oh wait, yes it has. Japan and Western Europe. And the plummeting births continue......

      Is your argument we need to out-welfare-state those nations? In the event we go BEYOND, say, the scandanavian giveway train, we might be able to achieve what they have not?

      1. AT   10 months ago

        Nobody's saying throw money at them. That's literally the exact opposite thing that's being discussed here.

        Did you read anything before your knee reflexed and slammed into that reply button?

      2. DesigNate   10 months ago

        Tax credits don’t give people money, they just reduce the money the people have to pay the government.

        1. johngray0   10 months ago

          Tax credits don't give people money? Then you won't mind a 100% tax credits on all income taxes payed for white straight males in Manhattan named John Gray? Hey, that's not some gift, right?

          If you make the assumption that at the end of the day bills must be paid (and think that is correct), then any tax credit is a handout. Actually worse since we're running a huge deficit, and that handout will have to be paid with massive interest.

          1. Junkmailfolder   10 months ago

            Does John Gray somehow end up with more money than he earned in this hypothetical?

            Has the government ever raised taxes in response to an increase in spending or a decrease in takings from another source?

            Until the government actually demonstrates some rudimentary level of fiscal discipline, your argument falls flat. Reducing income does not equal increased expenses or even necessarily a deficit.

          2. One-Punch_Man   10 months ago

            Or you know cut spending if your bills are too high.

            You do understand what a credit is right? It means you pay less to the government. Unless you believe all money belongs to the government, a credit lets you keep more of your own money.

            Since you live in Manhattan, I know that's a hard concept to understand. I mean you were ok writing SALT off until it was capped at 10k. Than you were crying because you were not getting a federal tax break for the privilege of paying your NY taxes. Oh sorry, the government stopped giving you a handout by your words

            But hey, bills have to be paid right? Maybe you should get a credit so you can learn read comphension

        2. Zeb   10 months ago

          Refundable tax credits give people money. If they want to increase the dependent deduction, fine. If they want to increase refundable child tax credits, fuck that.

    2. JFree   10 months ago

      Hey, if a carrot helps bring women back to a place of happiness and contentment,

      Most women prefer something else for that

    3. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

      Your description is a little more hyperbolic than I would have written but pretty much correct. At the risk of sounding like a slightly more coherent Hank I'll point out a couple of historical facts. In the early 70s Nixon destroyed what was left of the gold standard. Inflation ran wild. Suddenly being a mother and actually maintaining a functioning family was demeaning and any woman who pursued it was a traitor to her gender. The majority of women entered the workforce and very shortly they did so not because they were empowered but because it was the only way to pay the bills. Oddly the working class lifestyle didn't improve much and has been getting worse ever since.

    4. chemjeff radical individualist   10 months ago

      Maybe - and here's a thought - there are plenty of women out there who don't really want to be a mother, not because anyone brainwashed them, but because it is a sincere expression of their own agency.

      1. AT   10 months ago

        Maybe – and here’s a thought – they’re not as many of them as you’d like to believe. Or wouldn’t be but for the socially/politically/culturally destructive brainwashing feminism has engaged in to discourage the career. Motherhood doesn’t rob them of agency. Exactly the opposite - it gives them more than they ever thought possible. (Again, this is what you completely failed to understand about Butker's speech.)

        Did you know that, artistically speaking, depictions of mother and child are the among the most common of subjects, across all cultures, utilizing virtually every artistic medium there is? And, especially in fine art, there’s a reverence inherent to the depiction that puts it in the highest ranks of humanity at its most ideal.

        Why do you think that is? Kinda hard to scream about “the patriarchy” when all those artists out there depict the mother/child relationship to about as close to divine as one can get.

        And lets not fool ourselves. As these sad, unfulfilled women sit alone in some cubbyhole adult care center while their sunset years begin, they’re not thinking about how much they “expressed their agency.” They don’t have bosses and coworkers and clients from decades past coming to visit them and reminisce about work. They don’t have all the folks they met in their world travels, or recreational sex partners of their youth coming to visit them and rekindle their adventures of youth.

        They have their cat. And years of abject loneliness to look forward to from there.

    5. Bruce D   10 months ago

      “Jane, you ignorant slut….
      …It’s about undoing all this feminist nonsense and bringing the sheer joys of family and child-rearing back into positions of reverence and honor. “

      Because of those joys, people will still be having kids even without having to inventivise it, and despite “feminist nonsense”. As long as people like fucking and think babies are cute, they’ll be squeezing out kids, despite other factors.

      Personally, I have nothing against dependent child tax credits. I’d rather expand the number of credits so as to reduce and eventually eliminate the income tax, credit by credit by credit… So, also give childless cat lady (and everyone) an investment tax credit so those investments expand industry and create jobs for all those cute babies when they grow up.

      1. Bruce D   10 months ago

        NO REFUNDABLE tax credits. No positive subsidies.

  13. ed tantamount   10 months ago

    This gingy-eyed prick is desperate for someone to pay attention to him. Out of the gates he fell flat on his narrow browed face. All noise and no substance or depth.

  14. johngray0   10 months ago

    I've had many go arounds with parents about this. Most recently with another give away to parents in the tax code this year. Point out how singles subsidize in countless ways: healthcare public AND private, the tax code, education, EIC, food stamps, housing, child care, etc. And ask: Hey, we've given our share? Isn't enough enough?

    It doesn't matter. Parents don't look at what's already been taken from others and given to them: It's what you got for me now?

    In the end there is no new give away, no dollar in your pocket a parent doesn't feel they are entitled to for the amazing achievement of popping out a kids.

    1. Nardz   10 months ago

      Revealing how John Gray here isn't bitching about the massive amounts of taxPAYER money redistributed to these people:

      https://x.com/unlimited_ls/status/1817930325051248811?t=MxTlmfsIjUkyQmf8Wu0vdw&s=19

      NEW: Black activists in Jackson, Miss., are calling for a Texaco gas station to shut down because of the growing murders and crime in the area

      Someone said “The owner should have the integrity of a human being for [himself] to say, we need to shut this down”

      Councilman Kenneth Stokes says he will bring a vote of no confidence against the city's legal department for not shutting down the gas station sooner

      “Where people suffer harm or injury, it’s got to be considered a nuisance. How many people have to die here before they realize it’s harmful?” Councilman Stokes said

      [Video]

      1. johngray0   10 months ago

        I don't think I've ever seen a reply so completely having nothing to do with anything. I guess I could take your response as a compliement? Thanks!

        1. Nardz   10 months ago

          You're dimwitted

    2. Junkmailfolder   10 months ago

      It is extremely likely I pay significantly more in taxes than you do, and I have four kids living at home. Why is that any less fair than the situation you describe?

  15. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

    Low-income workers without dependents get slammed with taxes.

    1. Nardz   10 months ago

      Gotta fund their jobless neighbors lifestyle somehow

  16. sarcasmic   10 months ago

    "Vance VP" set to the melody of "Dancing Queen." I give it a B-.

    https://youtu.be/vYILYILPrXs

  17. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

    You don't even mention the Earned Income Tax Credit, which can more than wipe out the taxes owed by low-income parents. A low income earner without children has to be nearly destitute to qualify.

  18. Earth-based Human Skeptic   10 months ago

    Who needs kids?

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   10 months ago

      The species?

      1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

        AI will replace us.

    2. sarcasmic   10 months ago

      You're not going to reproduce? Maybe there is hope.

  19. JFree   10 months ago

    The guys a brainless tin-eared twit. The tax code could easily be revised to eliminated the poverty/welfare trap. That would mostly benefit parents with children and encourage two-parent families. But it would require talking about the effective marginal tax rate. The effect of a punitive effect on earning income when taxes and welfare cuts all occur at the same income level. It's what makes it irrational for low level to seek a little bit of income when by doing so they lose Medicaid, SNAP, housing assistance, and anything else they are relying on.

    It's not like this guys libertarian. But he is apparently an asshat

    1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

      That would be going the wrong direction. Eliminate subsidizing the reproduction of indigent unmarried women. That's the "trap".

  20. Overt   10 months ago

    I can almost guarantee you that if we saw the original quote in full context, it would be painfully obvious that JD Vance is aware of the existing tax structure. Nothing in his quote suggests that he is pitching this as a brand new policy.

    This "Gotcha" journalism from Reason is terrible for the magazine. Editors need to figure out what the fuck they are doing.

    1. sarcasmic   10 months ago

      Never seen you do the “full context” defense before. Pretty soon you’ll tell that to the trolls who take comments and claim they mean things they don’t mean.

      Ha! Who am I kidding. You don’t have the balls. You’re afraid of being dogpiled by the resident idiots. Sad.

      1. Overt   10 months ago

        What the fuck are you talking about?

        Seriously, can you post anything that isn't just one big non sequitur?

    2. Vernon Depner   10 months ago
    3. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

      They know what they're doing: promoting socialism.

    4. Truthteller1   10 months ago

      Exactly the point I made before I read your post. This is nothing more than regime propaganda from a the obsequious regime cucks at Reason.

  21. Uomo Del Ghiaccio   10 months ago

    Eric Boehm you appear to be missing the major portion of his focus on children. Eric Boehm, you are focusing on the specific tree in front of you and not noticing that there is a forest all around you.

    Most creatures on the planet prioritize the continuance of the species. Why should humans be any different. I understand that issues paying more for something else that does not involve me personally.

    The argument can be somewhat narcissistic and selfish sounding. The reality is that there should be a balance. Promoting the continuance of the species is a good thing for all of society. Taxes are bad period.

    Eric Boehm, stop trying to spin the narrative.

    1. mtrueman   10 months ago

      "Why should humans be any different."

      Humans are no different. Humans, faced with conditions of overcrowding, lack of resources, and other stresses will forgo propagation of the species until conditions improve. This shouldn't be surprising as we see the same phenomena among animals in general and even the plant kingdom.

      "Taxes are bad period."

      This is probably why the government encourages immigration. Those who immigrate are foreigners, to be sure, but are of the same species.

  22. Truthteller1   10 months ago

    Quote taken out of context. He never implied there would be tax increases for childless couples. GFY with the regime propaganda.

  23. mtrueman   10 months ago

    "childless Americans ought to pay higher taxes than those who have kids"

    I think Vance says that having kids is good and not having kids is not so good, and the higher tax is justified on those grounds. Similarly with the child tax credit of the 1990s. I suspect there is an ulterior motive behind both initiatives, to increase fertility rate and encourage and provide incentives to those who've chosen not to have children. The child tax credit doesn't seem to have increased the fertility rate, so doubling down, increased taxes as Vance is talking about are a natural response. Another natural response is loosening immigration controls. (Vance is also talking about immigration, but not in a good way.)

    1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

      loosening immigration controls.

      How could we do that when we have zero immigration controls now?

      1. mtrueman   10 months ago

        By increasing immigration. There are immigration controls. Go to any airport and you'll see plenty.

        Encouraging immigration is the natural response for those interested in increasing birthrate when tax incentives for the native population prove ineffective.

        1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

          There are immigration controls. Go to any airport and you’ll see plenty.

          Go to the fucking border and you'll see uncontrolled illegal entries by the millions every year. You're an idiot.

          1. mtrueman   10 months ago

            "Go to the fucking border and you’ll see uncontrolled illegal entries "

            Exactly as I told you. If tax incentives don't work at fixing fertility, looser immigration might be the best alternative. Can you think of a better one? No? So stop your whinging.

            1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

              We can't get any looser. Immigrants are pouring in uncontrolled.

              1. mtrueman   10 months ago

                That is good news for those concerned about flagging fertility.

                1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

                  Quality matters, not just quantity. We already have tens of millions of unemployable useless eaters born right here. Making use of the people we have would be much smarter than importing the run of the mill to sift out the winners.

                  1. mtrueman   10 months ago

                    "Making use of the people we have "

                    You are entirely missing the point. The problem isn't we're not making use of the people we have, but that the people we have aren't raising children. Read the article for heaven's sake.

                    1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

                      As always, you're wrong. The people in our country having the most children are the ones least able to raise children to be productive adults. A large proportion of their children end up un- or under-employed, very poorly educated, in prison, or raising the next generation of feral losers on public assistance. That we let these children go to waste IS a big problem. Raising and educating them properly would obviate much of the alleged shortage of workers.

                    2. mtrueman   10 months ago

                      "The people in our country having the most children are the ones least able to raise children to be productive adults."

                      I never promised you a rose garden. Maybe we'll have better luck with their children's children.

  24. Wizzle Bizzle   10 months ago

    I don't like Vance's act or his "evolving" belief system. But if Kackela, the MSM and Boehm hate him, I may have to reconsider.

  25. Shoreline1   10 months ago

    If we are all equal in the eyes of the law, why do citizens with children get a tax break? It's simply another example of some citizens being more equal than others in the eyes of our government, i.e. corruption.

    1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

      Fetuses should be paying taxes.

    2. mtrueman   10 months ago

      "why do citizens with children get a tax break?"

      The people who write the tax code want to encourage people to have children. They see families as a good thing, if only because a growing population means growing markets and economy.

      1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

        But that trick never works. Government incentives to get people to have more children have a dismal success record. When they do work, it's the most undesirable parents who respond.

        1. mtrueman   10 months ago

          Immigrants don’t come because of government incentives. They come because they believe life in America will be an improvement over their current situation. If anything the government tries to disincentive immigrants. Controls at the airports, thugs armed with guns and knives on the southern frontier, etc. It’s almost like the government believes their tax incentives are working to improve fertility.

          " it’s the most undesirable parents who respond."

          Maybe their children will meet with your approval.

          1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

            Immigrants don’t come because of government incentives.

            Bullshit.

            They come because they believe life in America will be an improvement over their current situation.

            Which is true of the majority of the people in the world, and it’s not our problem. How many hundreds of millions do you think we should let in?

            If anything the government tries to disincentive immigrants.

            Bullshit.

            Controls at the airports

            Which the planeloads of immigrants brought in by Biden go right through.

            thugs armed with guns and knives on the southern frontier

            They don’t work for us.

            Maybe their children will meet with your approval.

            It doesn't matter of whom I approve. What matters is who will meet the approval of universities and employers, and who will assimilate easily into our culture.

            1. mtrueman   10 months ago

              "Immigrants don’t come because of government incentives.

              Bullshit. "

              I disagree. If people from Guatemala, say, believed that their lives would be better in Guatemala than America, they would remain, regardless of whatever you believe the US government is doing to encourage them to immigrate.

              "Which is true of the majority of the people in the world, and it’s not our problem. "

              It's not my problem. You're the one whining about it.

              "If anything the government tries to disincentive immigrants.

              Bullshit. "

              I disagree. The chance of being caught and caged like an animal is not the incentive you imagine it to be.

              "What matters is who will meet the approval of universities and employers, and who will assimilate easily into our culture."

              Careful what you wish for. We want people who are willing to have children. There is no point in attracting immigrants if they 'assimilate' and go childless.

              1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

                There is no point in attracting immigrants if they ‘assimilate’ and go childless.

                Then we let more in. There is an endless supply. But first, we need to secure the borders and establish an orderly, selective, and secure immigration system.

                1. mtrueman   10 months ago

                  "But first, we need to secure the borders and establish an orderly, selective, and secure immigration system."

                  Beggars can't be choosers. We have to accept those who want to come. We can't force the wealthy, diligent, and fecund to immigrate. We have to accept they'll probably want to stay put.

                  1. Vernon Depner   10 months ago

                    You've got it backwards. There are hundreds of millions who would like to come here. They would be the beggars if we weren't stupidly giving it away for free.

                    1. mtrueman   10 months ago

                      "There are hundreds of millions who would like to come here. "

                      That's a good thing, isn't it? Better that than hundreds of millions of Americans wanting to emigrate, isn't it? So you don't approve of those who want to come. Maybe you want the government to incentivize a better quality of human with cash, free education, housing and medicine. But is that any more likely to work than Vance's ideas of punishing childless native born couples?

          2. In Canis Credimus   10 months ago

            Lol that's what I tell people. They aren't coming because of welfare. they're coming because gangs come by every week and make them pay "protection money" or they beat the shit out of them. Don't pay enough times and they shoot you in the face. That will make people flee, along with starvation, and governments that milk them dry to the point they can't afford anything than eating rice every night, if they're lucky.

            1. mtrueman   10 months ago

              I agree. I think the most moral and economical solution would be for American policy to make places like Guatemala better places to live. Instead of hundreds of billions to Israel, Ukraine and the like, focus on the troubles closer to home. That would mean a profound change of course, reversing decades of policy, which has till now seen attention focused on Europe, the Middle East, and now a pivot to China. How about doing something to alleviate the misery and bad governance that drives millions to risk seeking a better life in America? Is that really a bridge too far?

  26. XM   10 months ago

    Ah yes, I can see the headlines now.

    “In a downright JD Vancian move, South Korea and Japan provides economic incentives to parents who want to have kids but denies them to childless people”

    It’s not exactly a surprise that the democrats are distorting Vance’s “childless cat loving democrats” as a condemnation of people without kids. They’re dishonest people. The question is, why is Reason following suit?

    I’m a childless man. My tax burden does not change one bit if people with kids who make the same money I do gets tax relief or deductions. One has nothing to do with the other. I’m no more “subsidizing” kids of other people who receive tax breaks than I’m “subsidizing” corporations who gets the same.

    You need to spend money to get deductions. So If I was a parent who make 400,000 USD a year and send my kinds to the best school and best hospitals, that child credit check I might get from the government is supposed to provide some financial relief. Not the same thing as tax rate. Raising kids is expensive – that’s why all those Asians aren’t having kids. Vance’s mundane position on parents getting financial support has been mutated into a hate crime against childless people by the left and Reason Magazine.

    I suppose this controversy erupted because he told Kirk that “tax the bad things, don’t tax good things”. I think he misspoke here – I assume he wants to tax “bad” things like pot and cigs, and in his mind not having kids is “bad” for society, and he’s aware of growing fertility crisis around the world. In the moment he conflated them. Notice that he actually hasn’t proposed any actual tax increase on people without kids.

    You can choose to be ignorant and believe that JD Vance really, really, REALLY hate childless people, or just choose not to be so. Show me a pattern of JD Vance’s agenda against childless folks, if you can. I can show you BLM’s pointed agenda against the police and Jews. Hate from the left is never subtle.

    1. In Canis Credimus   10 months ago

      You are paying more than you would if you had kids, you absolutely are subsudizing those child-having people. What are you even trying to prove in your wall of text?

  27. mtrueman   10 months ago

    "Show me a pattern of JD Vance’s agenda against childless folks, if you can."

    We may have to wait until his next Charley Kirk interview.

  28. In Canis Credimus   10 months ago

    This is also the stupid mthrfkr who wants to have "one kid-one vote" laws lol. Parents get to vote for each kid they have as well as themselves. lol. The MAGAs evidently are bringing their best and this what they come up with lol

  29. BlueCollarCritic   10 months ago

    So showing support for something you have been supporting already is bad? I have to wonder if ERIC BOEHM is actually a RINO

  30. Denys Picard   10 months ago

    Vance like Walz are "Family Guys" and as such they can think only of the alike. It's here that feminists DEIs abandon most of their rhetoric. For Vance, no child refundable tax credits will ever be large enough and good conservative families earning over $150,000 should be able to chose an amount of relief for the pain of raising kids as high as their total owed taxes, it's normal. As for Democrats they can probably trust a guy whose motto is "families first"... I guess, he will ask, as feminist entrepreneurs do for their venture, for Government to pay all family expenses. Minnesota is a family first state after all. Single men need not apply. As the only difference between Vance and Walz is that for Vance it's acceptable to be a Cat Lady if you have kids, but for Walz, Cat Lady's are an integral part of the definition of Family... at least in his State.
    It's interesting that most government economists and media don't understand why the EV industry is not selling more cars, and you have to repeat to them that the credit is not refundable, meaning the maximum you can get is what you pay in taxes. And half of American families with children don't pay taxes.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can We End Racism by Ending the Idea of Race Itself?

Rachel Ferguson | From the June 2025 issue

The Supreme Court Said States Can't Discriminate in Alcohol Sales. They're Doing It Anyway.

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.24.2025 7:00 AM

Cocaine Hippos, Monkey Copyrights, and a Horse Named Justice: The Debate Over Animal Personhood

C.J. Ciaramella | From the June 2025 issue

Harvard's Best Protection Is To Get Off the Federal Teat

Autumn Billings | 5.23.2025 6:16 PM

Trump's Mass Cancellation of Student Visas Illustrates the Lawlessness of His Immigration Crackdown

Jacob Sullum | 5.23.2025 5:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!