What's Wrong with Kamala Harris' Baby Bonus Proposal?

Presidential candidate Kamala Harris last week proposed a major expansion of the child tax credit. She envisions a new $6,000 tax credit for families during the first year of a child’s life.

A day doesn’t go by that we don’t hear about how difficult and expensive it is to raise a family. “The price of day care is ridiculous,” we hear – constantly. Is it the federal government’s job to remedy this? Do we owe it to couples to make it affordable to have a child? There appears to be an assumption that we do. But that’s an unexamined assumption. It’s time we put it under the microscope.

1. Is conceiving and raising a child an “experience” that is so special, no one should be deprived of it? So taxpayers should subsidize the costs for those who can’t otherwise afford it?
2. Or is committing parenthood providing a service to society, one valued highly enough that all taxpayers should pitch in to subsidize the cost for new parents?
3. Or, if not #1 or #2, is a baby bonus the only way to prevent widespread child poverty?

As for #1, there are plenty of experiences some may prize more than parenthood. For some it might be a trip to Disneyland. For others it could be to live in palace with a ballroom and 20 bathrooms. If you can’t afford it, don’t come to me or the federal government for assistance.

If we’re subscribing to #2, let’s examine that assumption -- that bringing children into the world and raising them is a societal good. I think this is a common assumption. After all, in order for our species to survive and thrive, we must replace ourselves, right? Otherwise, it just wouldn’t be fair to ask childfree taxpayers to cover parenting costs for others.

But what if we over-achieve? What if we’ve propagated to the point that our demands are crushing the planet? What if we’ve been so successful that adding another child is no longer a benefit to society? What if society – and especially our children -- would benefit from humankind taking a procreative break – bringing far fewer children into the world for a while?

Few like to talk about it, but that is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves. The planet’s life-supporting ecosystems are taking a pounding from 8 billion people and a $100 trillion global economy. Species are being extinguished at an unprecedented rate, we’re pumping rivers and aquifers dry, and our greenhouse gas emissions are overwhelming the atmosphere and baking the planet.

So, while we would like raising a child to be joyful, and not oppressively expensive, and we want all children to have their needs met (#3 above), it’s not in our best interest to expand tax credits that signal our society wants you to make babies. Anything that puts dollars in your pocket based on having a child, or based on the number of children you have, is not a good idea. One exception might be if we provide a generous tax credit for couples who, after having one child, take measures to ensure they won’t conceive additional children. A one-child per family norm would be of great benefit.

I hope Vice President Harris didn’t propose this expanded tax credit because she is alarmed about the so-called “baby bust” we’ve been reading about. I don’t think she wants the U.S. to join the ranks of growth-addicted countries (Russia, Hungary, South Korea, and many more) wringing their hands over dropping birth rates and paying “baby bonuses” in an effort to get women birthing more consumers, workers, taxpayers and soldiers (yes, that’s insulting and dehumanizing). But, let’s call this tax credit expansion what it is: a baby bonus. And let’s be clear: dropping birth rates for a species in overshoot are a blessing.

As for #3, yes, we all want to protect children from poverty. So we will need to find ways to ensure children’s needs are being met -- while phasing out any programs that could be interpreted as “make a baby, get a check.” It won’t be easy, but it will be possible once we recalibrate our compass.

This is critical of Harris’ proposal, but in no way should it be interpreted to mean that I don’t want her to be elected. I do. We need decency and integrity in the White House, and the GOP candidate doesn’t even know the meanings of the words. I’m still a “candidate,” but I’m voting for Kamala.

Raising a child is more expensive than most realize – one USDA estimate puts the cost at over $300,000 for the first 17 years. It also requires a lot of parents’ time and attention. We can parent much more successfully in one-child families.

Being “pro-family” shouldn’t mean turning women into baby factories.

Being “pro-family” shouldn’t mean turning women into baby factories. It shouldn’t mean quantity over quality. It should mean doing whatever it takes to ensure a healthy planet and good lives for children.

At this point in human history, that means everyone needs to know we’re in ecological overshoot, and couples must get the message that small families, freely chosen, are one important part of respecting the rights of all children to be born onto a healthy planet, with clean air, ample nutritious food and pure water, and a life-friendly climate.

RECOMMENDED READING

‘Worrying' Population Declines Are Actually A Hopeful Sign

Population and the Great Transition

Population Policies the U.S. Needs

A Scientist’s Warning to Humanity on Human Population Growth

How Much Does It Cost To Raise a Child In 2024? Things for Prospective Parents to Consider.

The Only Child: Debunking the Myths

Welcome to Overshoot: Have a Nice Day

Learn more about The Bright Future Project.

This was also posted here on Substack.

Posted on 19 Aug 2024, 01:27 - Category: News