I think you and I are in agreement re: public education for kids. I still think that raising kids is a private enterprise. But I think there are public goods and public services that should be provided by the government. That’s how I think of public education etc.: Not help with raising children, but a public good the government provides its citizens.

So, no tax breaks to parents, but public goods and services to all.

I totally agree with you, especially on the point that children should not be a private enterprise. So the problem isn’t really the tax per se, but how that tax reflects our institutional and social understand and treatment of children (and by extension parents). . . have you read bitch phd’s commentary on “why having a child isn’t a lifestyle choice”? You might enjoy it if you haven’t – it addresses several of the points you’re making here. Basically it’s a refutation of the libertarian argument that children are a private enterprise, when in fact children are integral to society & its proper functioning.

I’m on board with a complete restructuring. (My husband is Canadian and we’re trying like hell to move there!)

We need to see children as citizens on their own, not just as dependents or appendages to their parents.

I do think that our social safety net and equality principles should be expanded and interpreted to make sure that neither children nor parents are penalized for being or having children.

For example, all people should be covered by single-payer healthcare. Government/employers should provide child care to so that parents are not precluded from participating equally in the work force. All children should have access to free and equally good schools through and undergraduate education. FMLA leave should be expanded another couple of months and should be paid leave. Paid sick leave should be mandatory. The social safety net should include and pay for assisted living, better nursing home care, and in-home care, for adults and children who need it.

I think sticking to those principles would be better than programs/credits specifically targeted at marriage and/or childbearing. I think it’s fairer and has a better philosophical basis. But, of course, it’s always much easier to bleat “but the chilllllldren” about 50,000,000 times. And it’s multi-purpose: demonize gays AND promote women staying at home barefoot and pregnant! That’s the real price of the child tax credit, social inequality.

But, never fear: it’s not like anyone with any influence over tax policy reads this blog or gives a crap about what I say.

Historiann, while I agree that providing universal health care for people’s children is one major way of ending the necessity of that tax credit, it isn’t the only use the tax credit has. Children are expensive, and not only their health care – food clothing equipment, etc, is very expensive and can put a financial burden on a household. A 5 person household is just a lot more expensive than a 2 person (especially if both those two are full-wage earners). I think families deserve deductions to help offset the additional costs that people without children don’t have. I don’t think there’s anything inherently unfair or heteronormative about this. Especially because tax credits for children cover one additional and very important expense that brings many families to their knees: child care. Full time day care for one baby can run $1000 a month or more in many places. (babies are more expensive than older children because the provider-child ratio is smaller) This expense takes an enormous toll on families and is particularly punitive in two-couple households where the mother works (because day care often takes all of one person’s salary). Now, if there was universal health care AND heavily-gov’t subsidized child care, we might be onto something.