> One thing is that politically it's easier for benefits to remain sticky if everyone benefits from it vs a subpopulation. That's why universal income has stronger support than welfare benefits.

It is funny to say this in this specific conversation. The exact logic you are using to support rebates for stay at home parents applies to childless people. So why are you drawing the line exactly where you are drawing it and why is that a better place than where this policy is currently drawing it?

▲

ryandrake 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If the logic was applied even more generally, it would read: "If any Group X gets Benefit Y, then everyone must also get Benefit Y." Applied universally, it totally defeats the point of subsidies.

▲

hellojesus 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but that should be the point. Public goods are defined as nonrivalous and nonexcludable. Subsidies fail these conditions. On what grounds should we delegate nonpublic goods/services be provided by the government and not the private sector?

	▲	chlodwig 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The argument is that producing children has massive positive externalities; there is value created for society that is not captured by the parent. In economics terms, all gains-from-trade for the child's future labor is a positive for society that the parent will not capture. Or for illustration, imagine nobody had any children. You would get to retirement age and find you could not buy food because there was no one to farm, you could not get healthcare because there were no more doctors and nurses or construction workers to build hospitals. Of course the tricky thing is that not all children produce positive externalities, some have massively negative externalities and a naive subsidy might encourage the wrong kind of reproduction ... Anyways, if you don't want any subsidies, one policy change is to eliminate general social security and simply have each retiree get the social security money paid only from their own children. Social security is not a savings plan or insurance, what it actually is is a socialized version of the current generation of children paying for their parents retirement. The non-socialized version is just the parents getting money of the kids that they raised themselves, and if you did not put in the work of raising kids, you don't get social security.

▲

jmpman 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I’m unable to get the electric car tax credit for this year because my income is too high. However I’m likely to be laid off next year. Seems like I should get the benefit as my group status will change.

▲

efitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes.

▲

vlovich123 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Childless people are free to start businesses to provide services that can take advantage of those rebates.

The argument you’re making in general is a valid one about subsidies, it’s a weird argument to make regarding children since having children is the only way society survives. Unless your claim is that we’re overpopulated but generally people in developed countries are not reproducing, and a meaningful part of that does appear to be the cost.

So the answer is that this specific subsidy is net beneficial as we want to make it easier for people to have and raise kids, not least of which because it produces better adults when those kids grow up and makes society healthier.

▲

hellojesus 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a great point, and the obvious answer is the government should provide zero subsidies or welfare programs. Every single program creates moral hazard and deadweight loss. Iterate your question to conclusion, and you will arrive there.

What the government should encourage is charitable donations, and when I say that, I mean the mere act of it. There should be no tax incentive for doing so.

Where children are concerned, if anything, perhaps make the sales tax on child-related services zero, and increase sales tax on luxury goods associated with sink or dink households. At least that methodology provides the opportunity to forgo the penalties.