WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 6554, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the personal exemption deduction for a stillborn child
Such an awful topic needed a smily sun to lighten it up. I am not sure what I think about the bill itself. Typically any chance to lower taxes I am for, but this seems like it could be easily, and horrifically abused. But, wow, to be against it is like voting no on lollipops at doctors offices. I can just picture the ads now, "Would you deprive a grieving family of some restitution for their loss?" Well, when you put it that way of course not.
On the flip side the reason the government currently taxes less to larger families has to do with the expense of childrearing. I know when my son was born in January I often joked about getting robbed since prior to his birth was when I bought all of his stuff. So, in theory parents of stillborn children may have alot of expenses as well.
So I am all tied up in knots on this one. I think it is a great example as to why we need a simplified tax code that takes out the social planning aspects. The US government should not be encouraging or discouraging child birth period. Leave that to parents to decide. Since I know the nature of government is to get more and more oppressive and involved in individuals lives, I try to make the best judgements on laws and leaders I can but this one is tough.
What are your thoughts? Should the government give tax breaks to the parents of stillborn children?
4 comments:
yes, i think it's needed. there's a slippery slope from there... they'll have to determine at what point the child is stillborn vs. a miscarriage. 5 months? 6? 7? wow, this will be a tough one with lots of grey areas.
I think that is a problem we run into with all central planning, be it social, economic or international. Where do we draw the line? One thing you made me think of is 3rd trimester abortions. (playing devils advocate) Why not get knocked up and do a back alley abortion, claim it was stillborn every other year or so?
You mentioned that you think it is needed, but only gave cons. I would love to hear your thoughts on the pros.
I believe this is very necessary legislation. Right now, current tax law reads "for a child who was born alive during the year, even if the child lived only for a moment" is counted as a dependent. This code in the next paragraph specifically excludes stillborn children as dependents. There is not a dime of money more or an ounce of heartache more in delivering a live child that is lost after a moment than a child who has died in the womb. BTW, children born at 11:59 on December 31st also count as full credit for the year in which they were born. All this legislation does is recognize that the parents of this child are in fact parents of an actual child and are in need of the same financial consideration as all parents of all children. Without this legislation, the difference is one of geography - whether the child died in the womb or in the room.
I agree that the existing law is confusing, unfair and cruel I am not sure that this makes it better. That being said I do understand your point. I am stuck on this one. I would prefer that we simplified the tax code and stopped encouraging people to pop out kids. 10% of us pay over 50% of the tax bill. Statistically speaking the more kids you have the lower your income, so it seems that the people getting the most benefit are popping out tax takers not tax payers.
Post a Comment