Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

Thanks again to Pro for his interest in offering solutions to problems he sees in American government and culture. Although I disagree with them, I am glad that there are people offering creative solutions. I will briefly outline Pro's position, which is largely a refutation of my argument, then defend my position. ======= Pro's second round of debate is wanting in factual accuracy and in clear support for his thesis. I urge him to develop a case of his own in future rounds rather than contenting himself with merely rebutting my points. If he is to win this debate he will need to come up with an argument of his own. ------- Pro states that The proposed reform would result in an overall increase in (government?) "revenue intake' and create more private sector jobs. He does not specify why this will be the case, but we can assume it is from an increase in market activity due to more money in the pockets of married couples with children. It will also help trim the unnecessary and "wasteful" aspects of government spending. The loss of revenue would be devastating to "pork barrel spending," which is a good thing. Here we can see a contradiction in Pro's position. First he asserts that the government will ultimately benefit from the proposed reform with an increase in revenue intake, then he seems to be agreeing that the government will receive less income. Well which is it, Pro? You can't have it both ways. If he concedes that the federal government would be devastated by the loss of revenue, then he needs to propose an alternative. Where will the federal government get the money to pay for military defense, education, police and fire-fighting, infrastructure upkeep, or any of the other important services it provides for its constituency? If he believes that ultimately the government would receive an increase in revenue then he will have to provide evidence to support the claim. Merely stating "History has proven time and time again that when people are allowed to keep their money they don't need gov't" does not exempt you from the necessity of proving your claims with evidence. I await the next round for clarification. Again, you can't have it both ways, Pro. <------> I will address each of the major points he makes on their own. To do this I will have to ignore the fact that Pro consistently contradicts himself on whether the government will benefit financially or be substantially cut. I hope the audience will not overlook this fact merely because I am refuting his points anyway. ------ Pro concedes that married couples with children make up a significant proportion of tax revenue, but believes that exempting them from taxes would "cause a massive surge and growth in the economy" resulting in the creation of new private sector jobs. What he is advocating, then, is replacing government jobs with private-sector ones. People currently employed by the government will need to seek employment in the private sector. On top of this massive migration of employment, there will be no funding and no labor to perform the absolutely necessary tasks that the government currently performs. These include, but are not limited to: military personnel, teachers and professors of public education, construction workers on public infrastructure upkeep (roads, bridges, schools, &ct.), police officers, firefighters, and the many others. ------- Population growth is necessary for a healthy society, Pro asserts. The rise in population that may result would be covered (in terms of employment) by new private sector jobs. He suggests that we ignore the many environmental problems associated with high population growth. At some point, the environment stops being able to support a population. Eventually there is no more available, arable land to sustain further growth. Additionally, as some point a region is no longer able to sustain healthy employment rates. Employment is not infinite. This will result in an increase in poverty. Sometimes people will be forced to migrate to a region where there is food or employment. Of course, this will put a strain on that region as well and affect its ability to support further growth. In short, overpopulation is indeed a serious concern that should not be brushed aside, as Pro seems apt to do. --------- Pro claims that the current tax structure encourages poor people to remain poor in order to collect benefits. This assertion is simply incorrect. Why would anyone want to remain in a bad situation merely because the federal government has programs to give them food and shelter so that they do not starve? If Pro were ever subjected to such conditions, or met anyone who was, he would quickly come to the conclusion that this is not the case. Poor people are not poor because they want handouts, they are poor because of a lack of opportunities in both education and employment. Removing their welfare services would not create jobs and education for them. Without employment or government support they would be forced to find other means of obtaining shelter and sustenance. This would likely result in an increased crime rate, as they run out of legal solutions to their lack of food. ------- Pro's final point is that people getting married just for the benefits is not a negative attribute. I beg to differ. American culture would take a massive hit by a large increase in unhealthy relationships. Obviously, most people will be unhappy in such loveless relationships. Some couples will be married and have children before they are ready, causing a strain on their finances. Others will remain married to someone with whom they do not get along, or otherwise dislike, causing a decrease in their quality of life. With the proposed reform, these would become widespread. We are not talking about some minor tax cutting, we are talking about complete tax exemption. Few people would turn down the opportunity for such personal gain.