Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

Although the attempt is misguided, I am glad that people are able to think for themselves and come up with new and unique ways to fix problems that they see in the world. Since Pro failed to define the limits of the length of complete tax exemption, I will assume that he means to stop the exemption when all children are 18 years of age. I hope he will correct me in the second round if this is not what he had in mind. Pro's burden in this debate is to show that the proposed tax reform would have an overall positive affect on the U. S. My burden is to show that it would have an overall negative or neutral affect. I stand in opposition to the resolution, that married couples with children should not have to pay income taxes. To change the tax system in this manner would be devastating to U. S. interests. Below I will outline several, though not all, of these reasons. I reserve the right to offer new arguments in future rounds. ========= 1. FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS The system proposed by Pro would almost certainly bankrupt the federal government. The most recent numbers shows that currently 46% of households have children living at home under the age of 18 (. http://www.usatoday.com...). It does not take much further explanation to show how having nearly half the population pay no taxes would immediately bankrupt the government. 2. WELFARE AND SOCIAL SPENDING Pro suggested that government spending on social services would be prevented or reduced. The minuscule amount that social spending would be reduced under such a tax system would be far outweighed by the huge loss of revenue for the federal government. Welfare and other such social services are intended for use by the poor. Exempting poor households with children from taxes would not help them enough that they would no longer be in need of government assistance. Their jobs would not pay them more money, for one. The taxes among the poor is already low enough, that complete exemption would not even return that much money to their bank accounts. Additionally, the increased number of children that would likely result would actually make people more reliant on government services. 3. OVERPOPULATION It is easy to see how the proposed tax system would give people incentives to have more children. If getting married and producing offspring means exemption from taxes, our population would begin to soar. This would have negative consequences for several reasons: a) Eventually this could lead to higher rates of unemployment (who is going to employ all the new people? ). b) Poorer families would be especially likely to produce more children for a longer duration of their life. With more mouths to feed, these families are likely to need more government assistance. However, such assistance would not be forthcoming because the government's revenue would be significantly reduced due to nearly half the population not paying taxes. 4. PROMOTE MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY UNIT Pro may be correct in his assertion that the proposed tax reforms would encourage marriage and the family unit. However, this may be a negative attribute. With such obvious benefits to being married and having children, of course people would want to be married and have children. Unfortunately, many couple will have children before they are ready. Other couples would get married only for the benefits, leading to loveless marriages. Both of these would have negative consequences for marriage, government, and American culture. ====== CONCLUSION Because the proposed tax system would lead to so many negative consequences including but not limited to: a) bankrupting the government; and b) population explosion beyond sustainability; and c) cause additional need for government assistance; and d) promote loveless marriages and children before young parents are mature enough: the resolution (Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax) is negated.