Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

"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." Yes until the age of 18. No tax break even if they still live at home. Although I would extend it for people with disabled children that will never be able to function on their own. "Pro's burden in this debate is to show that the proposed tax reform would have an overall positive affect on the U.S" Taking money away from Govt and putting it into the hands of the consumer not only increases overall revenue intake but creates private sector jobs. Private sector jobs are what generate tax revenue. Gov't work projects do not generate new tax revenue. Gov't funded jobs are an administrative cost of doing business for the private sector. Yes people work and get paid but the money that is used to pay a gov't worker is taken from the private sector to begin with to not only pay the worker but fund the always over budget and always wasteful project too. My opponent can ask me to give an example of Gov't waste, but can we all be intellectually honest and agree that gov't wastes money on just about everything it does. "To change the tax system in this manner would be devastating to U.S. interests" Aren't the people of the country the most important intrest to a country? It would be devisting to discretionary pork barrel spending by gov't for sure and that would be a good thing. " The most recent numbers shows that currently 46% of households have children living at home under the age of 18" The chart in this link http://www.taxfoundation.org... shows that the vast majority of poor people are single or unmarried with a dependent child. If you look at the chart it also shows that people who earn between 20 and 40 thousand dollars a year are virtually equal in number percentage wise as far as tax burden goes with respect to married with children or single/ single head of household. This tax bracket represents the vast majority of people in this country If we took all the money that is being taken from married people with children by the Govt and let them spend it the way the see fit, this would cause a massive surge and growth in the economy like nothing has ever been seen. This would generate so many new private sector jobs there wouldn't be enough people to fill them. You could name your own price as far as what you would be paid for the work you do. People would have so much extra money to spend and save they would be more able to save and invest for retirement and leave their children with an inheritance rather than a huge gov't debt that can never be paid. Being poor would be your own fault. The Gov't would be able to butcher the amount of money spent on welfare services. That combined with more poor single people not being poor anymore would increase revenues. My opponents assertion that if married people quit paying income tax the gov't would lose all of it's revenue is a mi optic point of view in the context of this debate. History has proven time and time again that when people are allowed to keep their money they don't need gov't. 3. OVERPOPULATION The US is nowhere near being overpopulated it could support many more people. You need at the very minimum of 2 new people in order to take care of and provide for the retired people. Population must grow in order to have a healthy society. One can cry about the environment all they want and try and stop population growth but we can already see the negative effects of this in countries like China where they have a one child per family rule. It is bad in every way for the human race. "a) Eventually this could lead to higher rates of unemployment (who is going to employ all the new people?)." The private sector will employee all these new people as job growth will come from new spending and investing from all the additional money that will be put back into the hands of the people and not the gov't. "b) Poorer families would be especially likely to produce more children for a longer duration of their life." This is the effect of the current tax code. The govt has one rule for govt assistance that every poor person must meet in order to receive continued govt assistance: You must remain poor! Right now a person who is savvy enough to play the system can keep a job just under poverty limit and collect up to 30 thousand dollars additional each year in benefits from the govt without lifting a finger. For instance: SCHIP Free medical care! I pay $600 a month Free dental care I can't afford it. Free food Food stamps up to $300 a month. I have to buy my food. Free breakfast and lunch at school. Why frickin work! And lets not forget all the Govt grants that are out there. 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." Yes it most certainly would and it would also be a big disincentive for single motherhood which are tax system promotes and encourages today. "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." Under our current tax system women could have babies just to collect benefits, . As far as people getting married just for the benefits, why is that bad? People get married for all kinds of reasons now. Not just because they love each other. The Idea that people will just willy nilly have children or get married based on this is preposterous. Both people must agree to have a child or get married. An unmarried women can become pregnant and not tell the man just to receive benefits. It is highly unlikely in most cases that a man or a women could convince another man or woman to marry him or her and have children just to take advantage of a tax break. Conclusion: This idea would not bankrupt the country it would make the economy explode and increase overall revenue to the govt while at the same time reducing the number of people receiving benefits. Population growth is necessary in order to have a healthy society and to care for the elderly and retired in a meaningful and compassionate way. One must just accept that the earth can and will provide for the population as it grows. It is the environmentalist extremist that tries to keep the earth from charging that will bankrupt this country. This idea will not promote anymore loveless marriages that already take place now. All the advantages are clear to this idea. It would help this country out of this recession and put money back into the hands of the people while at the same time reduce or completely eliminate unemployment and provide high paying jobs to the poor to bring them out of poverty. Create a positive environment for investment and saving for retirement to pass on to future generations.