Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
$300 per child, per month

$300 per child, per month

Last updated on: February 15, 2021 at 6:00 am by Gene Veith

0 Comments

$300 per child, per month 2021-02-13T15:32:19-05:00 Gene Veith

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Congress is considering proposals to pay a monthly subsidy to families for each child. This would be pro-family and pro-life, while also being problematic.

The Democrats’ plan would give parents $3,000 for children aged 6-17 and $3,600 for children under 6. It would be paid monthly, so that older children would bring $250 and younger children would bring $300.

This is in the form of a refundable tax credit, boosting it from $2,000, but because it is “refundable,” it would change from being a deduction at tax time to be paid out in cash, including to parents who don’t have a tax bill. The additional change would pay it out monthly, though one version gives parents the option of getting a one-time payment. President Biden is considering this as part of his COVID-19 bailout. The current proposal would just be for one year, though many Democrats are wanting to make it a permanent ongoing program.

But this is not just a Democratic social program. The concept has bipartisan support. Republican Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) has put forward an even more generous proposal called the Family Security Act. It would pay $350 monthly for every child younger than 5 (for a total of $4200 every year), and $250 for every child between 6 and 17 (for a total of $3000 yearly). The payments would be capped at $1,250 monthly and would phase out for single parents making $200,000 and joint filers making $400,000. This would be a permanent, ongoing benefit, worth as much as $62,000 for each child over 18 years.

Such a program would definitely be pro-family. If you have three kids, the extra $1000 or so per month would be a major boost to the family budget. It would cut child poverty. It would lessen the pressure for both parents to work. In Australia, which has a similar subsidy–as does Canada, among other countries–you can see mothers with their babies and young children at the zoos and parks in the middle of the day. I was told that because of the child subsidy and other support, mothers don’t have to work unless they want to. This would also be a boon for Christian schools and homeschools, with the extra money coming in every month helping families pay tuition and buy curriculum

Such a program would definitely be pro-life. Romney’s proposal would start payments while the child is in utero! The subsidy would help encourage mothers who think they can’t afford to bring up a child to choose life for their babies. It could help reverse the plunge in the birthrate that threatens to wreak havoc with American demographics. And assigning value to having children would have beneficial cultural effects.

But can we afford yet another massive entitlement at a time when the deficit is already greater than the productive economy? Biden and Romney claim that these initiatives are “deficit neutral,” being funded by the existing child credits and other deductions from the tax code that would be discontinued. But the current child deduction is only $2,000, while this promises much more than that, and while many families would pay for their own “benefit” in the form of higher taxes, families that don’t owe taxes will get the benefit too. So this new entitlement will surely cost the government something in the form of money that it does not have.

If the government is going to print money and spend it lavishly, this would be a better use of it than most. But, aye, there’s the rub. . . .

Going beyond the problem of increased government spending is the issue of dependency. The conservative critique of the old welfare system is that it put the federal government in the role of “head of the family,” supporting single mothers and their children in the way that husbands and fathers are supposed to do.

There used to be a stigma against being dependent on government handouts, but welfare payments lose their stigma when virtually everyone gets them. Wouldn’t these subsidies make nearly all Americans dependent on the federal government? Doesn’t that vastly extend the scope and thus the power of government at the expense of individual citizens? If the government pays child-support, doesn’t that turn the government into an absent father?

To what extent would these proposed subsidies help individual families and to what extent would they amount to a nationalization of all families?

Perhaps these are theoretical quibbles that are outweighed by the practical benefits. Help me out here. What do you think?

Photo by Stephen Depolo, Creative Commons License 2.0 [no changes], via Flickr

subsidies for children

Previous Post

February 12, 2021

Both Creations are Ex Nihilo

Next Post

February 16, 2021 Outlawing Prayer for the LGBTQ

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"So Katie Zacharia lasted only a demiScaramucci as press secretary......"

reg

Luther on Tools

"Apropos to the post on Gen Z a couple days ago: "If you want the ..."

Steve Bauer

Luther on Tools

"“Don't eat with your hands, son, use your entrenching tool.”"

reg

Luther on Tools

"You serious, Clark?"

reg

Luther on Tools

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category America Apologetics Art baseball Bible Blog Christ Church crime Culture Economics Education Ethics Family Food Football Government History Holidays Holy Week Humor International Islam Language Law Life Issues Literature Media Medicine Movies Music Nature News Personal Philosophy Politics psychology Reformation Religions Sacraments Science sex Social Science Sports technology television terrorism Theology Uncategorized Vocation war

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am an offering without defect, completely burned on the altar as a pleasing aroma to the Lord. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A burnt offering A grain offering A peace offering A sin offering

Books by This Author Books by Gene Veith

See All Titles »