JD Vance Wants to Use Tax Code to Punish Childless People

Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance is in the news for an old clip in which he talks about how the tax code should penalize adults without children. While Vance’s proposal is likely intended to address demographic issues, it is a flawed approach that violates basic principles of economic freedom and fairness.

And you know what? That’s exactly what our tax code already does, in this case and many others.

Using the tax code to “reward” parents and “punish” non-parents is contrary to the idea of a neutral, efficient tax system. In an ideal and fair world, the tax base would be broad but taxed at a low rate. People earning the same should pay the same level of taxes regardless of how they choose to live.

Unfortunately, the tax code is neither fair nor neutral. It punishes and rewards all kinds of behavior based on what government officials consider good or bad.

For example, the tax code actually treats childless people more favorably than those who do have children. There’s the child tax credit, of course. There’s the earned income tax credit, which is more generous to families with children than to those without children. And there’s no shortage of other provisions, like a very significant deduction for heads of households and another for caring for dependents who do the same thing.

It’s hard to say what Vance’s proposal really means. Does he want another tax on childless parents? Does he want to expand the child tax credit into a universal basic income, as many conservatives and progressives want? It’s also unclear whether he simply doesn’t see that our tax code already does what he wants and punishes childless adults. Either way, I assume he means well and is right to worry about the declining fertility rates we’re seeing not just in this country but around the world.

Unfortunately, punishing childless parents with extra taxes would not increase fertility. First, we have had the child tax credit since the 1990s, and the credit has been extended regularly. This has not encouraged people to have more children.

This is not unique to the child tax credit. There is ample evidence that government programs of all kinds designed to encourage, reward, or stimulate child supply generally fail. One of the most dramatic examples is South Korea. The country has spent more than $200 billion on such policies over the past 16 years, and fertility rates have continued to decline.

There is no doubt that more people, and therefore more children, are a boon to our lives and our economy. But that in itself is not a good reason for government subsidies. And while raising children is expensive, it is not a justification for government tax breaks either.

In addition, careful research has shown that the cost of raising a child in America has been falling for six decades. Ultimately, rather than rewarding families with lower taxes at the expense of childless adults, I would encourage advocates to focus on removing existing government barriers—such as overzealous policies that make child care more expensive without making children measurably safer—that complicate families’ lives.

Ultimately, these are just minor aspects of a much larger debate. Our tax code is incredibly unfair. It’s not just childless adults who pay a premium compared to their parents. Tax breaks for homeowners mean renters pay more for the same amount of housing. College households pay less in taxes. People who can afford an electric vehicle can get a tax break that others can’t.

These tax breaks for some aren’t just unfair to taxpayers who don’t get them—they also turn our tax code into a complicated mess that takes millions of hours of collective effort to enforce. Instead of adding more complexity and bias, we should be moving in the opposite direction—toward a simpler, flatter, more neutral code that treats all taxpayers equally.

Using the tax code as a tool for social engineering is wrong. It leads to economic inefficiency and infringes on individual liberty. Instead of doubling down on the problematic aspects of our current system, we should be working toward comprehensive reform. Only then can we hope to make taxes something that truly serves the interests of all Americans, regardless of their personal choices.