Who here believes it would make a difference if...?

Question

The U.S. government currently gives adopters an almost $11,000 tax credit to adopters per child adopted. Who believes it would make a difference if that money instead was used to help a woman with an unplanned pregnancy?

What could she do with that? How would that change her options for keeping her family together? What could the long-term benefits be?

Would you support such a plan? It would not cost the government any additional money over what it is already spending now.

Answer 1

Because of the way the tax credit is set up, I don't think it would make a major difference at all. The tax credit reemburses the money you have already payed in taxes, and wouldn't be available until the tax period after the baby is born. So if a mother gives birth in January she would have to wait a whole year after the birth until she recieved any money. An expectant mother who is considering adoption due to financial struggles wouldn't make enough money to get  much back. For example, if she makes $20,000 a year (well over the poverty line), she'd only owe about $1,000 in federal taxes each year, and it only rolls over for 5 years. That's only about $20  week, which would barely cover 1 day a week of daycare. The women who are in the most financial need, those making minimum wage, only working part time, or are unemployed would get very little if any money back at all.

I think it would also be difficult to decide how one could qualify for the tax credit. I think the only people who would bennefit are those who may have experienced an unplanned pregnancy, but are already making a good amount of money, and who be able to financially support a child without the tax credit.

Answer 2

Sadly, I don't think it would make much of a difference. Although poverty is often listed as a reason for relinquishment, I don't often think it's the *only* reason. I think family/community support, combined with poverty (actual or fear of), has a lot more to do with the decision than poverty alone.

My concerns would be:

1) There are are already social programs to help low-income families. The problem seems to be that sometimes the people who need them don't know how to get them. If this was another government program, how would it be different? (I'm assuming this pay-out would only be for poverty-stricken mothers who might otherwise relinquish, not *all* unplanned pregnancies, otherwise the cost would be much higher than the current tax credit.)

2) Long term, I'm not sure $10,500 would be enough to make a difference in the life of a family. A year of quality infant-age daycare costs more than that around here. (assuming single parent who would need to work.)

3)  I think fear of poverty is more common than actual poverty in many relinquishments. (Young, working/middle class women being told they're "ruining their future" by becoming a young mother.) Would they qualify for an income-based program? If they'd only qualify *after* they give birth, would $10,500 be enough to allay the fears of the unknown? I sort of doubt it, especially if nobody is there to be a "you can do it" cheering section.

Although poverty is a common reason, I really think family/community support has a lot more to do with the decision to parent/relinquish. (There are many, many poor mothers who keep their children. I think it's because, in their families/communities, they're expected to, and supported in it -- at least emotionally -- so they find a way to make it work.) Cultural views/lack of support are *so* much more difficult to change. I'm not sure what would be the right way to go about changing that (education programs? community support groups?), but I don't think the money from the tax credit will even touch the tip of the iceberg.

I do think the tax credit money could be better spent, either on education programs or if it were earmarked for post-adoption support/continuing education/therapy/etc, rather than being allowed to offset the initial adoption costs. The current credit certainly helps offset the costs of adoption, but for many people, I don't think it makes-or-breaks the decision to adopt. (I know it didn't for us.) And post-adoption support for all "sides" seems to be woefully lacking.

Answer 3

Many states have programs already for unplanned pregnancies and/or single parenting.  My state has wonderful programs to allow a financially unstable person to raise a child until they get on their feet.  Childcare assistance, financial, food, medical.  They exist here.

Unfortunately, many children are removed from their natural parents for good reason and many natural parents are just not NATURAL.  They just don't want to be parents.

Answer 4

Some women may not have planned to be pregnant  and simply cannot cope with a new arrival due to her circumstances but would never dream of ending a life through abortion and therefore puts the child up for adoption.  Fobbing someone off with money won't help.  It may disrupt a young baby and parent's life.  I respect your thought - it would be great if every child was loved and cared for by their biological parents, however some people, whether they chose to do so because they cannot have children of "their own" or simply want to make a difference to a young, parentless child's life, chose to adopt.  These people are doing a great job and are enriching a child's life, loving them them.

Answer 5

Please understand that the $11,000 tax credit is not "free money" that is given to adoptive parents.  While I do agree that perhaps more focus could possibly be given to birth families who want to keep their children, there are also many birth families who choose to place their child for adoption, not simply because of financial situations.

In any case, the $11,000 tax credit (which was $10,000 when we adopted) simply meant that I was allowed to make $11,000 that year tax free.  It did not mean that I received $11,000 from the government.  

Hope that helps.

Answer 6

Yes that would be wonderful.  Why should strangers get more assistance to raise a child that his or her natural family.

It doesn't make sense.  

family values     mmmmpppphhhh

Answer 7

I think it would be nice for the government to at least have the option. But some people are just not mentally ready for children which is why they shouldn't be having unprotected s*x but that is another topic. The only bad thing with them offering this is that people will go get pregnant just so they can get the money just like some people are already doing for simple things like food stamps and such. I think that if they where going to make it an option the mother to be should be evaluated in some way. These are just my thoughts!

Answer 8

I adopted a little guy and I can honestly say all the money in world would not have made a difference with his bio parents.  The fact is they were not capable of being parents, money can not buy a natural instinct to nurture!

Answer 9

'Just my thoughts' said: "The fact is they [bio parents] were not capable of being parents, money can not buy a natural instinct to nurture!"

That goes both ways, though.  My adoptive parents had the money to adopt but they had zero nurturing instincts.  They were not capable of being parents.  They had the money, the house, the neighborhood, nice cars, church, etc.  They wanted a baby very badly, wanted to have a family very badly, and they were socially very charming.  CHS thought they were awesome.

After adopting me, they went on to adopt yet another.

Edit: To the original question - I would rather see the adoption  tax credit stopped and have the money go toward funding public education on the effects of separating the mother/child dyad.