This is an archived article that was published on in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The opinion by David M. Pearson (Forum, June 9, "Subsidizing children") is the most illogical and self-serving analysis I've seen in a long time.

He wrote that he is helping to subsidize people with few or no children. Since he has nine arrows in his quiver, he gets enormous tax deductions for his progeny. This means he pays little, if any, taxes compared to a single person, or those with few or no children. How he can figure that he is "subsidizing" anyone is a real fantasy.

As a consumer of governmental services, he is not subsidizing anyone, but consuming far more than he contributes. His children will not contribute to my Social Security, they will consume their own Social Security payments. Also, if his quiver of nine bundles of joy also have nine arrows in their quivers, they too will be consumers of governmental services and not pay taxes either.

I hope that the Pearsons do not try to continue "helping" subsidize anyone. They should find another hobby. Their current one is not helping. If their way of doing things were correct, India, China, Africa and South America would be the most prosperous and least crowded countries on Earth.

Bill Revene

Salt Lake City