Adopting a Kid for Tax purposes?

[UncommonSense]

Quote:

Originally Posted by txtig +1. From the moment I read the initial post, I had a very uneasy feeling about this. The whole concept of adopting a child for the sole reason of receiving a tax break strikes me as being crass in the extreme. And the notion of giving a kid back if turns out to not be lucrative enough for you is just plain wrong. What you're describing is not adoption. Full disclosure: I'm the father of two adopted children, both grown, with one grandchild and another on the way. This hasn't been a money-making venture (quite the opposite), but I wouldn't change a thing.

+2

My wife and I adopted two kids through the US foster care system whose parents lost their parental rights due to neglect. I would be wealthier without them, but wouldn't change a thing either.

[rodi]

I also am having problems with this. If you don't like the tax laws either work with your representative, run for office yourself, or vote in a representative that agrees with you. But the tax code is what it is.

The idea of having a virtual dependent for tax purposes is pretty cold and unfeeling.

I take advantage of the child credits. Just as I took advantage of the mortgage interest credits when I had a mortgage. I don't have one anymore - but I recognize the tax code benefits those with debt. There are a lot of things in the tax code that I disagree with.

People choose to have children... or not. The tax code is what it is. Looking for scams that actually involve real children is pretty low. JMO.

[Calico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator No one said anything about child buying. I am not really sure how adoption is not in actuality child buying anyway. People pay money, they get a kid. Not much different than a pet store or animal shelter. The parent may, or may not, get any money. A surrogate mother is also doing something similar to child buying. This is an opportunity to look at the tax laws and attempt to minimize taxes. No different than a corporation would do. Look at the tax laws, analyze the ways to take advantage of them, and see if it is a fit. Simple Simon. There are many deductions and credits for having children. The USD is strong, and there are many countries where you can live for pennies on the dollar. Taking advantage of that is good for both countries. When you buy stuff made in other countries, you are taking advantage of the same thing. Adopting a kid, and then outsourcing it's raising, is no different than sending a kid to boarding school here in the USA, except a LOT cheaper. A kid raised in another country probably has a better life than being raised as a feral here in the USA. There are a lot of feral kids here. From what I see, it could actually be a benefit to doing a support arrangement. Easily started and easily terminated. The child doesn't have to actually be adopted, just support provided. Where $3 a day sent could be what is needed for the majority of the kids support, or ~$1,000 a year. A person could get a decent tax reduction, perhaps up to twice+ the amount paid, the caretaker would get extra money.

Are you deliberately trying to offend adoptive parents and adopted children? To minimize the real scourge of human trafficking of children by equating it with adoption, and to equate adopted children with animals, are both beyond the pale.

As someone whose extended family includes multiple adopted children, this post is by far the most offensive and disgusting one I have ever read.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodi I take advantage of the child credits. Just as I took advantage of the mortgage interest credits when I had a mortgage. I don't have one anymore - but I recognize the tax code benefits those with debt. There are a lot of things in the tax code that I disagree with.

I agree, and you have helped confirmed my point. Is there an opportunity, or even a business opportunity, to take advantage of the tax laws? I do not understand why you might be against sending money to impoverished countries to help support children and getting a tax write-off.

A entity could be set up, similar to "feed the children" that matches people and a kid. Or it may be able to be done on an individual level. The support person would get a tax write-off, and a tax savings, larger than the amount contributed. Spend/send $1,000, get $2,000 back in taxes. Perhaps even the Government officials in the country would get some of the money to allow it, and confirm the transaction.

This type of opportunity would only likely work with kids from third world countries, as the cost of supporting them would be relatively cheap. A person, even if they were retired, could take advantage of this child deduction. Maybe even multiple deductions.

Why wouldn't others be able to take advantage of tax deductions, or credits, that may be legal and available? The same ones you are saying you take.

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator I agree, and you have helped confirmed my point. Is there an opportunity, or even a business opportunity, to take advantage of the tax laws? I do not understand why you might be against sending money to impoverished countries to help support children and getting a tax write-off. A entity could be set up, similar to "feed the children" that matches people and a kid. Or it may be able to be done on an individual level. The support person would get a tax write-off, and a tax savings, larger than the amount contributed. Spend/send $1,000, get $2,000 back in taxes. Perhaps even the Government officials in the country would get some of the money to allow it, and confirm the transaction. This type of opportunity would only likely work with kids from third world countries, as the cost of supporting them would be relatively cheap. A person, even if they were retired, could take advantage of this child deduction. Maybe even multiple deductions. Why wouldn't others be able to take advantage of tax deductions, or credits, that may be legal and available? The same ones you are saying you take.

I don't think you DO understand my post. I was saying it was ok to take advantage of a tax advantage IF you qualify for it. I did not imply (I hope) that it was ok to create some false relationship to get a loophole. I was not endorsing your point of view. You seem to be looking for loopholes bordering on (or across the border) fraud. Truly makes me question your ethics. And worse, you seem to feel that children are somehow commodities. Whether you like children or not - even YOU were once a child... you'd think you'd recognize that they are not interchangeable objects to be used for tax advantage in some bizzaro scheme to defraud the government.

[Bestwifeever]

I knew a really nice guy in college who had been adopted from Mooseheart when he was in high school, whose adopted parents reaped intangible rewards of the heart far beyond any financial tax credits or deductions. I thought that was what this thread was going to be about.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator No one said anything about child buying. I am not really sure how adoption is not in actuality child buying anyway. People pay money, they get a kid. Not much different than a pet store or animal shelter. The parent may, or may not, get any money. A surrogate mother is also doing something similar to child buying.

This is incredibly offensive. Yes, child selling does exist. Most of the time the selling parent gets a pittance (is often a very poor person who has other children to support). The adoptive parent in that situation doesn't even know about it. The people who get rich are those in the middle.

But, that is not most adoptions. In most adoptions, the money paid is paid for services not for the child. And, you don't just pay money and get a kid. There are legal requirements that must be met. When we internationally adopted we went through a homestudy. We also had to submit documents and meet the requirements of the country that we adopted from. And, yes there was an agency involved who matched us with the children we adopted (whose mother had died, FWIW). The agency has employees who have to be paid. There is care for the children during the time between placement by the birth family and adoption. This all costs money. So, yes, it is paid for.
In addition to all that there are legal requirements that must be met that are based upon the best interest of the child.

As an adoptive parent, I find it pretty insulting to be accused of buying my children. As an adoptee myself, I find it insulting to my parents -- both my adoptive parents and birth parents -- to say that I was a commodity bought and sold.

And, frankly, this whole thread of making commodities of children is appalling. Adoption is meant to provide a home for children who need a home. Adoption is based upon the best interest of the child. Yes, there are people who act inappropriately. That doesn't mean it is appropriate to insult everyone who ever placed a child for adoption or who ever adopted a child.