The ‘$17K Childless Tax’ That Isn’t: Breaking Down the Heritage Foundation Proposal

They say good news travels fast. Well, what if I told you misinformation travels even faster? The other day, while scrolling through social media, I came across a post mentioning a so-called “childless tax.” The creator discussed several points about this proposal, but one comment in particular stood out to me: “…childfree women will be taxed an additional $17,000 annually.” That claim prompted me to do some digging of my own. As it turns out, this is not a tax designed to punish women who do not have children.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, released a family policy report suggesting new tax incentives to encourage marriage and having children, not to penalize single or childfree women. The proposed tax credit would be tied to each newborn child and is structured similarly to the existing adoption tax credit, which is currently about $17,670 per child under U.S. law. This similarity is likely where the $17,000 figure originated. However, it is a proposed credit, not an actual tax penalty imposed on childless individuals.

Related articles: Does a Single Person Need Life Insurance?

Here are some important details to note: according to the Heritage Foundation’s website, the credit would primarily benefit married parents with children and would be paid out over several years. Families with more children, such as those with three or more, could receive additional bonuses. The proposal also includes other incentives, such as credits for at-home childcare and savings accounts for newlyweds. Overall, these measures are intended to incentivize people to have children, not to directly tax or punish those who are childfree and wish to remain that way. Levying a $17,000 tax against people without children is not only unethical but also largely incorrect. This misinterpretation is currently circulating widely on social platforms.

Now, don’t get me wrong. Having a child is significantly more expensive and not something the average American woman can easily afford, even if she is married. The cost of living has risen steadily over the years, and while some women in the comments of the creator’s video acknowledged this reality, another point stood out to me even more. Many stated they would gladly pay a hypothetical tax penalty rather than go through pregnancy, childbirth, and the responsibility of raising a child. So let’s break it down. Pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum medical care average about $20,000 in total billed healthcare costs. Out-of-pocket expenses are typically much lower for those with employer-sponsored insurance, usually ranging from $2,500 to $4,000, depending on coverage and plan details.

Related articles: What Retirement Looks Like for Single Women In America

Additionally, according to a recent study by SmartAsset, the average annual cost of raising a child in the United States is approximately $20,800 to $23,000 when accounting for housing, food, childcare, transportation, healthcare, and other necessities. This figure varies by state. Long-term estimates place the total cost of raising a child from birth to age 18 at roughly $297,000 to $300,000. On the higher end, that equates to about $1,500 per month with a child, compared to roughly $1,400 per month without one, if such a tax were actually real. What many people fail to realize, including the creator of the video mentioned earlier, is that a woman’s choice to live without children is not solely driven by the idea that “kids are expensive.” Everything in life is expensive. Being childfree in 2026 is not just a lifestyle choice; it is a decision made by women who are pro-autonomy.

In addition, there are significant costs associated with raising children that many studies fail to account for, college being one of the most notable examples. While the Heritage Foundation’s proposal aims to incentivize parents, women without children should consider that, although the numbers being discussed are not entirely unrealistic, one factor should be the ultimate driver in deciding whether to become a parent: aging. Historically, elder care in America has been quietly outsourced to adult children, especially daughters. Childfree individuals do not have that default safety net. What they often do have, however, is an additional $516 per month that can be invested elsewhere. Statistically, they are also more likely to maintain uninterrupted earning years, but only if they actively capitalize on that advantage. This is the foundation of the pro-autonomy choice.

Related articles: How Can Women Without Children Plan for Retirement

Services like Norient are emerging to formalize what family structures once provided: coordinated care, advocacy, continuity, and accountability. Companies like these function as risk-reduction tools and future cost stabilizers, helping protect assets from sudden care-related emergencies. The idea of a so-called childless tax is problematic on its own, but even when comparing hypothetical scenarios, remaining childfree is still the more economical option, especially now that alternatives exist. In the past, many women might have compromised, reasoning, “If I’m going to pay $17,000, I might as well have a child and hope they will care for me in old age.” Today, that calculation no longer holds true.

Women now have more options than ever before. They can invest more aggressively in services like Norient to help redefine long-term security without children. If, like me, you came across the creator’s video and felt as though you were being backed into a corner, take a moment to pause and breathe. That is not the case. Your autonomy is not being threatened or taken away. There are companies offering services with meaningful benefits and affordable membership options designed to support independent futures.

by Riley Cook