Not to belitle those who do adopt, but why should the government subsidize their adoption costs? What drove the government to decide they needed to make that a deduction? Was it to encourage more people to adopt?
Yes - to encourage more adoptions. Hard to be the family friendly, right to life party - and then not support them.
In the grand scope of things - it's a pittance compared to - well just about anything.
It's not even that BIG a "cost".
The last chart I saw said it "cost" the United States about 350 million dollars, and the overwhelming number of returns that use it are squarely in the middle class range (50,000 to 100,000). That's about what, less than one one-hundredth of a percent? This is cutting out a nickel out your monthly budget.
And it goes against tax liability - you don't get a nickel unless you actually PAY taxes first.
I can see it being eliminated - but - over time. Again, the thing with adoption is, it takes *years*, and if you plan something for four or five years only to have part of your funding yanked in year five, it's - well, it's not fair. Phase it in. I'm in favor of means-testing it, but stats show that rich people don't adopt much or apply for it.
My GUT tells me they wanted to eliminate deductions in general, so they upped the standard deduction - the Child Tax credit they kept - and now they're fighting over stuff like SALT because it looks partisan.
Actually, it's the medical one that annoys me the most - people with really staggering medical costs need it.
Ours are always high, and we still don't meet the threshold required.