How does unpaid labor figure into HHI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It should and that is part of the reason the tax laws were written to provide a bit of a benefit to households where one partner cares for the kids and home full time.

Op here, and I am saying the flip. Shouldn’t some taxes be paid on this labor? It is being done solely to benefit the household, and the value is tens of thousands of dollars. How can you say this is not part of the household income?

So I think the tax law is unfair to working women IMO.
For those who do it themselves, it’s imputed income - and idk how it you tax that. If I were to look at it, I think I would make all childcare money able to paid using pre tax dollars.

Quoting myself here. It’s been a while since I looked at this. Someone else should help me here. I’m wrong on something about imputed income.

[Anonymous]

Your brain works in fascinating and mysterious ways.

[Anonymous]

I spent the afternoon doing landscaping in our back yard. I didn't get paid a penny. Should I be taxed on this? If I didn't do it, we'd pay a landscaper a nice sum to do it instead.

Same when I shovel the snow and wash the car.

[Anonymous]

How about those people who don't have kids? How much should they pay for not having child care costs?

[Anonymous]

How about a single teen parent who has her parent babysit her kids while also watching her siblings? Should they both pay extra taxes for that cushy arrangement, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

Actually, OPs proposal creates an incentive for couples not to get married when they have a baby - which would likely mean more children in Medicaid and well fare for their mothers. From a purely selfish standpoint, this is not something you want because your taxes will go i to fund it.

(Oh yeah, it’s also not good for the children or the women involved)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

OP here. No. I was being much more petty than that. In my system, about 1/3 of the salary (to a reasonable extent) would be added to the HHI of a family with a SAHP when having these discussions about UMC vs MC.
I really never meant to say that SAHMs should be taxed. I was responding to someone who took my OP bass ackwards.

But I do feel that most childcare costs ought to be pre-tax. The current system is unfair to both working mothers and childcare workers because often the amount people are able to pay for childcare is based on the parent’s after tax pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about those people who don't have kids? How much should they pay for not having child care costs?

Tax the DINKS!!!

[Anonymous]

Having kids is a choice and a luxury. Why should child care be discussed with HII. Its your choice how you choose to care for your kids. What reaction are you looking for? Kids are expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about those people who don't have kids? How much should they pay for not having child care costs?

You think people without kids should pay some kind of additional tax? At what age would that start? And for how long?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

Actually, OPs proposal creates an incentive for couples not to get married when they have a baby - which would likely mean more children in Medicaid and well fare for their mothers. From a purely selfish standpoint, this is not something you want because your taxes will go i to fund it.

(Oh yeah, it’s also not good for the children or the women involved)

Yeah. This already happens.
I am not sure why it would happen more if childcare was paid for with pre-tax income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

OP here. No. I was being much more petty than that. In my system, about 1/3 of the salary (to a reasonable extent) would be added to the HHI of a family with a SAHP when having these discussions about UMC vs MC.
I really never meant to say that SAHMs should be taxed. I was responding to someone who took my OP bass ackwards.

But I do feel that most childcare costs ought to be pre-tax. The current system is unfair to both working mothers and childcare workers because often the amount people are able to pay for childcare is based on the parent’s after tax pay.

If you want to add 30% to your husband’s salary so that you feel better about yourself when having pointless discussions on an anonymous forum, go right ahead. Double his salary if you want to. No one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

OP here. No. I was being much more petty than that. In my system, about 1/3 of the salary (to a reasonable extent) would be added to the HHI of a family with a SAHP when having these discussions about UMC vs MC.
I really never meant to say that SAHMs should be taxed. I was responding to someone who took my OP bass ackwards.

But I do feel that most childcare costs ought to be pre-tax. The current system is unfair to both working mothers and childcare workers because often the amount people are able to pay for childcare is based on the parent’s after tax pay.

If you want to add 30% to your husband’s salary so that you feel better about yourself when having pointless discussions on an anonymous forum, go right ahead. Double his salary if you want to. No one cares.

You’re an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Really, I am just annoyed when people on this forum dismiss childcare expenses when talking about HHI.

Think about it this way, OP. In your system SAHMs would be taxed for their labor - meaning in reality that their DHs would be taxed.

However, if someone decides to have a non-working spouse at any other point in their life - that labor is not taxed. Your solution is to create a tax on families? That makes no sense.

OP here. No. I was being much more petty than that. In my system, about 1/3 of the salary (to a reasonable extent) would be added to the HHI of a family with a SAHP when having these discussions about UMC vs MC.
I really never meant to say that SAHMs should be taxed. I was responding to someone who took my OP bass ackwards.

But I do feel that most childcare costs ought to be pre-tax. The current system is unfair to both working mothers and childcare workers because often the amount people are able to pay for childcare is based on the parent’s after tax pay.

Your post is absurd. You get tax credits for child care costs that a SAHP does not get. As a SAHP, when my child was 5, we did a 9-3 preschool to get them prepared and they missed the cut off. Before that we had preschool costs. It is absolutely fair as children are a choice and you should not get subsidized.

Some of us don't work as child care is more than our income.