Most sexist part of tax code?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not so PP!

I stopped working because I made 60K (as the ED of a state political org)-- all of it taxed at 40% (fed, state, and FICA). Leaving me 36K take home to cover childcare, commuting and business expenses.

As a professional, I put in a LOT of overtime. So we had an evening babysitter, too. Plus a weekly cleaning service. Those were an additional 12K a year. Brings us down to 24K. Daycare was 11K per kid (2 kids) total 22K. Professional wardrobe, drycleaning, metro/parking cost way more than 2K a year.....

I HATE that I made the decision I did. It has been 3 years since I stopped working, and I cannot wait until my youngest starts K so I can go back to work and net a small profit. I will still be taxed at 40%, but no daycare bills! All that is to say that if I were single (or lesbian!) or merely co-habitating but not technically married, I would not be taxed at 40%...

If you were single you wouldn't have DH's income which put you in that bracket, either. If you were lesbian you would face a raft of other financial penalties that would far, far exceed The benefits. It is almost offensive to say they have it good.

Lastly, you do realize that married peoPle can file separately, yes?

Married filing separately still incurs a penalty -- the amount for the brackets (28, 33, and 35) is LOWER than for single taxpayers. Please don't think it's a real solution to the inequity in the tax code. The marriage penalty is real, and PP is correct that merely cohabitating would mean most lower earners would keep more of their money. However, the family usually does see a net gain in situations like PP's, where it sounds like her DH makes BANK and probably benefits greatly from the expanded lower brackets filing jointly (even when she worked) provided them.

The marriage penalty is much more inequitable when both spouses make about the same.

P.S. OP, I thought this topic was the "most sexiest part of the tax code" when I clicked in

Yes, the separate filing isn't great unless you fit certain circumstances. But the poster is complaining about how her income is taxed at 40%, when in fact it is the combined income of the family that is taxed at that rate. She may feel penalized by marriage, but she has forgotten that her husband's income is taxed at a much lower rate as the result of their marriage. In fact, all incremental income is taxed at a high rate and she should be no more upset than her husband would be if he got a raise and had to pay 40% of that.

In her particular situation, she is decidedly better off than two singles from both an income tax and inheritance perspective. She is certainly better off than lesbians with the same income, on both an income tax and inheritance perspective.

In order to feel the penalty, she would have to make as much as her husband. But then she wouldn't care, because she would have plenty of money to pay for child care.

Uh, did you just say exactly what I said? Because yeah, you just said exactly what I said: net gain for her family, more inequitable for similar incomes, filing separately sucks.

No, I said ONE of the things that you said.

[Anonymous]

people who file JOINTLY get screwed versus people who are SINGLE. that is the penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:people who file JOINTLY get screwed versus people who are SINGLE. that is the penalty.

That's true about 40-45% of the time. They get screwed by an average of about $1000. For the rest, they come out ahead. If you make $30K and your spouse makes $100K, you effectively get taxed at the rate that single people making $65K would pay. That turns out to be a good deal. And it got better in 2009, when they widened one of the brackets. The penalty is the result of an attempt to keep this from becoming a wholesale giveaway to married couples. By trimming its benefit back, it does ding some couples.

And if they are married and one of them dies, they get to transfer assets for free to the other, and with no complicated estate planning. And a spouse can live of his/her deceased spouse's social security for the rest of their lives. And they qualify for lower rates on insurance. And a spouse can get a credit card based on the total household income. A spouse qualifies in almost any employer's health insurance plan. Even if the company is progressive and offers benefits for unmarried partners, those benefits are still taxable.

Yes, someone can complain about the marriage penalty, but on the whole, the government is creating huge financial incentives to get married. So it is a bit disingenuous to complain about it and conveniently forget about all of the other benefits.

But if you really think it's better to file single, just talk to a gay couple that you know. I'm sure you won't be feeling bad after you see if from their side, and I'm not talking about the moral and legal rights of marriage. I'm talking about taxes.

[Anonymous]

Tax lawyer here. If there is one thing I know from 20+ years of doing this, you have to be creative. There are as many ways to avoid tax liability as there are second homes paid for by clients. None of them have been or will be discussed by me on this thread. All of them are legal.

[Anonymous]

None of them have been or will be discussed by me on this thread. All of them are legal.

And I doubt they're really applicable to most famlies using their paychecks to simly pay the bills as opposed to having thousands to sock away in various tax-deferring ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uuugh. Every year I do my taxes I wonder if the built in sexism will ever end. Here's my three least favorite sexisms in the tax code. Please add your so the list, I'd like to develop a comprehensive list! (and yes, I am a progressive Democrat, this is a trans-partisan issue).

1) You can't deduct breast pumps as a medical expense
2) You can't deduct job search expenses if you have been a SAHM for more than one year (although everyone else's job search expenses are deductible).
3) That pesky marriage penalty. It makes me want to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would Breast pumps be considered a medical expense? Why not hearing aids, eyeglasses, braces for teeth. Nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tax lawyer here. If there is one thing I know from 20+ years of doing this, you have to be creative. There are as many ways to avoid tax liability as there are second homes paid for by clients. None of them have been or will be discussed by me on this thread. All of them are legal.

Why won't you discuss them here? You have nothing to lose. If it looks like we could benefit from hire a tax lawyer what better place to start than here?

[Anonymous]

Aren't BCP also not deductible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uuugh. Every year I do my taxes I wonder if the built in sexism will ever end. Here's my three least favorite sexisms in the tax code. Please add your so the list, I'd like to develop a comprehensive list! (and yes, I am a progressive Democrat, this is a trans-partisan issue).

1) You can't deduct breast pumps as a medical expense
2) You can't deduct job search expenses if you have been a SAHM for more than one year (although everyone else's job search expenses are deductible).
3) That pesky marriage penalty. It makes me want to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would Breast pumps be considered a medical expense? Why not hearing aids, eyeglasses, braces for teeth. Nuts.

Hearing aids, eyeglasses and I think braces (dental expenses definitely are) are covered as medical expenses. Did you realize that pregnancy tests are covered too? Anyone ever deduct that?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uuugh. Every year I do my taxes I wonder if the built in sexism will ever end. Here's my three least favorite sexisms in the tax code. Please add your so the list, I'd like to develop a comprehensive list! (and yes, I am a progressive Democrat, this is a trans-partisan issue).

1) You can't deduct breast pumps as a medical expense
2) You can't deduct job search expenses if you have been a SAHM for more than one year (although everyone else's job search expenses are deductible).
3) That pesky marriage penalty. It makes me want to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would Breast pumps be considered a medical expense? Why not hearing aids, eyeglasses, braces for teeth. Nuts.

Hearing aids, eyeglasses and I think braces (dental expenses definitely are) are covered as medical expenses. Did you realize that pregnancy tests are covered too? Anyone ever deduct that?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

I have to wear corrective lenses and my glasses run between $300 to $500, depending on the frames. I have never been able to deduct this from my taxes because I never met the amount for medcal expenses. Also, my father's hearing aid was around $2,000 and couldn't deduct for same reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uuugh. Every year I do my taxes I wonder if the built in sexism will ever end. Here's my three least favorite sexisms in the tax code. Please add your so the list, I'd like to develop a comprehensive list! (and yes, I am a progressive Democrat, this is a trans-partisan issue).

1) You can't deduct breast pumps as a medical expense
2) You can't deduct job search expenses if you have been a SAHM for more than one year (although everyone else's job search expenses are deductible).
3) That pesky marriage penalty. It makes me want to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would Breast pumps be considered a medical expense? Why not hearing aids, eyeglasses, braces for teeth. Nuts.

Hearing aids, eyeglasses and I think braces (dental expenses definitely are) are covered as medical expenses. Did you realize that pregnancy tests are covered too? Anyone ever deduct that?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

I have to wear corrective lenses and my glasses run between $300 to $500, depending on the frames. I have never been able to deduct this from my taxes because I never met the amount for medcal expenses. Also, my father's hearing aid was around $2,000 and couldn't deduct for same reason.

Yes, but you should be able to use FSA or HSA money which gives the same tax break just applied in a different way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uuugh. Every year I do my taxes I wonder if the built in sexism will ever end. Here's my three least favorite sexisms in the tax code. Please add your so the list, I'd like to develop a comprehensive list! (and yes, I am a progressive Democrat, this is a trans-partisan issue).

1) You can't deduct breast pumps as a medical expense
2) You can't deduct job search expenses if you have been a SAHM for more than one year (although everyone else's job search expenses are deductible).
3) That pesky marriage penalty. It makes me want to scream!!!!!!!!!!!

Why would Breast pumps be considered a medical expense? Why not hearing aids, eyeglasses, braces for teeth. Nuts.

Hearing aids, eyeglasses and I think braces (dental expenses definitely are) are covered as medical expenses. Did you realize that pregnancy tests are covered too? Anyone ever deduct that?

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf

I have to wear corrective lenses and my glasses run between $300 to $500, depending on the frames. I have never been able to deduct this from my taxes because I never met the amount for medcal expenses. Also, my father's hearing aid was around $2,000 and couldn't deduct for same reason.

But you could use a Flex Spending Account to pay for those things and they would be eligible expenses.

The FDA regulates breast pumps as a medical device so it would make sense that the IRS should recognize it as a medical expense for FSAs - which they will now that they reversed their decision.

[Anonymous]

"I'm one of those women who outearns her husband, and I think a woman who drops out of the workforce because of the tax implications is a woman who didn't want to be in the workforce to begin with. "

You betcha!

[Anonymous]

What's wrong with the tax code being sexy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's wrong with the tax code being sexy?

Sexist not sexy.