How does unpaid labor figure into HHI?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The tax credits barely cover any childcare. I am not arguing that childcare is not a choice, but rather maybe we should incentivize more women to work by not having them pay tax on their childcare payments.

I don't think we should make it an incentive. You choose to be a parent. You pay the expenses involved. Paying taxes on your child care payments is a minimal amount.

I’m cool with ending alimony if we want to do that though. Those people chose not work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The tax credits barely cover any childcare. I am not arguing that childcare is not a choice, but rather maybe we should incentivize more women to work by not having them pay tax on their childcare payments.

I don't think we should make it an incentive. You choose to be a parent. You pay the expenses involved. Paying taxes on your child care payments is a minimal amount.

Depends on where you live. Daycare/preschool for two kids ran us $40K/year. We were in the 25% tax bracket at the time, so less the $6K that we got to deduct or take the credit for, that was $8500 in taxes that we would not have had to pay if the FSA limits matched current childcare costs. We made $130K at the time, so that was not minimal at all for us.

And, that's why I stopped working. My post tax income once they took out all the taxes, social security, other dues, etc. was basically me breaking even without gas and other expenses. However, you choose to have kids and its a lifestyle choice so I don' even get how this is an issue at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The tax credits barely cover any childcare. I am not arguing that childcare is not a choice, but rather maybe we should incentivize more women to work by not having them pay tax on their childcare payments.

I don't think we should make it an incentive. You choose to be a parent. You pay the expenses involved. Paying taxes on your child care payments is a minimal amount.

I’m cool with ending alimony if we want to do that though. Those people chose not work.

What does alimony have to do with the discussion. Why do you care if someone else pays their ex-spouse alimony or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m only annoyed that SAHMs will get social security from their husbands income plus their husbands will get their own social security. Nothing else bothers me about it. I love my children and am an attentive and loving mother but I wouldn’t be a good sahm.

Most men and women who sah to be with their children have worked enough before and after staying home with their children such that their SS will be more than 50% of their spouses- so they would be getting what they earned anyway. In cases where their spouse predecease them, they will have their SS bumped up to their spouses amount, but that goes for working parents who earn far less than their spouse too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP, I get it. Since HHI is fabricated anyway (if you are going for a loan it gets more specific than hhi), then if anyone wants to tack on imaginary amounts to fit the narrative (sahm, no childcare so we have *more wealth!!*) then pp is saying, go right ahead. If it frames a discussion, use the adjusted hhi that works best on an anonymous online forum of hypotheticals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: lol

this isn’t going to happen no matter how much you hate SAHMs....

I am not running for office on this platform. It’s just a thought experiment.

Minus the thinking part?

[Anonymous]

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?

Do you work for the IRS? Are you seriously advocating that families pay 30% in taxes on an intangible income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The tax credits barely cover any childcare. I am not arguing that childcare is not a choice, but rather maybe we should incentivize more women to work by not having them pay tax on their childcare payments.

I don't think we should make it an incentive. You choose to be a parent. You pay the expenses involved. Paying taxes on your child care payments is a minimal amount.

I’m cool with ending alimony if we want to do that though. Those people chose not work.

What does alimony have to do with the discussion. Why do you care if someone else pays their ex-spouse alimony or not?

I don’t like working women being penalized by our system

[Anonymous]

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?

income = any accretion in wealth. (learned that in my law school tax class)

lack of expense =/= "income"

I didn't spend $35K on a new car last year b/c I walked to work .... under your logic, I would have "income" of $35K that I didn't spend on a new car! "Income" doesn't work that way. Is it "income" if my mother or father comes to watch the kids while I work? Is it "income" if they just come to watch the kids while I go out on datenight? ('cause I didn't have to pay a sitter). You are on very shaky ground, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m only annoyed that SAHMs will get social security from their husbands income plus their husbands will get their own social security. Nothing else bothers me about it. I love my children and am an attentive and loving mother but I wouldn’t be a good sahm.

You do realize some of us worked 15+ years before becoming SAHP's so we earned our own social security and have fully paid in to be vested. I started working/early credits as an early teen so by the time I was a SAHP in my mid-30's I paid in plenty. Why do you resent it? You could do the same thing.

Working 40 quarters =/= "fully paid in"

But it's cute that you think it is.

It's also clear that the PP was talking about the spousal benefit, not a SAHP who had accumulated enough working quarters to be vested.

[Anonymous]

https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/macroeconomics/macroeconomics-income-inequality/piketty-capital/v/wealth-vs-income

OP -- you should watch this.

Wealth is "the value of capital and assets owned". Unless you see the care-giving spouse as "an asset owned" (which I hope you don't), caregiving spouse's services are neither "capital" nor "assests owned."

And by the way, OP, do you also think we should assign a taxable value to the work one does to mow one's lawn, or change light fixtures, or fix the toilet? Should I assign a taxable value to the fact that I do my own laundry instead of paying someone else to do it for me? Should I have to claim some taxable value for the fact that I taught my children to read and to write cursive rather than sending them to Kumon or a tutor?

OP, think it through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been reading some of the threads below, and see some people saying that they spend $20k-40k of after tax dollars on daycare for two children. And that this cost can make what appears to be a fairly high income ($150k) disappear very quickly.
The general response is that it doesn’t matter what you spend your income on, only that you have it.
But shouldn’t it? If someone in the home is doing $20k-$40k of unpaid, untaxed labor for the family, shouldn’t that count when figuring out the HHI?
Arguably, SAHP childcare is more like nanny care, which is considerably more expensive, but that’s hard to argue when someone is caring for their own child. Certainly, every parent is caring for their children some of the time, and we don’t count it as nanny care or babysitter care.
But if one person is providing full time childcare, shouldn’t that count for some dollar amount?

Great idea, OP.

I am surprised no politician has seen the potential here.

You declare that labor and pay the corresponding payroll and income taxes. A hundred million Americans do the same .... and we have raised a cool trillion dollars to fund free college for all

Brilliant!

[Anonymous]

OP, go Google the definition of income. Then Google the definition of expenses. You'll see that reduction or elimination of expenses doe not create income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m only annoyed that SAHMs will get social security from their husbands income plus their husbands will get their own social security. Nothing else bothers me about it. I love my children and am an attentive and loving mother but I wouldn’t be a good sahm.

You do realize some of us worked 15+ years before becoming SAHP's so we earned our own social security and have fully paid in to be vested. I started working/early credits as an early teen so by the time I was a SAHP in my mid-30's I paid in plenty. Why do you resent it? You could do the same thing.

Working 40 quarters =/= "fully paid in"

But it's cute that you think it is.

It's also clear that the PP was talking about the spousal benefit, not a SAHP who had accumulated enough working quarters to be vested.

What do you consider fully vested, if not 40 quarters? That's the threshold the SSA uses, so it seems the most relevant here. And I agree with PP that the vast majority of SAHPs meet it over the course of their working years. Exceptions might be those who work in the public sector for some part of their careers and thus aren't paying into SS, but that's a separate situation even for those who don't SAH. And I'm sure there are some in the upper echelons of society who don't work at all, but again--those are the outliers.

[Anonymous]

I don't even understand OP's point. So she wants to claim a higher HHI than they actually make? I guess she can claim anything she wants except on the IRS forms.