Most sexist part of tax code?

[Anonymous]

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!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

you only get a tax deduction for childcare expenses if someone else is watching your kids

[Anonymous]

I'd like to point out that numbers 2 & 3 aren't sexist as they apply both to men and women. If you want to actually make hay out of them, I'd suggest actually framing it in a gender neutral manner, ie looking to make the tax code more family friendly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you only get a tax deduction for childcare expenses if someone else is watching your kids

I thought it was that you could only deduct child care expenses if having them allows you to work (thus generating income to deduct against). And therefore since you are working someone else would have to be watching your kids. I also thought that wasn't gender specific.

[Anonymous]

you only get a tax deduction for childcare expenses if someone else is watching your kids

I don't understand this -- you want a tax deduction for a service you don't pay for?

[Anonymous]

#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

14:48 PP here - Yes they do affect women more but while I'm as big as feminist as the next person, I think we do ourselves a disservice to throw around the word "sexism" when it isn't really true. Frame it as a family friendly policy and you might get conservatives and men onboard. Call it sexism and probably not.

[Anonymous]

"you only get a tax deduction for childcare expenses if someone else is watching your kids "

This comes up every year.

The childcare tax provision is a deduction not a credit. This is a deduction from your income tax to offset the expense of childcare. Being a SAH may be very valuable but the government is not taxing your value and increasing your income tax burden. You also do not incur childcare expenses. I never understand why some SAHMs feel its unfair that they do not receive a deduction for a tax burden they do not incur to offset an expense that they do not pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

No. These topics are not female only, and they weren't crafted to disadvantage women by taking advantage of the proportion of one gender or the other. I am a SAHD, and the same rules apply to me -- rightly, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

PP here. Also, by your logic, the tax code is anti-male because men earn more and the tax rate increases with income, favoring women.

[Anonymous]

PP is right and I am a SAHM. If my husband "paid" me for SAH, I would pay income tax on that income, but he could "deduct" some of the cost of the childcare.

I'm better off the way it is.

I'm confused though, what "marriage penalties" still exist. Most of the phase outs for IRA's, deductions, etc. are doubled if you are filing as a married couple, aren't they?

Also, there is a huge benefit to only one spouse working, if that spouse earns a significant amount.

Let's say my husband makes $160 and I don't work. He stops paying social security, etc. around $102K, I think. However if we both worked and each made $80K, it would be the same total salary, but we'd pay social security, etc. on the whole amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, there is a huge benefit to only one spouse working, if that spouse earns a significant amount.

Let's say my husband makes $160 and I don't work. He stops paying social security, etc. around $102K, I think. However if we both worked and each made $80K, it would be the same total salary, but we'd pay social security, etc. on the whole amount.

That assumes that you can shift income around like that. That logic might indeed work in an assessment of part time options. better for one to work full time than both to work part time. But if you can make 160 and he can make 80 and you both choose to work then you still earn more even if you both pay into SS. On the flip side imagine the feminist outcry if the code only allowed one person to pay into SS!

[Anonymous]

I'm the 15:13 poster and I completely agree, PP.

I guess all I meant to say was that since I was planning to stay home regardless, its a pretty nice tax cut!

[Anonymous]

There is a huge benefit to families with one spouse working.

My bro pays the max, and his wife pays nothing. She gets survivor benefits based on his social security.

I pay the max and so does my husband. Sure, I get survivor benefits, but they are worth zero to me. (same with his). So, we pay twice as much and only get some fraction more in the end.

The flip side isn't "imagine the feminist outcry of only one person paying in" (you are assuming most adults live in two-spouse households and this isn't true!). The real flip side would be an individual-based system where my bro and his wife would BOTH put in for both of them and benefits would be paid on an individual basis.

There are marriage penalties and bonuses throughout the code. They were somewhat mitigated under Bush, but still there. Traditional families tend to do pretty well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:#2 and #3 are sexist because it is public policy that disproportionately and adversely affects women.

Let's not pretend women don't earn less, and SAH more!!!!!

No. These topics are not female only, and they weren't crafted to disadvantage women by taking advantage of the proportion of one gender or the other. I am a SAHD, and the same rules apply to me -- rightly, I think.

You think it's fair that I can deduct job search expenses after getting fired, but you can't deduct them after being a SAHD for 2 years? Really?