Why isn’t childcare a business expense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

It’s this dear.

OP must be a millennial to ask such a question.

+1 SMH.

We're all doomed.

Why is OP a bad question or suggestion?

Of course let's not ever question anything or push for small reforms that might make having a family even slightly more affordable.

The problem is that OP isn't trying to make "having a family more affordable." She's trying to make being a doctor in a highly lucrative profession more lucrative. Those are not the same thing, in terms of social goods.

Well she's pointing out an issue in our tax code, which is a real issue. There are so many deductions, why not this one? Why isn't there better tax relief for child care expenses?

The fact that you dislike that OP is likely earning a high income is irrelevant. Fwiw doctors that own their own businesses have to deal with a lot of BS after having gone through many expensive and intense years of education and training. It's not an easy path. She isn't running a hedge fund ffs.

But there already are benefits in the tax code for people with children and small businesses. OP just wants more.

And from a tax policy standpoint, subsidizing OP’s nanny should not be a high priority. Let’s talk about subsidizing daycare for people working two jobs.

+1 There is already tax relief for childcare expenses, but OP wants to deduct childcare as a "business expense." This is a proposition that would disproportionately benefit UMC business owners like OP, but harm lower income folks by reducing the funding available for items that provide a public benefit. It's a regressive tax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

It’s this dear.

OP must be a millennial to ask such a question.

+1 SMH.

We're all doomed.

Why is OP a bad question or suggestion?

Of course let's not ever question anything or push for small reforms that might make having a family even slightly more affordable.

The problem is that OP isn't trying to make "having a family more affordable." She's trying to make being a doctor in a highly lucrative profession more lucrative. Those are not the same thing, in terms of social goods.

It depends on whether or not you think it’s a social good for women to remain in the workforce.

And whether it’s a social good for people to have children.

[Anonymous]

Also raises the question of why keeping a home as a SAHM isn’t a business and why SAHM’s aren’t receiving money for this work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Children are the future of society, and the decision to have them or not has consequences for demographics, social structures, and the continuation of human life.

Children also have costs. Population increases result in greater contention for resources, environmental pollution, and overcrowding. This is not something that should be universally encouraged by tax policy.

You know birth rates are decreasing right?

Do you want to be the generation that, when elderly, has no doctors, no nurses, no grocery stores, no bus drivers, no police, no firefighters, no EMS, no money actually for any public services? Do you want to live through the collapse of society?

Then provide incentives to everyone directly to have children. Doesn't matter if parents work or don't work.

Don't do it through the tax code so in fact it primarily benefits high earners, because a tax deduction for childcare to a MC worker who doesn't pay much in tax is isn't worth all that much.

Our tax code primarily benefits wealthy people whose income doesn't come from earnings, it comes from investments. A doctor running their own practice should absolutely not have to pay double taxes in order to get child care - nobody should.

OP doesn't have to hire a nanny...she could send her kids to daycare which eliminates the "double taxes".

Again, you can't implement a benefit like this that disproportionally benefits UMC folks. When does it even stop? Can you keep a nanny until your kids are 18, just because it's nice to have someone shuttle their kids to sports practice or what not, and continue to get a tax deduction?

[Anonymous]

You already get a tax credit for having kids. Why on earth would you get to deduct childcare expenses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Children are the future of society, and the decision to have them or not has consequences for demographics, social structures, and the continuation of human life.

Children also have costs. Population increases result in greater contention for resources, environmental pollution, and overcrowding. This is not something that should be universally encouraged by tax policy.

You know birth rates are decreasing right?

Do you want to be the generation that, when elderly, has no doctors, no nurses, no grocery stores, no bus drivers, no police, no firefighters, no EMS, no money actually for any public services? Do you want to live through the collapse of society?

Then provide incentives to everyone directly to have children. Doesn't matter if parents work or don't work.

Don't do it through the tax code so in fact it primarily benefits high earners, because a tax deduction for childcare to a MC worker who doesn't pay much in tax is isn't worth all that much.

Our tax code primarily benefits wealthy people whose income doesn't come from earnings, it comes from investments. A doctor running their own practice should absolutely not have to pay double taxes in order to get child care - nobody should.

OP doesn't have to hire a nanny...she could send her kids to daycare which eliminates the "double taxes".

Again, you can't implement a benefit like this that disproportionally benefits UMC folks. When does it even stop? Can you keep a nanny until your kids are 18, just because it's nice to have someone shuttle their kids to sports practice or what not, and continue to get a tax deduction?

OP here. Why not? I will likely continue to have an office manager until my kids turn 28 and continue to get the “tax deduction” for hiring her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

This is the answer. Children are a personal choice unrelated to employment. Childcare is no different than other personal nondeductible expenses which make it easier for people to work, like a home closer to your place of employment, a car to commute in, clothes to wear to work (if not a required uniform), a watch make sure you arrive at work on time, etc. Those are all personal, not business expenses.

I don’t know. I think it would be a very easy argument to make that most people would have a car and clothes even if they weren’t working. While most people would not have full time childcare if they weren’t working.

Childcare is a cost that is not optional for most people who need it to work. It is much more like your uniform than it is like your car, which you would probably have either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Children are the future of society, and the decision to have them or not has consequences for demographics, social structures, and the continuation of human life.

Children also have costs. Population increases result in greater contention for resources, environmental pollution, and overcrowding. This is not something that should be universally encouraged by tax policy.

You know birth rates are decreasing right?

Do you want to be the generation that, when elderly, has no doctors, no nurses, no grocery stores, no bus drivers, no police, no firefighters, no EMS, no money actually for any public services? Do you want to live through the collapse of society?

Then provide incentives to everyone directly to have children. Doesn't matter if parents work or don't work.

Don't do it through the tax code so in fact it primarily benefits high earners, because a tax deduction for childcare to a MC worker who doesn't pay much in tax is isn't worth all that much.

Our tax code primarily benefits wealthy people whose income doesn't come from earnings, it comes from investments. A doctor running their own practice should absolutely not have to pay double taxes in order to get child care - nobody should.

OP doesn't have to hire a nanny...she could send her kids to daycare which eliminates the "double taxes".

Again, you can't implement a benefit like this that disproportionally benefits UMC folks. When does it even stop? Can you keep a nanny until your kids are 18, just because it's nice to have someone shuttle their kids to sports practice or what not, and continue to get a tax deduction?

OP here. Why not? I will likely continue to have an office manager until my kids turn 28 and continue to get the “tax deduction” for hiring her.

Because your office manager actually does work for your practice. You aren't this dense are you?

No offense, but you lose any sympathy for your position when you now claim it should last until they are 18 when they don't need a nanny by any stretch, but now you want a tax deduction for a lifestyle choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

This is the answer. Children are a personal choice unrelated to employment. Childcare is no different than other personal nondeductible expenses which make it easier for people to work, like a home closer to your place of employment, a car to commute in, clothes to wear to work (if not a required uniform), a watch make sure you arrive at work on time, etc. Those are all personal, not business expenses.

I don’t know. I think it would be a very easy argument to make that most people would have a car and clothes even if they weren’t working. While most people would not have full time childcare if they weren’t working.

Childcare is a cost that is not optional for most people who need it to work. It is much more like your uniform than it is like your car, which you would probably have either way.

Many people wouldn't have an additional car if they weren't working and many people also wouldn't spend much money on business clothes (or drycleaning) if they weren't working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also raises the question of why keeping a home as a SAHM isn’t a business and why SAHM’s aren’t receiving money for this work.

Good point. SAHMs of small children be paid at least minimum wage by their husbands, and then they should be taxed on this income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Children are the future of society, and the decision to have them or not has consequences for demographics, social structures, and the continuation of human life.

Children also have costs. Population increases result in greater contention for resources, environmental pollution, and overcrowding. This is not something that should be universally encouraged by tax policy.

You know birth rates are decreasing right?

Do you want to be the generation that, when elderly, has no doctors, no nurses, no grocery stores, no bus drivers, no police, no firefighters, no EMS, no money actually for any public services? Do you want to live through the collapse of society?

Then provide incentives to everyone directly to have children. Doesn't matter if parents work or don't work.

Don't do it through the tax code so in fact it primarily benefits high earners, because a tax deduction for childcare to a MC worker who doesn't pay much in tax is isn't worth all that much.

Our tax code primarily benefits wealthy people whose income doesn't come from earnings, it comes from investments. A doctor running their own practice should absolutely not have to pay double taxes in order to get child care - nobody should.

OP doesn't have to hire a nanny...she could send her kids to daycare which eliminates the "double taxes".

Again, you can't implement a benefit like this that disproportionally benefits UMC folks. When does it even stop? Can you keep a nanny until your kids are 18, just because it's nice to have someone shuttle their kids to sports practice or what not, and continue to get a tax deduction?

OP here. Why not? I will likely continue to have an office manager until my kids turn 28 and continue to get the “tax deduction” for hiring her.

Because your office manager actually does work for your practice. You aren't this dense are you?

No offense, but you lose any sympathy for your position when you now claim it should last until they are 18 when they don't need a nanny by any stretch, but now you want a tax deduction for a lifestyle choice.

+1 Post your business name so we know where not to go, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also raises the question of why keeping a home as a SAHM isn’t a business and why SAHM’s aren’t receiving money for this work.

It's your DH that should be "paying" you. Don't you have access to his joint checking? If you're a sahm, then your DH is able to lean into work and make more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

This is the answer. Children are a personal choice unrelated to employment. Childcare is no different than other personal nondeductible expenses which make it easier for people to work, like a home closer to your place of employment, a car to commute in, clothes to wear to work (if not a required uniform), a watch make sure you arrive at work on time, etc. Those are all personal, not business expenses.

Children are the future of society, and the decision to have them or not has consequences for demographics, social structures, and the continuation of human life.

While individuals have the freedom to choose whether or not to have children, the decision is not a simple lifestyle choice in the same way as choosing a hobby or a travel destination. It's a deeply personal and impactful decision with profound implications for individuals and society as a whole.

Thanks, ChatpGPT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What "business" are you operating that you would deduct such expenses?

OP here. I’m a dermatologist with a solo practice.

So? How is child care a business expense?

Because, for the next few years, I need my nanny in order to run my practice. This is normal and reasonable.
If I wasn’t working, I wouldn’t need her.

No, you don't need her. Your partner could stay home. A relative could look after the child. It has nothing to do with your business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.

It’s this dear.

OP must be a millennial to ask such a question.

+1 SMH.

We're all doomed.

Why is OP a bad question or suggestion?

Of course let's not ever question anything or push for small reforms that might make having a family even slightly more affordable.

The problem is that OP isn't trying to make "having a family more affordable." She's trying to make being a doctor in a highly lucrative profession more lucrative. Those are not the same thing, in terms of social goods.

It depends on whether or not you think it’s a social good for women to remain in the workforce.

If she is married to a man, her husband can stay home. No one is requiring OP to stay home.