Why isn’t childcare a business expense?

[Anonymous]

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?

This is a straw man because we will all be dead before that happens.

[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.

Oh, please. OP likely charges extremely high prices just to shoot toxins into women's foreheads. I doubt she's saving lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t the child care tax credit cover this to a certain extent?

Yes. Child care is a credit as opposed to a deduction.
In a similar vein, health insurance and related expenses is a pre tax benefit.

Obviously we could legislate child care expenses into any part of the tax code Congress desires.

[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.

Who would be paying that money?

[Anonymous]

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

Yes but having children is a requirement if you want your country and western civilization to still exist in a few generations (and not be replaced by hoards of third worlders with illiberal attitudes who only immigrate here for economic reasons). If our government actually acted in the country's own long term interest they would have adopted policies that promote natalism long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yes but having children is a requirement if you want your country and western civilization to still exist in a few generations (and not be replaced by hoards of third worlders with illiberal attitudes who only immigrate here for economic reasons). If our government actually acted in the country's own long term interest they would have adopted policies that promote natalism long ago.

And that’s why elements of the tax code directly benefit parents and no one else. OP has options. OP can reduce their childcare costs by nanny sharing or using a daycare. The average taxpayer should not be subsidizing OP’s choice of the most expensive option.

[Anonymous]

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?

This is a straw man because we will all be dead before that happens.

Oh so it's fine because it will only affect your or other people's children or grandchildren?

[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.

Oh, please. OP likely charges extremely high prices just to shoot toxins into women's foreheads. I doubt she's saving lives.

Damn, I hope you never need a dermatologist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hi JD. Some people's partners and relatives need to be....paid for the work they do. It's ok that you didn't know this before but now you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look into the childcare FSA for pre-tax childcare funds. It’s not a huge amount but it’s something child free people don’t get.

+1. If you earn over a certain amount the child tax credits are phased out but the FSA isn’t contingent on income being below a certain theshold. You can put in a max of $5K tax-free annually and then pull it out to pay yourself back for childcare expenses.

[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?

This is a straw man because we will all be dead before that happens.

Oh so it's fine because it will only affect your or other people's children or grandchildren?

Apres moi, le deluge.

[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.

Oh, please. OP likely charges extremely high prices just to shoot toxins into women's foreheads. I doubt she's saving lives.

Damn, I hope you never need a dermatologist

Be so for real, these days this is the vast majority of what they do. Mine does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Hi JD. Some people's partners and relatives need to be....paid for the work they do. It's ok that you didn't know this before but now you do.

That’s fine, you still have to pay taxes on your nanny. Sorry cheapskate.

[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.

Can you hire your nanny as an employee of your business?

[Anonymous]

Are you serious? Having children is not a mandatory part of making a business.