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.

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.

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.

It is a social good. That’s why the tax code already supports parents in ways it does not support people who do not have children. People who do not have children shouldn’t be giving even more support for OP’s nanny.

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?

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.

What if some of those women working two jobs are doing childcare. Wouldn’t it be nice if their employers were incentivized to pay them on the books so they qualify for social security, unemployment insurance, etc?

And if their employers own a business, wouldn’t it be nice if child caregivers qualified for the same benefits as other employees including retirement matching and health insurance?

Sure, it would be nice if people who employ nannies followed the law.

?

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.

Good God you're a doctor OP?

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.

What if some of those women working two jobs are doing childcare. Wouldn’t it be nice if their employers were incentivized to pay them on the books so they qualify for social security, unemployment insurance, etc?

And if their employers own a business, wouldn’t it be nice if child caregivers qualified for the same benefits as other employees including retirement matching and health insurance?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think it's because having children is not a requirement for your job.[/quote]

It’s this dear.

OP must be a millennial to ask such a question.[/quote]

+1 SMH.

We're all doomed.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

What if some of those women working two jobs are doing childcare. Wouldn’t it be nice if their employers were incentivized to pay them on the books so they qualify for social security, unemployment insurance, etc?

And if their employers own a business, wouldn’t it be nice if child caregivers qualified for the same benefits as other employees including retirement matching and health insurance?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A deduction is not a credit. To say it is "subsidizing OP's nanny" by not requiring her to pay taxes on the nanny's taxes is a little ridiculous.

Agreed. By this logic, nearly all jobs are federally subsidized.

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.

A deduction is not a credit. To say it is "subsidizing OP's nanny" by not requiring her to pay taxes on the nanny's taxes is a little ridiculous.

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.

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.

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.