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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.