Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

Since these discussions of HHI are totally anonymous, totally arbitrary, and just for the sake of inane message board debates anyway, it's perfectly fine if someone wants to add another $70,000 to their HHI to account for otherwise unpaid labor to benefit their household. Who would object, care, or even know you were doing that?

But you also asked earlier if people should pay some tax on that labor, to which the answer is obviously not. (For one, we don't tax labor, we tax income.) So you can see why people are getting a little confused by what you're arguing here, maybe?

I get that. It was a reaction to another post, it was dumb, and it derailed the whole thread. I didn’t have much of a formed idea when I started this thread, and it shows.

I wish I had found a way to talk about the economic value of at-home parents to the household. Because it really isn’t just DCUM that diminishes this work, it seems very rarely talked about anywhere, even when talking about HHI and the economics of individual families.
But it’s hard to talk about. I really don’t know how to talk about it without sounding like a SAHM who wants to inflate her own value or a working mom who hates SAHMs.

Anyway, I’m sorry this didn’t turn out. Take care all. You all gave me a lot to think about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

Well I’m back to work now Op- when home I wasn’t providing services for free- I was providing them at the expense of my income. Seeing as how my income was significantly more than these “services” what should I do? Should I get a credit? I think so. Thanks OP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

Since these discussions of HHI are totally anonymous, totally arbitrary, and just for the sake of inane message board debates anyway, it's perfectly fine if someone wants to add another $70,000 to their HHI to account for otherwise unpaid labor to benefit their household. Who would object, care, or even know you were doing that?

But you also asked earlier if people should pay some tax on that labor, to which the answer is obviously not. (For one, we don't tax labor, we tax income.) So you can see why people are getting a little confused by what you're arguing here, maybe?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

SAHM here. Yes it’s true that our HHI of $225k “feels” higher than 2 earners with childcare costs making this much.

But at least on DCUM I feel like most people specify if the HHI is made by 1 or 2 ppl.

Eh. A few posters explicitly said that they don’t think it matters.
I think you know, as a SAHM, that most SAHMs do a lot to improve their family’s lifestyle that it would cost a lot of money to replicate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

SAHM here. Yes it’s true that our HHI of $225k “feels” higher than 2 earners with childcare costs making this much.

But at least on DCUM I feel like most people specify if the HHI is made by 1 or 2 ppl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

So I was right: when engaging in ridiculous anonymous debates about who is and is not MC, you want SAHMs to add money to their husband’s salary to somehow “level” the imaginary playing field.

I stand by my comment yesterday: nobody cares. You can completely make up a HHI if you want to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

Your logic makes no sense. You don't "need" an additional $60-70K" and make that amount up as one would presume you can afford to stay home if you are. Not everyone makes that figure. If money is an issue the earning spouse needs to make more or the SAHP needs to find an income. Taking care of your family, which all parents do is not a service done for free. Its your lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Op here. No. I don’t want that. The point of the post was that in discussion of HHI, it should be taken into account when one person is providing $40k worth of service for the family for free. I mentioned that this is typically paid for in post tax income in the OP because a family would need to add an additional $60-70k in HHI to make up for it, not because I think SAHMs should pay taxes on income they didn’t earn.

What an idiotic post. You want someone who earns $0 to pay taxes?!?!

Anonymous wrote:I don't even understand OP's point. So she wants to claim a higher HHI than they actually make? I guess she can claim anything she wants except on the IRS forms.

I mean, if she wants to claim a higher HHI on her tax returns, that's fine with me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't even understand OP's point. So she wants to claim a higher HHI than they actually make? I guess she can claim anything she wants except on the IRS forms.

I think what OP is suggesting is that families that have a SAHP who provides child care should be "taxed" on the value of that care. OP wants single-earner families to pay more taxes b/c OP is not happy that her house pays for childcare with "after tax" dollars.

Instead of attributing the value of child care to the income of SAHP, the better policy would be to make childcare expenses tax deductible... oh wait... they already are (up to $5K???). I guess the "solution" would be to make the amount higher. OP probably forgot that there was a child care deduction.

I doubt OP forgot about it, but if OP lives in DC or anywhere else that is comparably expensive, $5K only pays for a few months of full-time child care for one child. But yes, the right policy solution (assuming incentivizing both parents to work is a goal) would be to up that limit significantly. It hasn't been increased since 2001, and the cost of child care has outpaced inflation.

Anonymous wrote:I don't even understand OP's point. So she wants to claim a higher HHI than they actually make? I guess she can claim anything she wants except on the IRS forms.

I think what OP is suggesting is that families that have a SAHP who provides child care should be "taxed" on the value of that care. OP wants single-earner families to pay more taxes b/c OP is not happy that her house pays for childcare with "after tax" dollars.

Instead of attributing the value of child care to the income of SAHP, the better policy would be to make childcare expenses tax deductible... oh wait... they already are (up to $5K???). I guess the "solution" would be to make the amount higher. OP probably forgot that there was a child care deduction.