Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

What would be the business justification of employing a nanny? Unless it was a nanny who looked after the children of any of OP's staff, on site.

Who cares what the business justification is? OP is the sole owner of the business and the sole practitioner. The business justification is the same as hiring a bookkeeper: without that person, OP cannot do her work.

DP
The IRS cares, and they do not allow this. Look it up.

There is a tax credit for employers that provide child care as a benefit for their employees but this would not help OP.

Anonymous wrote:(Satire) I know, let us have the government setup and manage subsidized child care, as in Sweden. That would work really well in a large diverse country like the USA.

The Swedish have different values than you Americans.

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.

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

What would be the business justification of employing a nanny? Unless it was a nanny who looked after the children of any of OP's staff, on site.

Who cares what the business justification is? OP is the sole owner of the business and the sole practitioner. The business justification is the same as hiring a bookkeeper: without that person, OP cannot do her work.

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.

Why can’t OP’s solo practice employ the nanny? Meanwhile, when we had paid childcare, we also mostly paid the nanny’s taxes and salary out of our post-tax W2 wages, and no one seemed to think THAT was unfair. (I say mostly because we took the relevant tax credits.)

So because you didn't complain, OP shouldn't complain?

OP has a perfectly legal way to make childcare expenses a business expense: Hire the childcare provider as an employee of her business. I didn't have that option since I don't own my own business. I don't actually see what OP is complaining about; she wants to be able to deduct her childcare expenses, but she actually can do that, she just needs to do it on her business's taxes rather than her individual taxes.

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.

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

What would be the business justification of employing a nanny? Unless it was a nanny who looked after the children of any of OP's staff, on site.

What is the business justification for giving a tax break for employing a nanny?

OP does have the option of daycare. That would cut her costs.

Will SAHPs get a tax break since we are encouraging people to have children?

Here is what I find funny about childcare. My wife was a SAHM so I did not pay childcare. A women at school who had a high paying job as an executive tried to pawn her kid off on my wife on "playdates" so she could work on school holidays when work is open. I told my wife sounds great. My wife will watch the kid so she can go earn her $1,000 a day salary and she can split it 50/50. Heck my wife watching her kid allowed her to make the $1,000 so why should she not get half.

i was joking but in reality she wanted someone to watch her kid for free or a retired lady she could find for ten bucks an hour.

Childcare people should get paid 100k a year in my opinion it is hard work. And longer hours than an office worker.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once more...if you are trying to say that the tax code should reward what I guess you are saying is a societal good (i.e., having children), then such reward should not be tied to an expense (i.e., a Nanny).

That reward should be available to everybody...working parents, SAH parents, etc. Even in this situation, it would likely phase out based on income levels as most tax deductions/credits do.

Where do all these deductions stop for personal choices? Should all post-HS education expenses be tax deductible? Again, it's in the best interests of the country to have a better trained/educated population...but it's still a personal choice and how is it fair to those that don't avail themselves of higher education?

Education and training increases your income. Having children drastically increases your expenses. There is a reason the government doesn't offer subsidized loans for birth expenses or child care.

But feel free to buy an island and make it liveable for yourself in old age with zero working age people.

Way to miss the first point...if you want to alter tax policy for children, then everyone gets to benefit, not just those that decide to pay for childcare. Also, like literally every other tax deduction...they all phase out based on income.

I gather even a moron like you would think it egregious if Mark Zuckerberg was receiving a tax deduction for hiring 3 nannies.

Anonymous wrote:Once more...if you are trying to say that the tax code should reward what I guess you are saying is a societal good (i.e., having children), then such reward should not be tied to an expense (i.e., a Nanny).

That reward should be available to everybody...working parents, SAH parents, etc. Even in this situation, it would likely phase out based on income levels as most tax deductions/credits do.

Where do all these deductions stop for personal choices? Should all post-HS education expenses be tax deductible? Again, it's in the best interests of the country to have a better trained/educated population...but it's still a personal choice and how is it fair to those that don't avail themselves of higher education?

Education and training increases your income. Having children drastically increases your expenses. There is a reason the government doesn't offer subsidized loans for birth expenses or child care.

But feel free to buy an island and make it liveable for yourself in old age with zero working age people.

Once more...if you are trying to say that the tax code should reward what I guess you are saying is a societal good (i.e., having children), then such reward should not be tied to an expense (i.e., a Nanny).

That reward should be available to everybody...working parents, SAH parents, etc. Even in this situation, it would likely phase out based on income levels as most tax deductions/credits do.

Where do all these deductions stop for personal choices? Should all post-HS education expenses be tax deductible? Again, it's in the best interests of the country to have a better trained/educated population...but it's still a personal choice and how is it fair to those that don't avail themselves of higher education?

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.

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

What would be the business justification of employing a nanny? Unless it was a nanny who looked after the children of any of OP's staff, on site.

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.

Why can’t OP’s solo practice employ the nanny? Meanwhile, when we had paid childcare, we also mostly paid the nanny’s taxes and salary out of our post-tax W2 wages, and no one seemed to think THAT was unfair. (I say mostly because we took the relevant tax credits.)

So because you didn't complain, OP shouldn't complain?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Should we manufacture children aka future workers? Should only people who produced kids aka future workers be able to get health services in their old age, because after all, they put workers into the economy. Dollars don’t produce children. People do. Gawd. People are stupid. We need both babies and money until we can build machines to reproduce us and wipe our behinds when we’re old.

There are too many people on this planet as it is. Fewer people would benefit everyone, although those already present would need to be more attentive to preparing themselves for their old age than they presently do, if they're counting on future generations to support them financially and physically.

Every single person who grows old relies on younger people. As of right now, society cannot exist without workers. You sound completely insane if you think anybody can "prepare themselves for their old age" if society will completely collapse in their old age.

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.

Should we manufacture children aka future workers? Should only people who produced kids aka future workers be able to get health services in their old age, because after all, they put workers into the economy. Dollars don’t produce children. People do. Gawd. People are stupid. We need both babies and money until we can build machines to reproduce us and wipe our behinds when we’re old.

There are too many people on this planet as it is. Fewer people would benefit everyone, although those already present would need to be more attentive to preparing themselves for their old age than they presently do, if they're counting on future generations to support them financially and physically.

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.

Should we manufacture children aka future workers? Should only people who produced kids aka future workers be able to get health services in their old age, because after all, they put workers into the economy. Dollars don’t produce children. People do. Gawd. People are stupid. We need both babies and money until we can build machines to reproduce us and wipe our behinds when we’re old.

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.

Why can’t OP’s solo practice employ the nanny? Meanwhile, when we had paid childcare, we also mostly paid the nanny’s taxes and salary out of our post-tax W2 wages, and no one seemed to think THAT was unfair. (I say mostly because we took the relevant tax credits.)