Warren Dew wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote: I am not sure about the tax structure issue - parents with kids get all sorts of subsidies, which discriminate heavily against those who choose not to have children. It's unfair to single folks - gays who can't have kids and don't adopt.
The second income is taxed in the U.S. at a rate of roughly 50% - around 30% federal, 14% social security including both employee and employer halves, and typically around 5% state income tax. That means women have to make around $80,000 a year just to break even on child care expenses in a city like Boston, where legal child care for 2 children runs around $40,000 a year. Even with illegal or grey market options, the woman has to make $40,000 to $60,000 a year to break even on working. This essentially means that the tax system forces women to stay home and care for kids over taking care of their careers.
Not "women," -- one of the two married persons. Yes, day care costs money. However, I find it hard to believe that $40,000 a year is the norm. Frankly, many people have multiple children and make less than that to support the whole family.
Warren Dew wrote:
The tax deductions for children come nowhere close to reflecting the the real costs of bringing children up.
Nor should it. It would be insane if a tax deduction should come close to the real costs of bringing up children. It's the parents' responsibility to pay the cost of bringing up children, right?
Warren Dew wrote:
However, you are partly right -
I only expected to be partly right. I'm not too well versed on the tax code. I know there is a "marriage penalty" though. As I understand it, it's better for two people to live together than to get married, tax wise. However, if two people get married they are often eligible for a host of other benefits that cohabitants are not entitled to.
Warren Dew wrote:
since mothers who stay home don't pay any tax on the child care services they provide to their own children, nonworking mothers are treated preferentially to people without children by the tax system. Again, the tax system enforces a cultural rule that the mom stays home with the kids.
That I don't see too clearly. I would expect that the tax system doesn't tax someone for the work they do. We tax income, and I wouldn't expect to be taxed on the tomatoes I grow in my garden or the time I spend doing laundry and cleaning up the house. We could all pay others to do lots of different things - I change my own oil and wash my own car - should I be taxed on that?
Warren Dew wrote:
The solution would be to make the costs of licensed, legal child care fully deductible as an adjustment to gross income.
That's "a" solution. But, a single person with no kids would also like the costs of a legal house keeper and maid to be deductible as an adjustment to gross income.
Warren Dew wrote:
This would allow well educated mothers to reenter the work force, beefing up labor availability at the high end of the spectrum where labor is tight and unemployment low.
Maybe just have government sponsored child care and have done with it.
Warren Dew wrote:
It would also add paid child care jobs lower down on the income spectrum, where jobs are needed. Both the mothers and the child care workers would pay taxes, which would cut deficits. Economically, it would be a win-win for everyone.
It's interesting, but it also discriminates against people without children, who get no such subsidies. I have a hard time getting away from the fact that individuals choose to have kids. I don't like the fact that one should be subsidized for such choices.
Warren Dew wrote:
Also included in the article was that women tend, simply, to go toward lower paying jobs with more flexibility. That's why the engineering, science and technical fields are male heavy, and the teaching and secretarial fields are female heavy.
The reason women want careers with flexibility is because the flexibility will be needed when they have children. It's still all about child care.
That's up to them, of course. Nobody says they have to have children. These are private choices. I know a couple who are married with no intention on having children because they enjoy their lifestyle - extra money - lots of time to do fun things - two incomes - two professionals. Should such a choice be disfavored and should the costs of those who choose to have kids be shifted to them?
Is it fair or even equal for a person who does not take time off to have a kid to be held back because another person who did choose to have a kid is getting time off, flexible work schedules, etc.? We're talking about "equality." Right? When men were the vast majority of the work force, if a man wanted to choose to spend more time with his family, he took a hit at work. Heck, that still happens.
Don't worry. We'll equal the hell out of them when we get another chance, a year from now, for 24 hours.
