Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Kids In Pre School


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#16 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:01 PM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 9 2009, 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Grrrr!!!! The tax breaks for day care are a huge pet peeve of mine.

I don't doubt it's painful to shell out that much for day care. But presumably, your family's second income brings in MORE than the cost of day care, or else spouse #2 wouldn't be working.
Families with a stay-at-home spouse don't have the second income at all.

So who needs the tax break more?

Am I missing something here?

Not a safe assumption. I know many where the spouse is working for the group medical benefits more than the income.
I would rather be Backpacking


#17 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:03 PM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 9 2009, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not a safe assumption. I know many where the spouse is working for the group medical benefits more than the income.

My wifes benefits at home are horrible.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#18 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:05 PM

QUOTE (itsADEZI @ Apr 9 2009, 04:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
"I know the one that used to be just down the street from me was basically a mom making extra $ while being a stay at home mom. I've known of a few others that are the same thing".

I think that is awesome, I could be wrong but it "sounds" like you say that like it's a negative. A mom looking after a few extra kids? sounds perfect.

That's not what I was trying to say. I was replying to Supermom's statement that in home daycare workers are better trained than the one's at daycare facilities, I don't think just because someone is a mom, makes them better trained.
I would rather be Backpacking


#19 itsADEZI

itsADEZI

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 36 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 9 2009, 05:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That's not what I was trying to say. I was replying to Supermom's statement that in home daycare workers are better trained than the one's at daycare facilities, I don't think just because someone is a mom, makes them better trained.



oh good, and you are right, just because you are a mom doesn't mean you should be taking care of kids as a rule.
But I am sticking by my "mommy/daddy INTUITION" as the most important factor when deciding on the best environment for your child.

#20 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:02 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 9 2009, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not a safe assumption. I know many where the spouse is working for the group medical benefits more than the income.


Oh, well that makes sense then. Working spouse #2 is working primarily for the benefits. I am at home and get NO benefits. Therefore Working Spouse #2 should get the tax break. wacko.gif

As for home day care, I'm sure some of them are great. When we were looking for care for my first child, we visited a home day care (a mom) who touted the fact that she kept the Home Shopping Network on all day while watching the kids. "You can get some great bargains!" she told us. We ended up choosing a small church day care where they had (in the baby room) about 6 babies and 2 loving staffmembers. "Parents' intuition" is exactly right: you have to go where you feel the love.

#21 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:12 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 10 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, well that makes sense then. Working spouse #2 is working primarily for the benefits. I am at home and get NO benefits. Therefore Working Spouse #2 should get the tax break. wacko.gif

well, the tax break helps offset the tax penalities for being dual income.
I would rather be Backpacking


#22 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,596 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 10 April 2009 - 09:27 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 10 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
well, the tax break helps offset the tax penalities for being dual income.


Well, maybe this just goes to show how our tax system yields some crazy results.

I would think it would be a very small proportion of dual working couples where the 2nd spouse doesn't net a positive, even taking day care into account. I'm sure you are right that there are some, but this would not be the typical case.

Equally common, I would think, is the family that is scrimping and saving so one spouse can stay home. I see them all over Folsom. It's not easy to live on one income. They could use a tax break, I'm sure.

Since we're on the subject of tax gripes, I will say it drives me absolutely CRAZY that my paltry work-from-home income is taxed at a nearly 50% marginal rate (state + federal). If I weren't trying to keep my credentials at least semi-current, it would really take away all incentive for me to work. I even asked my husband if we would be better off getting a "faux divorce," so I could pay taxes at the rate of someone who earns $18,000 a year (my guesstimated income) rather than being subsumed under his tax rate.

I HATE our tax system. (And I'm a liberal, so that's saying something). I just read an article stating we have "the most complicated tax system in the world, by far."



#23 palango

palango

    unknown soldier

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:00 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 10 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I even asked my husband if we would be better off getting a "faux divorce," so I could pay taxes at the rate of someone who earns $18,000 a year (my guesstimated income) rather than being subsumed under his tax rate.

I HATE our tax system. (And I'm a liberal, so that's saying something). I just read an article stating we have "the most complicated tax system in the world, by far."


Lots of folks are contemplating or have even filed and completed a divorce for tax reasons. This is after careful research. If you are middle class, you are screwed any way you look at it.

#24 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:10 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 10 2009, 10:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I HATE our tax system. (And I'm a liberal, so that's saying something). I just read an article stating we have "the most complicated tax system in the world, by far."

There are many that believe even a 10% flat rate, no deductions, no loopholes, no "special" considerations, would not only save the government tons of money by vastly shrinking the IRS, but would also generate the revenue require to balance the budget.

Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but it sure seems a fixed flat rate for all, people and businesses, is the only fair way to go.
I would rather be Backpacking


#25 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:14 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 10 2009, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There are many that believe even a 10% flat rate, no deductions, no loopholes, no "special" considerations, would not only save the government tons of money by vastly shrinking the IRS, but would also generate the revenue require to balance the budget.

Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but it sure seems a fixed flat rate for all, people and businesses, is the only fair way to go.

I have yet to hear a good argument against flat tax, other than complicating things to screw people over.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#26 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:25 AM

QUOTE (bordercolliefan @ Apr 10 2009, 10:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, well that makes sense then. Working spouse #2 is working primarily for the benefits. I am at home and get NO benefits. Therefore Working Spouse #2 should get the tax break. wacko.gif

I think there is another misunderstanding here. I presume your husband has medical benefits for the family. I know of many of my co-workers that because their husband is a contractor, or self employed or what have you, doesn't have the benefit of group medical coverage, so the wife goes to work at a job that doesn't necessarily pull down a high salary, but it does come with company paid for medical benefits that then covers the family medically. So the spouse is working for the benefits more than the salary, just as you pointed out with your work from home income, they get taxed at their husbands rate and so even though the left over income may not cover the cost of daycare, it's worth it for the medical benefits the family gets.
I would rather be Backpacking


#27 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:27 AM

BTW, I wish I could get an additional tax break for keeping my son out of public school, I should be rewarded for reducing the workload the public school system has.
I would rather be Backpacking


#28 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:31 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 10 2009, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
BTW, I wish I could get an additional tax break for keeping my son out of public school, I should be rewarded for reducing the workload the public school system has.

Vouchers!
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#29 palango

palango

    unknown soldier

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,408 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2009 - 10:46 AM

QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 10 2009, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There are many that believe even a 10% flat rate, no deductions, no loopholes, no "special" considerations, would not only save the government tons of money by vastly shrinking the IRS, but would also generate the revenue require to balance the budget.

Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but it sure seems a fixed flat rate for all, people and businesses, is the only fair way to go.


I concur. So why is it taking such a long time to get this done (regardless of which party ois in power)???

I mean if this is sooo obvious, what gives????

#30 supermom

supermom

    Supermom

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,225 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 10 April 2009 - 11:13 AM

QUOTE (chris v @ Apr 9 2009, 12:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
That is entirely opinion....



QUOTE (Bill Z @ Apr 9 2009, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wouldn't assume that to be true. I know the one that used to be just down the street from me was basically a mom making extra $ while being a stay at home mom. I've known of a few others that are the same thing.

And I know how well the staff at Phoenix has been and how seriously many of them take their jobs as their personal mission.

Yes, they are generally cheaper, it's called less overhead

You choose to jump on the bandwagon than think logically.

Obviously--you need to do your homework when shopping for childcare.

There is an absolute gushing fountain of incredibly qualified, motivated and very much "cheap" home daycare groups out there.

Go ahead and think negatively about the stay at home mom just trying to make extra money---and that is the kind of mom you will attract when looking for a child care provider.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users