GetSheila "Must Be A Liberal Democrat" - The Shame!

Ryan Ellis at Tax Playa recently wrote Child Care Credit: Subsidizing Working Mothers Instead of Homemakers. Does anyone else have a problem with that title or is it just me? So of course I had to click over and here is what I found:

Q: Tax Playa, why do working parents get a tax subsidy, and I get nothing for my stay-at-home wife's contribution to my household? Brian, Washington DC A: You're right--it isn't fair.  A tax subsidy is given just for day care, but a corresponding tax credit for homemakers is not available.  Nonetheless, it's my job to give the best tax advice I can--so here we go. [He then proceeds to describe the mechanics of the tax credit]

Well, I couldn't resist:

Comments Let me get this straight: Brian's wife provides free child care as well as free housekeeping, cooking, shopping and I'm sure many other tasks throughout the day in support of their household. Brian gets all of this for FREE, yet he begrudges a tax credit to people who have to pay for child care? Please tell me you made that question up. Posted by: GetSheila | 2006.09.19 at 04:34 PM

Here is Ryan's email response, which by the way I completely agree with: 

Sheila: Actually, I get that question all the time.  The issue is that the tax code in this case is not being neutral with respect to lifestyle choices (though this is by no means the only example). The legislative history behind this tax credit is an interesting one.  It was pushed through Congress by very liberal members in order to explicitly-encourage women working outside the home.  This is, in my view, an inappropriate "social engineering" use of tax policy.  Tax policy should be neutral.  There should be no marriage penalties and no marriage bonuses.  There should be no child tax credit and no regular child credit.  All income should be taxed once and only once at one low, flat rate.  Social engineering is inappropriate from a liberal or conservative point of view. In this case, the code is not neutral.  It subsidizes two-earner families, and fails to give an equivalent subsidy to one-earner families.  Brian (and he is a real person) wants to give a credit to stay at home moms.  I think that is simply compounding the error.  I would repeal the credit entirely and lower the top marginal tax rate to stimulate work, savings, and investment. Ryan

And then one of Ryan's readers felt the need to email me this. (What is with the emailing? Perhaps commenting is too public for people like this. If he emails me, he only runs the risk of one person disagreeing with him, as opposed to potential masses if he leaves his comment on a blog for all the world to see. I took care of that last part for him. I'm just thoughtful that way.)

Saw where you wrote a comment to the Tax Playa's Blog relative to dependent care benefit. After reading your comment, you must be a liberal democrat!   A man and a woman each work and they are not married and they each make aprox $18,000 and they have three children and spend $3000  a year for after school day care expenses. Versus a man and his wife have three children and the man works himself and the wife stays home and takes care of the children,  ( I have read that is the most important occupation a woman can have) and he makes $40,000 a year compared to the above example with a $36,000 total.  How much more does the two, not married and each only make $18,000, as a total income after a tax return is filed than the FAMILY where just the husband/father work?   This type of treatment is directly complimentary of the democrat party and the democrat Senators/Representatives knew exactly what they were doing to help destroy the continuity of a FAMILY. Jeff Day EA Evansville, IN 47710

Okay, first things first. He has "read" that being a stay at home mom "is the most important occupation a woman can have." I guess he's not willing to go out on a limb and make it a statement of his own belief. And I guess it's only an important job for women. I wonder what he thinks of stay-at-home dads whose wives bring home the family bacon. I bet he thinks they're wusses.

Next, I'm not sure what he's trying to do with all those numbers he's throwing out. It would be nice if he would provide some bottom line taxes for each scenario so we can see just how the child tax care credit helps "destroy the continuity of a FAMILY." It would be even nicer if he didn't compare apples and oranges by proposing someone earning $18,000 is in the same socio-economic situation as someone earning $40,000 simply by way of adding $18,000 of a second person's income.

Even if the allegedly evil living-in-sinners save more in taxes, how does that destroy The Family if those two people provide a stable, loving home for their three children? Because they don't have a certificate that says they are married? If so, that has nothing to do with tax law. (Let's not tell him his imaginary unwed couple is gay. That would REALLY piss him off.)

Finally, I am not a liberal democrat, Mr. Day, I am a terrestrial citizen of no particular political persuasion. If I had to choose among the two largest American political parties, I confess I would shy away from the Republican party for the sole reason they oppose abortion, oppose the legalization of same sex marriage, and favor faith-based initiatives. Until the ultra-conservative members of that party open their minds, I fail to see how I can possibly converse with them.

So if it makes you more comfortable writing me off as a liberal Democrat because I think some guy who enjoys the luxury of being able to afford to keep up a home without his wife also having to earn money shouldn't be bitching about families where both parents have to work out of necessity, then you go right ahead and call me names you...you...you conservative Republican! 

Comments

[JennBo]

The other member of my household will likely agree with the email from the "tax playa"; tax statutes that play favorites to people with mortgages and/or families are BAD.

Personally, I think tax initiatives which encourage taxpayers to create wealth (saving, investing, etc.) are worthy social engineering projects - but that is just me.

Going over to the child care credit, I do agree with Sheila's analysis.

Why does Mr J Day assume that the single-wage family just so happens to make twice as much money as that not-so-good two-wage family (as you said, maybe they need two wages to get by)?

If Mr. J Day assumed that the two-wage earner family just so happened to make twice as much, he would discover that the marriage penalty costs the two wage family MORE tax. Maybe, just maybe the child care credit offsets that additional tax.

In the end the two wage family actually did Mr J Day a favor by supporting what seems his initiative to "multiply and replenish the earth" because OBVIOUSLY women who don't choose to have a family are making a mistake!

[Jenn Bo]

Does this mean I must declare myself a liberal democrat now?

G won't be able to tease me for thinking a certain Utah senator was VERY liberal.

[Karen]

ROTFLMAO! You git 'im girl!

And here I am stuck in Idaho, the all-Republican state. What is a pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-any-kind-of-religious-fanatic, Libertarian to do?

[Jeff Day]

I couldn't have cared less about being "public".

Notice, true to form to being a democrat/liberal/socialist, you were concerned about everything except what I addressed.

No time did I say anything disrespectful to a single parent. I only brought attention that the democrat party's agenda with the earned income credit program rewards persons on the lower income ladder to stay unmarried.

It is wrong that two unmarried persons living together have a net income higher than families that are married with an equal income or even higher gross income.

It is wrong to encourage a family that has two children with one of the parent's income of say $50,000 and the other person has an income of say $10,000 to get divorced so they have a total income of $5000+ more than if they stay married. And that is the agenda that the democrat party put into place.

However with the 2003 Income tax changes, some of the idiocit rules were changed.

[GetSheila]

JDay: You should read some of the comments here. You might find them enlightening. And slamming the democratic party doesn't do a thing for me. Am I supposed to find it upsetting?

BTW, aside from getting "democratic" wrong (what's a democrat party?), good job on the grammer/spell check this time around. Much better than the first two emails you sent me.

[Jeff Day]

I am sorry, but you can't help it can you? Worried about my spell check/grammar instead of addressing the issue you originally wrote TaxPlaya about.

The democrat party in the '60's under LBJ and then in the '70's with Carter and then in the '90's with Clinton (early in the administration) they passed much legislation that had a direct result of the break-up of the family (I don't think it was an accident) and to reward people living together not married.

If you don't know what you are talking about yourself find someone that does and you will find (another example) two persons not married with two children making $20M a year each receive refunds totalling over $5000 more than if they are married on tax returns prior to 2005.

If you don't know what you are talking about find someone that does and you will find if one person in a family makes $30M+ and the other makes less than $20M if they were not married prior to 2005 their refunds totalled over $7000 more than if they were married on those tax returns.

I did not expect to have this much input/correspondence. Like I said, like you have proven; no liberal can ever just discuss/research the issues you have to change the subject, distort the facts and whatever else you have to do. Don't find anything that might cause you to realize your concepts are wrong.

AND IT IS WRONG FOR TWO PERSONS NOT MARRIED TO GET LARGER REFUNDS THAN IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGED BUT THEY WERE MARRIED. And that is the program the democrats passed and the program the democrats want, anything to destroy the unity of the family!

[Jenn Bo]

Mr. J Day - I think your argument has a few holes.

I had no idea the democratic party was ENTIRELY responsible for undermining the desire for couples to marry (I guess I should clarify this by saying "straight couples"). If Republicans fell in line on the gay marriage issue, just THINK of all the tax dollars it would raise. We "all" know those gay men are rolling in cash!

I think the example set forth by the past 2 generations on the "success rate" of marriage has done more than any old tax incentive may have done to discourage marriage. We are products of our parents and I believe children of divorce think twice about committing to marriage and divorced people think thrice about committing to a re-marriage.

Finally, I'm plenty aware of the tax consequences from getting married (Our choice cost us an addition $7K this year - even after the generous reductions to the marriage penalty). But as a person who WANTED to commit to another person, I was more than willing to throw more money in the government coffers, no matter how hard it hurt. Plus, at the rate the Republican administration is escalating our national debt - I'll pay for it anyway. Might as well get started now.

If marriage had incentives, might that not encourage people who were not willing to create a responsible family unit to take advantage of the system?

Oh wait, there is an embedded incentive to marry and do "what is right" for raising children. If, for arguement's sake, a couple marries knowing the wife will be home taking care of those kiddies - the one remaining worker actually SAVES taxes. Reducing the marriage penalty helps those single income families save EVEN MORE taxes.

[Jenn Bo]

I'm sorry for being so verbous. I cannot resist commenting to the statement that:

"IT IS WRONG FOR TWO PERSONS NOT MARRIED TO GET LARGER REFUNDS THAN IF NOTHING ELSE CHANGED BUT THEY WERE MARRIED."

Who the hell is Mr. J Day to assume that couples living together choose not to get married to save taxes.

I've known many live-together couples. (I'll go with about 50 couples in my circle of knowledge. Surprisingly, many of them are not democrats.) I've never heard ANY of them say "we're not get getting married because of the tax cost." Good grief!

Many take the path that they choose to live with the person before marrying (I know, there are statistics that say that doesn't help a success rate; I'm just relaying the reason). Others take the path that they "don't believe in marriage" - I'm sure it will be no surprise to you that at least one person in that couple is a product of divorced parents or a divorce survivor. There was one couple that timed the marriage around the green card application of the one person (i.e., getting married would have further delayed the process for the non-green card holder). Once the delay-of-green-card risk had passed, they got married. Sneaking a green card in; how naughty...

So, Mr. J Day, have you any statistics on the number of unmarried couples who refuse marriage because of the tax cost?

[Jenn Bo]

Retiring for the evening. Praying future comments do not rattle me to a response.

[G]

What can I say? I'm at a loss for words. Who's over there, running to my LEFT?

You go, girls.

[GetSheila]

I LOVE MY PEEPS!

It is YOU for whom I write, not some guy who has me confused with 1) a democrat, and 2) someone who actually gives a crap about his pet issue.

And as usual, your brainpower is breathtaking to witness, JennBo.

[Jeff Day]

Isn't this fun?

Typical of liberals/democrats Sheila has never addressed the question that I originally posed to her. In essence was it or was it not beneficial for parents with children living in a home to be not married.

Notice in all that JennBo wrote @ 10:16PM no where does she dispute what she copied of mine was in error. At no time have I claimed persons didn't get married since it was disadvantageous to do so on a tax return. But I did claim and am correct that it was especially not favorable for parents to be married on tax returns.

I do claim the legislation passed to make it not beneficial for parents to be married was put into law by democrat Presidents during times that the Congress was controlled by democrats. I do claim that during 2001 and 2003 big tax cuts that the dems want to claim only benefitted the rich Republicans helped to change that, it is not now quite as beneficial for persons to be unmarried instead of being married.

At no time did I bring up the homosexual agenda. At not time did I bring up the abortion (unborn babies do have a right to life as well).

Sheila brought those issues up as well as complaining about my spell check/grammar. Because she could not find herself having to admit that democrat legislation favoried the break-up of a the FAMILY, So true to form to liberals/democrats change the subject, distort the issues, malign the person(s) that brought up the subject in the first place as a direct result of the original message distorting the benefits lost to a family regarding dependent care benefits.

[GetSheila]

Oh my god, JDay, you are right! About everything! I totally see the error of my ways. God visited me in a dream last night and explained everything:

Democrats are indeed the evil spawn of satan and completely responsible for the breakup of The Family. In America, anyway. She didn't say anything about the rest of the world.

She also told me some people are so desperate for validation they will go to great lengths to involve you in dialogue about their pet issues and will completely ignore the fact that you have no interest in them personally or their opinions.

Whew! I am so glad she warned me about those kinds of people. You watch out for them, JDay.

In Jesus Name, Amen.

[J. Clerkin-Whitcomb]

Congratulations Sheila!

You've arrived! You actually are stirring up members of the far right and you've barely gotten started! What a narrow minded, homophobic little twit you've found to play with! "democrat agenda" "homosexual agenda" geez!
J.D., this homosexual only has ONE agenda where you're concerned, and that is to tell you to go get a life.

[Mary Jo]

OMG!!! I just found your personal website!!!

I love it! You're in my RSS reader, so if you feel like I'm stalking -- I am.

I'm too angry to type straight about this topic. So I'll just leave it with "You Go Girl!!"