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!