I dunno why so many of you have your panties all bunched up about this. None of you whiners even live in Seattle so this local tax is irrelevant to you. But whatever.
Anyway, a more thorough article on this in today's paper:
Some of you just want women to stay home producing and taking care of children (and cook for you, clean, iron etc).
There is no guarantee that the kids grow up any better (or better persons) if you force the mother (I think you should foce BOTH parents to stay as long as the other parent does to take care of the small kids. So if the mum stays home 4 months, the dad should stay home the same amount of time after her.) to stay with him home.
Baby I am here for you (and your Apple tattoo). Grrrrr
Oh econo-guru, please debunk one thing for me, brought up by ol' Anders, above, and ignored by the conservatives for some odd reason.
Cost of daycare is smaller then the tax generated by more working mothers. More people economically active, smaller wealfare bill in total, larger economy, lower individual tax burden.
Care to comment?
(And once you've done that, be nice to see you in that hilarious 'Euro-taxes = dead French folks, all the faul of the eco-lobby thread. Hehehe.)
Sure I'll comment. It isn't one to one. The people paying taxes don't have it go exclusively to day care.
Gee the cost of day care is $80 but when I work I pay $100 in taxes.
Well that $100 doesn't go exclusive to day care. In fact by the time you find the percentage of that goes to social programs, it would likely be about $20-23.
So that is a net loss tax-wise.
You speak about more people being economically active. Who says they are not economically active just because they aren't earning a check. I suppose retiree's don't buy anything? I suppose stay at home mom's don't purchase anything? Spending is economically active. The fact that one person earns the income instead of two is beside the point.
I already showed how the "tax burden" above is still a net loss so your contention that it would lower the burder for all of us is bunk as well. When the people going to work need lots of services to work, it raises my tax burden.
Sure I'll comment. It isn't one to one. The people paying taxes don't have it go exclusively to day care.
Gee the cost of day care is $80 but when I work I pay $100 in taxes.
Well that $100 doesn't go exclusive to day care. In fact by the time you find the percentage of that goes to social programs, it would likely be about $20-23.
So that is a net loss tax-wise.
You speak about more people being economically active. Who says they are not economically active just because they aren't earning a check. I suppose retiree's don't buy anything? I suppose stay at home mom's don't purchase anything? Spending is economically active. The fact that one person earns the income instead of two is beside the point.
I already showed how the "tax burden" above is still a net loss so your contention that it would lower the burder for all of us is bunk as well. When the people going to work need lots of services to work, it raises my tax burden.
Nick
1) Yes stay home moms use money too. I am sure everybody knows that. But the point is that they don´t make any. And they don´t produce anything that everybody will benefit from. Is that really that hard to grasp?
2) You can´t look at the average distribution of the taxes when judging if this will bring more money than it cost. There is an economical term called marginal cost that should be applied to this case The model goes like this:
Senario one: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job. "Hmm" she thinks. That would be nice but when the taxes are taken away we can´t afford day care so I´ll skip.
Senario two: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job and the city offers her day care for her child. Now she can take the job. The cost for the city for her to work is only the day care (she also used the parks and libraries before so you don´t have to pay for them again) and her taxes more than covers the day care center.
1) Yes stay home moms use money too. I am sure everybody knows that. But the point is that they don´t make any. And they don´t produce anything that everybody will benefit from. Is that really that hard to grasp?
2) You can´t look at the average distribution of the taxes when judging if this will bring more money than it cost. There is an economical term called marginal cost that should be applied to this case The model goes like this:
Senario one: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job. "Hmm" she thinks. That would be nice but when the taxes are taken away we can´t afford day care so I´ll skip.
Senario two: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job and the city offers her day care for her child. Now she can take the job. The cost for the city for her to work is only the day care (she also used the parks and libraries before so you don´t have to pay for them again) and her taxes more than covers the day care center.
Get it?
First your premise that stay at home parents, (not just mom's) produce nothing of value since it isn't assigned a monetary value is pretty damn insulting. Mention this to several women you know and then I would recommend ducking quickly afterwards. Well adjusted, bright caring children are, in my opinion, an achievement that no amount of money can match.
Now I do get it but the premise, maximize the amount of money you give the government, is again insulting. You must not understand how the tax system works either. Likewise suppose you are right. You are advocating sending people off basically to support the government via higher taxes. People should not be abandoning their children to day care just so they can pay more taxes. The government exists for our benefit, not the reverse. Likewise remember that all agencies of the government get their cut. It is not a zero sum game with the whole second income going straight back to day care.
Let me try your scenario with some numbers. Ok?
Ralph works and Marge stays home. Ralph's income is $40,000 a year which puts him in the 15% bracket. Ralph hands Uncle Sam $6,000 in taxes.
Marge decides to go to work to help the family. She finds a job and begins earning $30,000 a year. They have two children and the quality daycare they receive would cost them $120 for both children per week. She works 50 weeks a year for a nice round $6,000 of costs.
Marge and Ralph have more income. This moves them from the 15% tax bracket to the 27% tax bracket. They make a combined $70,000 now with a 27% tax rate. They pay $18,900 in taxes.
Marge and Ralph have just traded a $6000 benefit for paying $12,900 more in taxes. Oh joy! Their income after taxes now is $51,100. Whereas before it was $34,000. Likewise that nice new tax burden is spread among all agencies, but just day care.
Except for one thing. That was just the income tax. Both Ralph and Marge now pay social security which is another 6.5% of their income as well. Oh and of course Marge is very tired now when she comes home from work. (Who wouldn't be?) The family eats out three times a week now since she is just too tired to cook dinner after those long days...etc...she could get by with a used car before but now she needs something more reliable for the long commutes, etc. She needs a more professional wardrobe too...
So 6.5% of $40,000 is...$2600.. 13% of $70,000 is....$9100...
Ralph made $40,000. His actual take home pay after taxes (both federal and S.S. (we didn't even get into state yet) is really $31,600.
Ralph and Marge together made $70,000 of which they actually took home...$42,000.
I'm sure you would see that by the time we get into state taxes, that gap would be even closer.
So yes they might be able to gain $10,000 more of income. (including no state taxes, nor increased expenses from working) if they were given a $6,000 benefit. Since they aren't they are really only gaining at best, $4,000. (Which is exactly why I have claimed most families really don't end up better off with a second income.
Now the point is this... should I, or anyone else pay a tax myself to help that family toss their children in day care, benefit the government with more taxes (while also paying out more in services) and marginally increase their own income? ($4-$10,000 and that includes NO additional expenses)
My answer to that is no. In this society, especially American society, we need to value things other than what you can earn. Children need to be a priority to their parents, not to a day care worker. Likewise as a society we need to value something besides just financial gain and keeping up with the Jones via bigger, better toys.
If anything (and I get to read enough credit reports to know this) that family will get further into credit card and financial debt. Their now higher income (really only marginally higher ) will qualify them for an even larger house, an even more expensive bigger car, and even higher limits on their credit cards.
When those bills come due, it will be those parents marching their children off so they can work the overtime, be unable to refuse work on family holidays, etc. on order to pay those bills down.
I can't in truth support this when I have already seen the results thus far and would add even more to that trend.
Oh great. "The moving target" argument spiced up with the "insulted" trumph.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
First your premise that stay at home parents, (not just mom's) produce nothing of value since it isn't assigned a monetary value is pretty damn insulting. Mention this to several women you know and then I would recommend ducking quickly afterwards. Well adjusted, bright caring children are, in my opinion, an achievement that no amount of money can match.
Now what was this about again? Oh yeah TAXES. Sure house work is work BUT ITS NOT TAXED. Thats what my little exercise is all about. What did I say in my original post? Oh yeah More tax from working women> cost of day care. Less tax on latte.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Now I do get it but the premise, maximize the amount of money you give the government, is again insulting. You must not understand how the tax system works either. Likewise suppose you are right. You are advocating sending people off basically to support the government via higher taxes. People should not be abandoning their children to day care just so they can pay more taxes. The government exists for our benefit, not the reverse. Likewise remember that all agencies of the government get their cut. It is not a zero sum game with the whole second income going straight back to day care.
What did I say again? Oh yeah More tax from working women> cost of day care. Less tax on latte. Share the tax burden = less tax on each individual.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Let me try your scenario with some numbers. Ok?
Ralph works and Marge stays home. Ralph's income is $40,000 a year which puts him in the 15% bracket. Ralph hands Uncle Sam $6,000 in taxes.
Marge decides to go to work to help the family. She finds a job and begins earning $30,000 a year. They have two children and the quality daycare they receive would cost them $120 for both children per week. She works 50 weeks a year for a nice round $6,000 of costs.
Marge and Ralph have more income. This moves them from the 15% tax bracket to the 27% tax bracket. They make a combined $70,000 now with a 27% tax rate. They pay $18,900 in taxes.
Marge and Ralph have just traded a $6000 benefit for paying $12,900 more in taxes. Oh joy! Their income after taxes now is $51,100. Whereas before it was $34,000. Likewise that nice new tax burden is spread among all agencies, but just day care.
Except for one thing. That was just the income tax. Both Ralph and Marge now pay social security which is another 6.5% of their income as well. Oh and of course Marge is very tired now when she comes home from work. (Who wouldn't be?) The family eats out three times a week now since she is just too tired to cook dinner after those long days...etc...she could get by with a used car before but now she needs something more reliable for the long commutes, etc. She needs a more professional wardrobe too...
So 6.5% of $40,000 is...$2600.. 13% of $70,000 is....$9100...
Ralph made $40,000. His actual take home pay after taxes (both federal and S.S. (we didn't even get into state yet) is really $31,600.
Ralph and Marge together made $70,000 of which they actually took home...$42,000.
I'm sure you would see that by the time we get into state taxes, that gap would be even closer.
So yes they might be able to gain $10,000 more of income. (including no state taxes, nor increased expenses from working) if they were given a $6,000 benefit. Since they aren't they are really only gaining at best, $4,000. (Which is exactly why I have claimed most families really don't end up better off with a second income.
What all that have to do with the fact that more tax from working women> cost of day care? I am not forcing Marge to work. She and her husband can decide for themselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Now the point is this... should I, or anyone else pay a tax myself to help that family toss their children in day care, benefit the government with more taxes (while also paying out more in services) and marginally increase their own income? ($4-$10,000 and that includes NO additional expenses)
My answer to that is no. In this society, especially American society, we need to value things other than what you can earn. Children need to be a priority to their parents, not to a day care worker. Likewise as a society we need to value something besides just financial gain and keeping up with the Jones via bigger, better toys.
If anything (and I get to read enough credit reports to know this) that family will get further into credit card and financial debt. Their now higher income (really only marginally higher ) will qualify them for an even larger house, an even more expensive bigger car, and even higher limits on their credit cards.
When those bills come due, it will be those parents marching their children off so they can work the overtime, be unable to refuse work on family holidays, etc. on order to pay those bills down.
I can't in truth support this when I have already seen the results thus far and would add even more to that trend.
You are talking feeling and values. I am talking economics. So did you just before but then you shifted the focus. Can we at least agree to that or do you want to defend your position from above that more tax from working women> cost of day care is wrong
Oh great. "The moving target" argument spiced up with the "insulted" trumph.
Now what was this about again? Oh yeah TAXES. Sure house work is work BUT ITS NOT TAXED. Thats what my little exercise is all about. What did I say in my original post? Oh yeah More tax from working women> cost of day care. Less tax on latte.
Again the tax BURDEN has increased but that entire burder is not assured of going directly to providing day care. However again consider even if it were 1 to 1. What is the difference between paying your own day care and paying enough in taxes to pay for your own day care? All you add is overhead, more regulation and the ability to not let the market adjust later. (When Marge doesn't want to work, then we have a budget crisis and they talk of raising the taxes on everyone.)
Why not keep the choice, power and money in the hands of the individual?
Likewise I haven't moved the target, what was originally proposed was essentually wealth redistribution which I highly disagree with. What you advocate is even worse (from what I understand) which is basically exploitation. "Give" her "free" day care and you can expect even more back in taxes from her. It sounds like the government has become a pimp running a "protection" racket. You'll protect them from the "unaffordable" day care they can more than pay for themselves?!?!
Quote:
What all that have to do with the fact that more tax from working women> cost of day care? I am not forcing Marge to work. She and her husband can decide for themselves.
Except the government appetite never is satisfied and never gets smaller. Once a certain expectation has been set the employees and programs continue on basically forever. Even if the circumstances and variables around the program change. Last I check it had been vetoed again, but there is a very famous example of this involving the federal excise tax on phones. It was enacted to fight the Spanish American war over 100 years ago. Last I check, it still hadn't been removed. (even if it has, it is only about 105 years later than the war ended)
In California we passed a 1% increase to the sales tax to help finance the damage from the Northridge earthquake in 1994. It is still with us today. The inheritance tax was a temporary tax to pay for the civil war. Social Security was enacted when the average life expectancy was 65. Now retirement is 65, but life expectancy is about 74-75 years.
That is why she will never really be able to decide for herself. Once the government gets use to that money and the governor has to decide between raising the taxes or firing all the state day care employees who we can no longer afford due to fewer people working, etc. It never goes away.
Quote:
You are talking feeling and values. I am talking economics. So did you just before but then you shifted the focus. Can we at least agree to that or do you want to defend your position from above that more tax from working women> cost of day care is wrong
I am talking economics as well. If the woman could easily earn the cost of her day care, (it isn't wealth redistribution as is the case with the Latte tax) then why have her give it to the government to simply give it back to her? Why trick her into providing more taxes with a benefit where she gets less back than she puts in?
What they were advocating again, is wealth redistribution. What you are advocating is exploitation of working mothers at the expense of their own income and their time with their children. (That isn't "feelings" that is reality.)
My point about natural disaster/housing bubble was not meant to be debated in a literal sense, I was just trying to show that no matter how much planning you do (unless you are filthy rich), there are events than can conspire to put you in a bad financial position, a position where you need help no matter how much planning you have done. Do I expect your present properties to sink beneath the Pacific in the near future? No.
The point about you being a teacher, thus ironically being paid by the government, was a joke in reference to this statement:
"So in otherwords don't ask me how would I get by without the government because I do and always have."
Maybe I should have made that more clear?
Back to the real topic, consider :
Quote:
"Of married working couples with children under age 18, the percentage of dual-earning couples rose from 59.3 in 1986 to 68 in 1998. The percentage of families in which only the husband was employed declined from 36.2 in 1986 to 27.1 a dozen years later.
The percentage of working mothers with infants has risen dramatically. Of the 3.7 million women in 1998 who had children younger than one year old, 59 percent were working outside the home. The 1996 figure was 31 percent."link
Whether you like it or not, working mothers and day care are a fact of life. Obviously a lot of families have decided that having the mother work is good for their families economy, and unless all these people are majorly self-deluded (i.e., can't tell whether they are making or losing money), one would think that has to aggregate into a good for the economy as a whole (unless good + good=bad?)
Quote:
"Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever larger numbers ...
The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of child care. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves." source
The change is here. There isn't going to be a return to the 1950s family structure, so all that we can do now is make the best of it.
"Infrastructure often has a good return to the economy as a whole. Education does as well. Day care does not."
Do you believe that a society should place some value on successfully reproducing itself? Day care IS helping families (and by extension, the nation) reproduce themselves, and that is good for the economy. For families that need day care, that cannot afford to be a single worker family (whether it is because they really can't afford it, or whether they simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living sufficiently and live in a less nice area), the only alternative to day care is not reproducing. Now THAT would be bad for both the economy and the nation, in a time when birth rates are already dangerously low in our country.
One last thing, I appreciate the type of posts you write, even when I don't agree with you
The change is here. There isn't going to be a return to the 1950s family structure, so all that we can do now is make the best of it.
"Infrastructure often has a good return to the economy as a whole. Education does as well. Day care does not."
Do you believe that a society should place some value on successfully reproducing itself? Day care IS helping families (and by extension, the nation) reproduce themselves, and that is good for the economy. For families that need day care, that cannot afford to be a single worker family (whether it is because they really can't afford it, or whether they simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living sufficiently and live in a less nice area), the only alternative to day care is not reproducing. Now THAT would be bad for both the economy and the nation, in a time when birth rates are already dangerously low in our country.
One last thing, I appreciate the type of posts you write, even when I don't agree with you, as opposed to a "its my thread so there" or "love it or leave it" response.
The human population is doing a superb job of reproducing itself. The birth rate in the US is still higher than the death rate. If anything there is an overpopulation problem in the world. How many children need adoption?
Myself, I'd like to see a return of the extended family, not the nuclear family of the 50's. The nuclear family concept though stable, does not produce the type of people with a sense of community that the world really needs.
Whether you like it or not, working mothers and day care are a fact of life. Obviously a lot of families have decided that having the mother work is good for their families economy, and unless all these people are majorly self-deluded (i.e., can't tell whether they are making or losing money), one would think that has to aggregate into a good for the economy as a whole (unless good + good=bad?)
Actually I would argue there are a good number of people that really aren't very sharp financially. In fact the more I probe people about financial knowledge and what they use to make decisions regarding it, the more horrified I am.
Perfect example, a friend of mine, very bright. He works as an all around computer programmer/administrator/etc. He just was totally ripped off buying a used minivan. He has broadband to his house and spends several hours a week programming, etc. He even got his loan online with eloan.com. He also paid several thousand dollars more than his car should have cost him. He just didn't bother to really look into the cost. He trusted the dealer.
I gave a very solid example in this thread with the Ralph and Marge scenario. It was simplistic but as you saw they really weren't taking home that much more money. However their "$70,000" income would qualify them for a lot more credit. Americans have taken on record levels of personal debt. If you read into this, you would be really surprised at what passes for getting by.
Lastly lots of folks really don't know whether they are making or losing money. They just kind of go blindly. If I had a nickle for every time someone thought they were buying an asset instead of buying something that is inflating their ego's, I would be richer than Gates. There are far to many folks who think OWING is the same thing as OWNING.
This is why I prefer net-worth as a wealth indicator. CEO's are the worst at getting away with this. Steve Jobs is paid, what a dollar or something like that? Yet the ways he is compensated that are not salary are worth much more than salary. Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet not because of his salary, but because of his net-worth.
Likewise the aggregate good could be measured number-wise but extract a cost in human terms. We could look at the rise of single and two parent working families and correlate it for example to the rise of ADD, ADHD, and Ritalin prescriptions where we medicate the children we no longer have time to raise.
I'm sure the drug companies would have a good balance sheet though.
I'm struck by an illustration drawn by Chris Van Allsburg from his book Just a Dream(being an elementary school teacher does this to you). In it the boy travels in his bed to a far more polluted and exploited future. One destination he stops is on top of a factory with thick smokestacks. The factory is producing medicine to stop people from coughing.
It has an ironic tone to it don't you think?
I have not advocated a return to some 1950's nirvanna that never existed. In my 1950's my mother was being sexually abused by her stepfather whom my alcoholic grandmother had married after her original husband had been given a lobotomy for a mental disorder.
I'm just saying there has to be a point at which people have to start looking at their problems and saying, "More money isn't going to fix this." It is possible to work smarter and not harder. As I teased earlier a government bulletin board could solve just as many child care issues as a huge program.
Quote:
Do you believe that a society should place some value on successfully reproducing itself? Day care IS helping families (and by extension, the nation) reproduce themselves, and that is good for the economy. For families that need day care, that cannot afford to be a single worker family (whether it is because they really can't afford it, or whether they simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living sufficiently and live in a less nice area), the only alternative to day care is not reproducing. Now THAT would be bad for both the economy and the nation, in a time when birth rates are already dangerously low in our country.
Actually we would already not be reproducing ourselves if it weren't for the hispanics (Who stay at home with children much more often as I mentioned) and record immigration. We are pretty much in the same position as Europe with regard to birthrate. If you really are, as you claim, worried about birthrates, I doubt the government encouraging women to be even more career-minded is going to help that scenario.
If people really have a pressing need to redistribute income, insure the country reproduces itself, and likewise insure financial well being for all, I would rather they simply give two parent families that keep one parent home a financial stipend or better yet, just full tax relief. Have a child, keep a parent home, pay no taxes of any sort. (Even sales tax!)
I myself have teased that middle class mindsets keep you middle class. The rich avoid taxes and the middle class pay them. They do so because they think wealth is income. Likewise our tax burden is so high that many families (as I mentioned in that scenario) gain very little from actually improving their earning capability since our income tax is progressive. (Again I know that example was very simplistic)
There are just much better ways we could encourage families to take care of their children, have children and be financially sound without resorting to all this day care nonsense.
We could look at the rise of single and two parent working families and correlate it for example to the rise of ADD, ADHD, and Ritalin prescriptions where we medicate the children we no longer have time to raise.
I can't assign blame for the whole ADD craze on two parent working families. I assign blame for ADD on one major factor: over-zealous parents who are so obsessed with making sure their children are above-average in everything that at the first sign of any difficulty, they insist that "something must be wrong". But that is a whole nother topic
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
There are just much better ways we could encourage families to take care of their children, have children and be financially sound without resorting to all this day care nonsense.
See, now this I agree with. I would never argue that a 10 cent tax on a latte is the ideal solution to any problem. In fact, whether day care is subsidized or not makes little difference to me, provided overall allowances are made for low-income families (whether it is called an EIC, a child tax deduction, subsidized day-care, whatever, its all tax dollars). I just disagree with you that sending children to day care is going to impair their development and is going to cause them problems in the future. A families overall economic health is a much more likely indicator of how their children are going to grow up in my view. Further, I believe that children are more resilient than they are generally given credit for; afterall, every child in our country is WAY ahead of the state human children were raised in for 99.9% of mankind's existence.
Comments
Anyway, a more thorough article on this in today's paper:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...presso24m.html
Originally posted by Giaguara
Some of you just want women to stay home producing and taking care of children (and cook for you, clean, iron etc).
There is no guarantee that the kids grow up any better (or better persons) if you force the mother (I think you should foce BOTH parents to stay as long as the other parent does to take care of the small kids. So if the mum stays home 4 months, the dad should stay home the same amount of time after her.) to stay with him home.
Baby I am here for you (and your Apple tattoo). Grrrrr
Originally posted by Harald
Oh econo-guru, please debunk one thing for me, brought up by ol' Anders, above, and ignored by the conservatives for some odd reason.
Cost of daycare is smaller then the tax generated by more working mothers. More people economically active, smaller wealfare bill in total, larger economy, lower individual tax burden.
Care to comment?
(And once you've done that, be nice to see you in that hilarious 'Euro-taxes = dead French folks, all the faul of the eco-lobby thread. Hehehe.)
Sure I'll comment. It isn't one to one. The people paying taxes don't have it go exclusively to day care.
Gee the cost of day care is $80 but when I work I pay $100 in taxes.
Well that $100 doesn't go exclusive to day care. In fact by the time you find the percentage of that goes to social programs, it would likely be about $20-23.
So that is a net loss tax-wise.
You speak about more people being economically active. Who says they are not economically active just because they aren't earning a check. I suppose retiree's don't buy anything? I suppose stay at home mom's don't purchase anything? Spending is economically active. The fact that one person earns the income instead of two is beside the point.
I already showed how the "tax burden" above is still a net loss so your contention that it would lower the burder for all of us is bunk as well. When the people going to work need lots of services to work, it raises my tax burden.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure I'll comment. It isn't one to one. The people paying taxes don't have it go exclusively to day care.
Gee the cost of day care is $80 but when I work I pay $100 in taxes.
Well that $100 doesn't go exclusive to day care. In fact by the time you find the percentage of that goes to social programs, it would likely be about $20-23.
So that is a net loss tax-wise.
You speak about more people being economically active. Who says they are not economically active just because they aren't earning a check. I suppose retiree's don't buy anything? I suppose stay at home mom's don't purchase anything? Spending is economically active. The fact that one person earns the income instead of two is beside the point.
I already showed how the "tax burden" above is still a net loss so your contention that it would lower the burder for all of us is bunk as well. When the people going to work need lots of services to work, it raises my tax burden.
Nick
1) Yes stay home moms use money too. I am sure everybody knows that. But the point is that they don´t make any. And they don´t produce anything that everybody will benefit from. Is that really that hard to grasp?
2) You can´t look at the average distribution of the taxes when judging if this will bring more money than it cost. There is an economical term called marginal cost that should be applied to this case The model goes like this:
Senario one: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job. "Hmm" she thinks. That would be nice but when the taxes are taken away we can´t afford day care so I´ll skip.
Senario two: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job and the city offers her day care for her child. Now she can take the job. The cost for the city for her to work is only the day care (she also used the parks and libraries before so you don´t have to pay for them again) and her taxes more than covers the day care center.
Get it?
Originally posted by Anders
1) Yes stay home moms use money too. I am sure everybody knows that. But the point is that they don´t make any. And they don´t produce anything that everybody will benefit from. Is that really that hard to grasp?
2) You can´t look at the average distribution of the taxes when judging if this will bring more money than it cost. There is an economical term called marginal cost that should be applied to this case The model goes like this:
Senario one: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job. "Hmm" she thinks. That would be nice but when the taxes are taken away we can´t afford day care so I´ll skip.
Senario two: Joeline Average doesn´t work. She looks after her child. She may not earn anything but she uses her husbands pay check from which he pays taxes. She uses the parks and libraries for what she pays absolute nothing. One day Joeline is offered a job and the city offers her day care for her child. Now she can take the job. The cost for the city for her to work is only the day care (she also used the parks and libraries before so you don´t have to pay for them again) and her taxes more than covers the day care center.
Get it?
First your premise that stay at home parents, (not just mom's) produce nothing of value since it isn't assigned a monetary value is pretty damn insulting. Mention this to several women you know and then I would recommend ducking quickly afterwards. Well adjusted, bright caring children are, in my opinion, an achievement that no amount of money can match.
Now I do get it but the premise, maximize the amount of money you give the government, is again insulting. You must not understand how the tax system works either. Likewise suppose you are right. You are advocating sending people off basically to support the government via higher taxes. People should not be abandoning their children to day care just so they can pay more taxes. The government exists for our benefit, not the reverse. Likewise remember that all agencies of the government get their cut. It is not a zero sum game with the whole second income going straight back to day care.
Let me try your scenario with some numbers. Ok?
Ralph works and Marge stays home. Ralph's income is $40,000 a year which puts him in the 15% bracket. Ralph hands Uncle Sam $6,000 in taxes.
Marge decides to go to work to help the family. She finds a job and begins earning $30,000 a year. They have two children and the quality daycare they receive would cost them $120 for both children per week. She works 50 weeks a year for a nice round $6,000 of costs.
Marge and Ralph have more income. This moves them from the 15% tax bracket to the 27% tax bracket. They make a combined $70,000 now with a 27% tax rate. They pay $18,900 in taxes.
Marge and Ralph have just traded a $6000 benefit for paying $12,900 more in taxes. Oh joy! Their income after taxes now is $51,100. Whereas before it was $34,000. Likewise that nice new tax burden is spread among all agencies, but just day care.
Except for one thing. That was just the income tax. Both Ralph and Marge now pay social security which is another 6.5% of their income as well. Oh and of course Marge is very tired now when she comes home from work. (Who wouldn't be?) The family eats out three times a week now since she is just too tired to cook dinner after those long days...etc...she could get by with a used car before but now she needs something more reliable for the long commutes, etc. She needs a more professional wardrobe too...
So 6.5% of $40,000 is...$2600.. 13% of $70,000 is....$9100...
Ralph made $40,000. His actual take home pay after taxes (both federal and S.S. (we didn't even get into state yet) is really $31,600.
Ralph and Marge together made $70,000 of which they actually took home...$42,000.
I'm sure you would see that by the time we get into state taxes, that gap would be even closer.
So yes they might be able to gain $10,000 more of income. (including no state taxes, nor increased expenses from working) if they were given a $6,000 benefit. Since they aren't they are really only gaining at best, $4,000. (Which is exactly why I have claimed most families really don't end up better off with a second income.
Now the point is this... should I, or anyone else pay a tax myself to help that family toss their children in day care, benefit the government with more taxes (while also paying out more in services) and marginally increase their own income? ($4-$10,000 and that includes NO additional expenses)
My answer to that is no. In this society, especially American society, we need to value things other than what you can earn. Children need to be a priority to their parents, not to a day care worker. Likewise as a society we need to value something besides just financial gain and keeping up with the Jones via bigger, better toys.
If anything (and I get to read enough credit reports to know this) that family will get further into credit card and financial debt. Their now higher income (really only marginally higher ) will qualify them for an even larger house, an even more expensive bigger car, and even higher limits on their credit cards.
When those bills come due, it will be those parents marching their children off so they can work the overtime, be unable to refuse work on family holidays, etc. on order to pay those bills down.
I can't in truth support this when I have already seen the results thus far and would add even more to that trend.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
First your premise that stay at home parents, (not just mom's) produce nothing of value since it isn't assigned a monetary value is pretty damn insulting. Mention this to several women you know and then I would recommend ducking quickly afterwards. Well adjusted, bright caring children are, in my opinion, an achievement that no amount of money can match.
Now what was this about again? Oh yeah TAXES. Sure house work is work BUT ITS NOT TAXED. Thats what my little exercise is all about. What did I say in my original post? Oh yeah More tax from working women> cost of day care. Less tax on latte.
Originally posted by trumptman
Now I do get it but the premise, maximize the amount of money you give the government, is again insulting. You must not understand how the tax system works either. Likewise suppose you are right. You are advocating sending people off basically to support the government via higher taxes. People should not be abandoning their children to day care just so they can pay more taxes. The government exists for our benefit, not the reverse. Likewise remember that all agencies of the government get their cut. It is not a zero sum game with the whole second income going straight back to day care.
What did I say again? Oh yeah More tax from working women> cost of day care. Less tax on latte. Share the tax burden = less tax on each individual.
Originally posted by trumptman
Let me try your scenario with some numbers. Ok?
Ralph works and Marge stays home. Ralph's income is $40,000 a year which puts him in the 15% bracket. Ralph hands Uncle Sam $6,000 in taxes.
Marge decides to go to work to help the family. She finds a job and begins earning $30,000 a year. They have two children and the quality daycare they receive would cost them $120 for both children per week. She works 50 weeks a year for a nice round $6,000 of costs.
Marge and Ralph have more income. This moves them from the 15% tax bracket to the 27% tax bracket. They make a combined $70,000 now with a 27% tax rate. They pay $18,900 in taxes.
Marge and Ralph have just traded a $6000 benefit for paying $12,900 more in taxes. Oh joy! Their income after taxes now is $51,100. Whereas before it was $34,000. Likewise that nice new tax burden is spread among all agencies, but just day care.
Except for one thing. That was just the income tax. Both Ralph and Marge now pay social security which is another 6.5% of their income as well. Oh and of course Marge is very tired now when she comes home from work. (Who wouldn't be?) The family eats out three times a week now since she is just too tired to cook dinner after those long days...etc...she could get by with a used car before but now she needs something more reliable for the long commutes, etc. She needs a more professional wardrobe too...
So 6.5% of $40,000 is...$2600.. 13% of $70,000 is....$9100...
Ralph made $40,000. His actual take home pay after taxes (both federal and S.S. (we didn't even get into state yet) is really $31,600.
Ralph and Marge together made $70,000 of which they actually took home...$42,000.
I'm sure you would see that by the time we get into state taxes, that gap would be even closer.
So yes they might be able to gain $10,000 more of income. (including no state taxes, nor increased expenses from working) if they were given a $6,000 benefit. Since they aren't they are really only gaining at best, $4,000. (Which is exactly why I have claimed most families really don't end up better off with a second income.
What all that have to do with the fact that more tax from working women> cost of day care? I am not forcing Marge to work. She and her husband can decide for themselves.
Originally posted by trumptman
Now the point is this... should I, or anyone else pay a tax myself to help that family toss their children in day care, benefit the government with more taxes (while also paying out more in services) and marginally increase their own income? ($4-$10,000 and that includes NO additional expenses)
My answer to that is no. In this society, especially American society, we need to value things other than what you can earn. Children need to be a priority to their parents, not to a day care worker. Likewise as a society we need to value something besides just financial gain and keeping up with the Jones via bigger, better toys.
If anything (and I get to read enough credit reports to know this) that family will get further into credit card and financial debt. Their now higher income (really only marginally higher ) will qualify them for an even larger house, an even more expensive bigger car, and even higher limits on their credit cards.
When those bills come due, it will be those parents marching their children off so they can work the overtime, be unable to refuse work on family holidays, etc. on order to pay those bills down.
I can't in truth support this when I have already seen the results thus far and would add even more to that trend.
You are talking feeling and values. I am talking economics. So did you just before but then you shifted the focus. Can we at least agree to that or do you want to defend your position from above that more tax from working women> cost of day care is wrong
Originally posted by Anders
Oh great. "The moving target" argument spiced up with the "insulted" trumph.
Now what was this about again? Oh yeah TAXES. Sure house work is work BUT ITS NOT TAXED. Thats what my little exercise is all about. What did I say in my original post? Oh yeah More tax from working women> cost of day care. Less tax on latte.
Again the tax BURDEN has increased but that entire burder is not assured of going directly to providing day care. However again consider even if it were 1 to 1. What is the difference between paying your own day care and paying enough in taxes to pay for your own day care? All you add is overhead, more regulation and the ability to not let the market adjust later. (When Marge doesn't want to work, then we have a budget crisis and they talk of raising the taxes on everyone.)
Why not keep the choice, power and money in the hands of the individual?
Likewise I haven't moved the target, what was originally proposed was essentually wealth redistribution which I highly disagree with. What you advocate is even worse (from what I understand) which is basically exploitation. "Give" her "free" day care and you can expect even more back in taxes from her. It sounds like the government has become a pimp running a "protection" racket. You'll protect them from the "unaffordable" day care they can more than pay for themselves?!?!
What all that have to do with the fact that more tax from working women> cost of day care? I am not forcing Marge to work. She and her husband can decide for themselves.
Except the government appetite never is satisfied and never gets smaller. Once a certain expectation has been set the employees and programs continue on basically forever. Even if the circumstances and variables around the program change. Last I check it had been vetoed again, but there is a very famous example of this involving the federal excise tax on phones. It was enacted to fight the Spanish American war over 100 years ago. Last I check, it still hadn't been removed. (even if it has, it is only about 105 years later than the war ended)
In California we passed a 1% increase to the sales tax to help finance the damage from the Northridge earthquake in 1994. It is still with us today. The inheritance tax was a temporary tax to pay for the civil war. Social Security was enacted when the average life expectancy was 65. Now retirement is 65, but life expectancy is about 74-75 years.
That is why she will never really be able to decide for herself. Once the government gets use to that money and the governor has to decide between raising the taxes or firing all the state day care employees who we can no longer afford due to fewer people working, etc. It never goes away.
You are talking feeling and values. I am talking economics. So did you just before but then you shifted the focus. Can we at least agree to that or do you want to defend your position from above that more tax from working women> cost of day care is wrong
I am talking economics as well. If the woman could easily earn the cost of her day care, (it isn't wealth redistribution as is the case with the Latte tax) then why have her give it to the government to simply give it back to her? Why trick her into providing more taxes with a benefit where she gets less back than she puts in?
What they were advocating again, is wealth redistribution. What you are advocating is exploitation of working mothers at the expense of their own income and their time with their children. (That isn't "feelings" that is reality.)
Nick
My point about natural disaster/housing bubble was not meant to be debated in a literal sense, I was just trying to show that no matter how much planning you do (unless you are filthy rich), there are events than can conspire to put you in a bad financial position, a position where you need help no matter how much planning you have done. Do I expect your present properties to sink beneath the Pacific in the near future? No.
The point about you being a teacher, thus ironically being paid by the government, was a joke in reference to this statement:
"So in otherwords don't ask me how would I get by without the government because I do and always have."
Maybe I should have made that more clear?
Back to the real topic, consider :
"Of married working couples with children under age 18, the percentage of dual-earning couples rose from 59.3 in 1986 to 68 in 1998. The percentage of families in which only the husband was employed declined from 36.2 in 1986 to 27.1 a dozen years later.
The percentage of working mothers with infants has risen dramatically. Of the 3.7 million women in 1998 who had children younger than one year old, 59 percent were working outside the home. The 1996 figure was 31 percent."link
Whether you like it or not, working mothers and day care are a fact of life. Obviously a lot of families have decided that having the mother work is good for their families economy, and unless all these people are majorly self-deluded (i.e., can't tell whether they are making or losing money), one would think that has to aggregate into a good for the economy as a whole (unless good + good=bad?)
"Take the issue of working mothers. Families in which mothers spend as much time earning a living as they do raising children are nothing new. They were the norm throughout most of the last two millennia. In the 19th century, married women in the United States began a withdrawal from the workforce, but for most families this was made possible only by sending their children out to work instead. When child labor was abolished, married women began re-entering the workforce in ever larger numbers ...
The biggest problem facing most families in the United States at the outset of the new century is not that our families have changed too much but that our institutions have changed too little. Work policies reflect an earlier era, when most mothers weren't in the workforce and most fathers weren't involved in the joys of child care. School schedules often seem designed for decades ago, when children needed to be home to help with chores or to be employed themselves." source
The change is here. There isn't going to be a return to the 1950s family structure, so all that we can do now is make the best of it.
"Infrastructure often has a good return to the economy as a whole. Education does as well. Day care does not."
Do you believe that a society should place some value on successfully reproducing itself? Day care IS helping families (and by extension, the nation) reproduce themselves, and that is good for the economy. For families that need day care, that cannot afford to be a single worker family (whether it is because they really can't afford it, or whether they simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living sufficiently and live in a less nice area), the only alternative to day care is not reproducing. Now THAT would be bad for both the economy and the nation, in a time when birth rates are already dangerously low in our country.
One last thing, I appreciate the type of posts you write, even when I don't agree with you
originally posted by James808
The change is here. There isn't going to be a return to the 1950s family structure, so all that we can do now is make the best of it.
"Infrastructure often has a good return to the economy as a whole. Education does as well. Day care does not."
Do you believe that a society should place some value on successfully reproducing itself? Day care IS helping families (and by extension, the nation) reproduce themselves, and that is good for the economy. For families that need day care, that cannot afford to be a single worker family (whether it is because they really can't afford it, or whether they simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living sufficiently and live in a less nice area), the only alternative to day care is not reproducing. Now THAT would be bad for both the economy and the nation, in a time when birth rates are already dangerously low in our country.
One last thing, I appreciate the type of posts you write, even when I don't agree with you, as opposed to a "its my thread so there" or "love it or leave it" response.
The human population is doing a superb job of reproducing itself. The birth rate in the US is still higher than the death rate. If anything there is an overpopulation problem in the world. How many children need adoption?
Myself, I'd like to see a return of the extended family, not the nuclear family of the 50's. The nuclear family concept though stable, does not produce the type of people with a sense of community that the world really needs.
Originally posted by james808
trumptman,
Back to the real topic, consider :
Whether you like it or not, working mothers and day care are a fact of life. Obviously a lot of families have decided that having the mother work is good for their families economy, and unless all these people are majorly self-deluded (i.e., can't tell whether they are making or losing money), one would think that has to aggregate into a good for the economy as a whole (unless good + good=bad?)
Actually I would argue there are a good number of people that really aren't very sharp financially. In fact the more I probe people about financial knowledge and what they use to make decisions regarding it, the more horrified I am.
Perfect example, a friend of mine, very bright. He works as an all around computer programmer/administrator/etc. He just was totally ripped off buying a used minivan. He has broadband to his house and spends several hours a week programming, etc. He even got his loan online with eloan.com. He also paid several thousand dollars more than his car should have cost him. He just didn't bother to really look into the cost. He trusted the dealer.
I gave a very solid example in this thread with the Ralph and Marge scenario. It was simplistic but as you saw they really weren't taking home that much more money. However their "$70,000" income would qualify them for a lot more credit. Americans have taken on record levels of personal debt. If you read into this, you would be really surprised at what passes for getting by.
Lastly lots of folks really don't know whether they are making or losing money. They just kind of go blindly. If I had a nickle for every time someone thought they were buying an asset instead of buying something that is inflating their ego's, I would be richer than Gates. There are far to many folks who think OWING is the same thing as OWNING.
This is why I prefer net-worth as a wealth indicator. CEO's are the worst at getting away with this. Steve Jobs is paid, what a dollar or something like that? Yet the ways he is compensated that are not salary are worth much more than salary. Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet not because of his salary, but because of his net-worth.
Likewise the aggregate good could be measured number-wise but extract a cost in human terms. We could look at the rise of single and two parent working families and correlate it for example to the rise of ADD, ADHD, and Ritalin prescriptions where we medicate the children we no longer have time to raise.
I'm sure the drug companies would have a good balance sheet though.
I'm struck by an illustration drawn by Chris Van Allsburg from his book Just a Dream(being an elementary school teacher does this to you). In it the boy travels in his bed to a far more polluted and exploited future. One destination he stops is on top of a factory with thick smokestacks. The factory is producing medicine to stop people from coughing.
It has an ironic tone to it don't you think?
I have not advocated a return to some 1950's nirvanna that never existed. In my 1950's my mother was being sexually abused by her stepfather whom my alcoholic grandmother had married after her original husband had been given a lobotomy for a mental disorder.
I'm just saying there has to be a point at which people have to start looking at their problems and saying, "More money isn't going to fix this." It is possible to work smarter and not harder. As I teased earlier a government bulletin board could solve just as many child care issues as a huge program.
Do you believe that a society should place some value on successfully reproducing itself? Day care IS helping families (and by extension, the nation) reproduce themselves, and that is good for the economy. For families that need day care, that cannot afford to be a single worker family (whether it is because they really can't afford it, or whether they simply aren't willing to lower their standard of living sufficiently and live in a less nice area), the only alternative to day care is not reproducing. Now THAT would be bad for both the economy and the nation, in a time when birth rates are already dangerously low in our country.
Actually we would already not be reproducing ourselves if it weren't for the hispanics (Who stay at home with children much more often as I mentioned) and record immigration. We are pretty much in the same position as Europe with regard to birthrate. If you really are, as you claim, worried about birthrates, I doubt the government encouraging women to be even more career-minded is going to help that scenario.
If people really have a pressing need to redistribute income, insure the country reproduces itself, and likewise insure financial well being for all, I would rather they simply give two parent families that keep one parent home a financial stipend or better yet, just full tax relief. Have a child, keep a parent home, pay no taxes of any sort. (Even sales tax!)
I myself have teased that middle class mindsets keep you middle class. The rich avoid taxes and the middle class pay them. They do so because they think wealth is income. Likewise our tax burden is so high that many families (as I mentioned in that scenario) gain very little from actually improving their earning capability since our income tax is progressive. (Again I know that example was very simplistic)
There are just much better ways we could encourage families to take care of their children, have children and be financially sound without resorting to all this day care nonsense.
Nick
We could look at the rise of single and two parent working families and correlate it for example to the rise of ADD, ADHD, and Ritalin prescriptions where we medicate the children we no longer have time to raise.
I can't assign blame for the whole ADD craze on two parent working families. I assign blame for ADD on one major factor: over-zealous parents who are so obsessed with making sure their children are above-average in everything that at the first sign of any difficulty, they insist that "something must be wrong". But that is a whole nother topic
Originally posted by trumptman
There are just much better ways we could encourage families to take care of their children, have children and be financially sound without resorting to all this day care nonsense.
See, now this I agree with. I would never argue that a 10 cent tax on a latte is the ideal solution to any problem. In fact, whether day care is subsidized or not makes little difference to me, provided overall allowances are made for low-income families (whether it is called an EIC, a child tax deduction, subsidized day-care, whatever, its all tax dollars). I just disagree with you that sending children to day care is going to impair their development and is going to cause them problems in the future. A families overall economic health is a much more likely indicator of how their children are going to grow up in my view. Further, I believe that children are more resilient than they are generally given credit for; afterall, every child in our country is WAY ahead of the state human children were raised in for 99.9% of mankind's existence.