Women: employment or child care?

[eXcommunicate]

I'll go ahead and buck the trend here and say that married people should pay more taxes.

1. They split their overhead when compared to singles. Combining their incomes provides benefits over the individual income of a single person, so I don't see why their combined income shouldn't be allowed to kick them into the next marginal bracket.

2. If they have children, those children (if they attend public school) are soaking up public resources.

[Kristie]

I'll go ahead and buck the trend here and say that married people should pay more taxes.

1. They split their overhead when compared to singles. Combining their incomes provides benefits over the individual income of a single person, so I don't see why their combined income shouldn't be allowed to kick them into the next marginal bracket.

2. If they have children, those children (if they attend public school) are soaking up public resources.

[Trolldor]

I'll go ahead and buck the trend here and say that married people should pay more taxes.

1. They split their overhead when compared to singles. Combining their incomes provides benefits over the individual income of a single person, so I don't see why their combined income shouldn't be allowed to kick them into the next marginal bracket.

2. If they have children, those children (if they attend public school) are soaking up public resources.

...it is more costly to be married than be single.

[floppit]

I'll go ahead and buck the trend here and say that married people should pay more taxes.

1. They split their overhead when compared to singles. Combining their incomes provides benefits over the individual income of a single person, so I don't see why their combined income shouldn't be allowed to kick them into the next marginal bracket.

2. If they have children, those children (if they attend public school) are soaking up public resources.

We probably should but.......

































Life's not fair! :twisted:

[kiki5711]

Valid point. Certainly in the general case, I think "parents work, retired grandparents take care of kids" is actually a good model. However, given our ages, I don't think we'll be able to provide much care for children of my daughter - unless she gets pregnant as a teen, which isn't something I hope to see. Gambling on her husband having parents of the appropriate age with an interest in child care seems chancy at best.

why is that a great model? unless the grandparents are really up to taking care of small kids willingly all day long, most grandparents get "stuck" in the position of babysitting out of guilt. When you've worked all your life and finally get to relax a little and dealing with all new ailments that age brings, what makes you think, watching small kids all day is a "gift of joy"?

the best thing about being a grandparent is that you get to spoil your grandkids when they visit, but at the end of the day, they go back home to momma.

I think it's cruel to impose that on the elderly if other choices are there.

[Trolldor]

Day Care is too expensive because it is privatised and not subsidised by the Govt.

For some families they would, working full time, earn less money with a double income than single-income with mother caring for child.

[kiki5711]

dishing out money for day care is part of having kids. when my kids were small, my babysitter made more money than I did. I had to keep my job though for the future when they get older and don't have to spend as much on daycare as they would be in school most of the day. then it was to find someone for just a few hours till I got home. then it was doing dinner, homework, washing up, sleep time. Basically a 15 hour day.

Now if I was able to afford a live in nanny, although I don't know where she would sleep, maybe on living room couch, I would definetly hire one.

[eXcommunicate]

I'll go ahead and buck the trend here and say that married people should pay more taxes.

1. They split their overhead when compared to singles. Combining their incomes provides benefits over the individual income of a single person, so I don't see why their combined income shouldn't be allowed to kick them into the next marginal bracket.

2. If they have children, those children (if they attend public school) are soaking up public resources.

...it is more costly to be married than be single.

Two people married, each making $40K, for a total of $80K. They share a house, split the bills, and contribute to each others retirement. Why should they pay less in taxes than a single person who makes $80K who has to shoulder those burdens herself?

The tax credits per child are asinine. There, I said it. Let the parents shoulder the same tax burden as any other household, especially when it is their children who are the ones using the tax dollars for education.

[Trolldor]

They pay less in taxes because they're earning 40k, not 80k.
And, because two people living together more than doubles costs, not an equal increase.

[eXcommunicate]

They pay less in taxes because they're earning 40k, not 80k.

They are one household under the law.

And, because two people living together more than doubles costs, not an equal increase.

You have to be kidding. Have anything to back that up? I'd be glad to be educated.

[Beatsong]

Now if I was able to afford a live in nanny, although I don't know where she would sleep, maybe on living room couch, I would definetly hire one.

I keep telling Mrs Beatsong that we should get a Swedish Au Pair, and she can just share the bed with us. But for some reason she's not buying it.

[fr0d0]

Fascinating thread. We decided that my wife should stay at home and look after the kids despite her being the main breadwinner at the time and my salary just above minimum wage. We go without stuff.. it's hand to mouth mostly and things we need or would like just have to wait. I agree with others here that this time with our kids (we have a girl and a boy) is too precious to miss. Both are at school now and my wife has a job managing the toddler group working hours she chooses to bring in some cash, and friends have been supportive donating clothes etc to us to support the cause. We're seriously considering home schooling at high school age, having witnessed the paucity of the UK education system. We've never even tried childcare at all. We've used a babysitter twice I think. My wife goes out socially a lot and I'm happy to cover the evenings to give her that break.

I think economics facilitates the choice... hopefully our offspring will know as affluent times as these to enjoy whatever option they choose.

[kiki5711]

Now if I was able to afford a live in nanny, although I don't know where she would sleep, maybe on living room couch, I would definetly hire one.

I keep telling Mrs Beatsong that we should get a Swedish Au Pair, and she can just share the bed with us. But for some reason she's not buying it.

he he he

I wouldn't mind hiring a nice male live in.. sure would take my mind off other problems.

[Trolldor]

They pay less in taxes because they're earning 40k, not 80k.

They are one household under the law.

And, because two people living together more than doubles costs, not an equal increase.

You have to be kidding. Have anything to back that up? I'd be glad to be educated.

I wasn't aware you charged taxes according to a household, I had always thought you taxed someone based on what they earnt.

[DRSB]

TMH:

I wasn't aware you charged taxes according to a household, I had always thought you taxed someone based on what they earnt.

In Switzerland, you charge the married couple together, even if they are separated and live in two households, they have joint taxes. People call this the "tax punishment of marriage".