Why doesn't now back up legislation that would give stay at home moms
the same tax credit as working moms. We sacrafice a career to be full
time parents, we deserve to get credit for it!

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Michael Snyder
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	12 Oct 2004 15:00:56 -0400

> Why doesn't now back up legislation that would give stay at home moms
> the same tax credit as working moms. We sacrafice a career to be full
> time parents, we deserve to get credit for it!

So many questions!
* How do you figure "should", "deserve", etc.?
* What incentive do the rest of us tax payers have to pay you
to stay home and raise your own kids?
* Why only moms? What about stay at home dads?
* For that matter, what about stay at home bums?
Why do they "deserve" any less "credit" than you do?

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Denise noe
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	16 Oct 2004 11:49:06 -0400

<< "Michael Snyder" msnyder@sonic.net
Date: Tue, Oct 12, 2004 3:00 PM >>

<< > Why doesn't now back up legislation that would give stay at home moms
> the same tax credit as working moms. We sacrafice a career to be full
> time parents, we deserve to get credit for it!

So many questions!
* How do you figure "should", "deserve", etc.?
* What incentive do the rest of us tax payers have to pay you
to stay home and raise your own kids?

(Denise Noe) Some people say that children are better off if, during their
pre-school, they have a parent with them fulltime rather than some other sort
of care (ie, daycare, babysitter, etc.) If children are in fact better off if
they have parental care during this period, they will grow into healthier
citizens. Thus, it behooves the culture as a whole to support these choice and
increase the number of well-adjusted members it has.

<<* Why only moms? What about stay at home dads? >>

(Denise Noe) I once read a small study comparing the children of
stay-at-home-moms with those of stay-at-home-dads. The kids of the dads scored
slightly higher on all measures of intellectual achievement and emotional and
social adjustment. This would argue for a gender-neutral approach, supporting
both SAHMs and SAHDs, if not giving some kind of an edge to the latter.
However, there is a recent book out, "Why Motherhood and (Most) Careers Don't
Mix," that is plugged by Phyllis Schlafly and others, that includes a part
saying "Why women and not men should be with children fulltime." I don't know
what the arguments are.

****************************
Denise Noe
Koko the Signing Gorilla says: "Fine animal gorilla."

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Ovum
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	12 Oct 2004 15:00:57 -0400

Nope, it was a choice you made of your own free will. Why should I pay for your
lifestule choice?

Lois

------------------------------------------------

You must be the change you want to see in the world.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	oleander
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	16 Oct 2004 11:48:59 -0400

ovum@aol.comet (Ovum) wrote in message news:<20041011203104.02895.00001075@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> Nope, it was a choice you made of your own free will. Why should I pay for your
> lifestule choice?
>
> Lois
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> You must be the change you want to see in the world.

This really has nothing to do with one person paying for the decisions
of another. The tax policy is designed to encourage certain
behavior's. The relevant question is: Do we believe society is
better served by working mothers, or stay at home mothers?

Some relevant stakeholders include, the children of these mothers, are
they better served by the extra attention of a mother at home, or
access to the extra wealth generated by having two working parents?
This question certainly varies depending upon the financial ssituation
of the family. In many cases the stay at home mother is actually
better of financially due to the high costs of day care.

Society is another stakeholder. Questions such as crime rates and
productivity of children from different family structures are
relevant, unfortunately I do not currently have data on this subject
matter. Also, tax credits are not free, the expense of this tax
credit would result in our inability to offer such a credit to another
worthwhile social objective.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Black Hat
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	18 Oct 2004 16:20:50 -0400

" Why only moms? What about stay at home dads?"

Why not indeed?
I'm afraid that the invention of the "suburb" in the last 50 years (and
large industry) really threw the monkey wrench in family life that nobody
realizes. Suburbia created this vast geographic difference between "home"
and "work" that didn't exist 120 years ago. Used to be most people sort of
worked "at home" on the farm or the small town shop where upstsairs was the
living quarters and downstairs was the work shop. In those days the kids
were in contact with their parents a lot more than now.
I also think the railroads damaged the family since train crews and
track maintainers spend a long time away from home. And you have to
remember that in the old days the railroads hired a major portion of the
workforce (everybody had a relative who work for the railroad 75 years ago).
Not a good example.
Then add the military (they messed up the whole World War II generation),
the logging industry, and WPA projects in the West in producing a culture of
absentee dads.
Maybe we had to do this a long time ago, but is this legacy now a menace?

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Alfred Einstead
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	20 Oct 2004 14:22:43 -0400

"Black Hat" wrote:
> Then add the military (they messed up the whole World War II generation),
> the logging industry, and WPA projects in the West in producing a culture of
> absentee dads.

That's historically foreshortened perspective bordering on amnesic.

California, 1850: 7.577% female (85,580 males; 7,017 females)
Nevada, 1860: 10.500% female (6,137 males; 720 females)

Extreme gender ratio disparity has always existed in the west *until*
around the time of WWII. It's a general feature of any historic
human migratory pattern...

The Evolution Of Sex Ratio, US
http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~whopkins/SexRatio.gif

....that it proceeds initially with huge ratio disparity, and has
absolutely nothing to do with anything even remotely topical, being
instead historic -- as is clearly and dramatically evident in the
maps above.

This includes, also, major ventures and public works; and note
also there were more men than women in the US up to 1946; are
more men than women under 40 in the US; and are STILL (or once
again) more men than women in the West in Nevada, California
and Alaska.

[Hawaii is also male-majority, but that's because they're part of
Polynesia, which is heavily male-majority -- also underscoring the
point, pertaining this time to the migratory history of the people]

The largest disparities are shown below (outside the 40%-60% range):

Large Sex Ratio Disparities, US:
1840 Male Female %F
WI 18862 12083 39.046

1850 Male Female %F
CA 85580 7017 7.577
MN 3716 2361 38.851

1860 Male Female %F
CA 229601 97662 29.842
NV 6137 720 10.500
OR 31527 20761 39.705

1870 Male Female %F
CA 349479 210768 37.620
CO 24820 15044 37.738
NV 32379 10112 23.797

1880 Male Female %F
CO 129131 65196 33.549
NV 42019 20247 32.516

1890 Male Female %F
ID 51290 33095 39.219
MT 87882 44277 33.502
NV 29214 16547 36.159
WA 217562 131828 37.730

1900 Male Female %F
MT 149842 93487 38.419
NV 25603 16732 39.522
WY 58184 34347 37.119

1910 Male Female %F
MT 226872 149181 39.670
NV 52551 29324 35.815
WY 91670 54295 37.197

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Alfred Einstead
Subject:	It Already Exists (was: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit)
Date:	18 Oct 2004 16:20:47 -0400

Lealdonna@hotmail.com (lealdonna) wrote:
> Why doesn't now back up legislation that would give stay at home moms
> the same tax credit as working moms. We sacrafice a career to be full
> time parents, we deserve to get credit for it!

There already are. The feds already have the tax refund for child
care (EIC). Wisconsin has the Homesteader's Tax Credit, which is
also a refund that can even be filed separately from the Wisconsin
income tax. This is ideally suited for the situation when you
have to jump out of the work force to attend to matters at home
(research, sabbatical, family care, etc.) while living off your
savings.

None of these are specifically stipulated to the issue you raised,
nor should any be, because that's too narrow of focus. Instead,
they finesse the whole issue.

More generally, what is needed is something that has been long
advocated by both conservatives and liberals for the past 40 years
and by leading economists (like Milton Freedman) -- the subsumption
of all entitlements by and into a Negative Income Tax, which applies
universally.

Both the EIC and Homesteader's tax credit are conscious and deliberate
attempts to implement an NIT. Both Nixon and Johnson (and I believe
also Kennedy) had tried to forge some kind of NIT, in the earliest days.

But in its pristine and optimally simple form, the way the NIT works
is that it would be nothing more than a starting credit that offsets
whatever taxes are assessed. So, if you're under a certain threshold
(particularly, for instance, if you're out of the work force for a
while) your net tax is negative and you get paid.

When done right, this is also powerful enough to replace FICA and to
subsume Social Security, itself; in the process grandfathering out
from under the pyramid scheme of the current FICA arrangement before
it crashes. "Done right" means that the NIT is set up, for the most
part, as an age-progressive credit that crosses the threshold of
minimum self-sufficiency around the age of 65.

>From the Jane Galt Tax Plan
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/001510.html

November 24, 2002
>From the desk of Jane Galt:

Also cited at the following sites:
EconLog: The Jane Galt Tax Plan (2002-11-24)
http://econlog.econlib.org/GQE/gqe336.html

Great Questions of Economics
http://www.arnoldkling.com/gqe/arch34.html

Other sites via Yahoo
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Jane+Galt+Negative+Income+Tax

============

The Jane Galt Tax Plan
Fritz Schrank asks how we should simplify taxes. Well, here's the
Jane Galt version, guaranteed to please no one but its author:

1) Get rid of all our poverty programs, except those aimed at the
disabled, and temporary unemployment assistance, and institute the
negative income tax. That is to say, the system should be continuously
progressive, from a steep negative rate of up to 100% on very low
earners, gradually declining until it zeroes out around $28,000 a
year, and then rising gradually until it maxes out around 35% on
the top brackets.

2) Eliminate FICA and pay for Social Security and Medicare out of
general revenue. It's time to stop pretending it's a pension system,
when there are no assets in the "trust fund"

3) Eliminate the corporate income tax

4) Eliminate the special treatment for capital gains. All income
should be taxed at the same level, regardless of its source.

5) Eliminate all deductions. Period, end of statement. No mortgate,
student, child, etc. All causes are equally worthy in the eyes of
the person who possesses the deduction; it is a waste of our time
as a nation to sit around arguing about who deserves what.

6) Just say no to the Value Added Tax. In theory, it's a good tax.
In practice, because it is extremely hard to tell what proportion
of the price of anything represents the tax, it removes the good
and natural pressure upon tax rates.

7) Get rid of the estate tax, and tax the capital gains on whatever
is sold.

So why these particular features?

[... continued at the web site ...]

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	gary
Subject:	Re: It Already Exists (was: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit)
Date:	20 Oct 2004 14:22:43 -0400

"Alfred Einstead" wrote in message
news:e58d56ae.0410170529.6c365221@posting.google.com...
> Lealdonna@hotmail.com (lealdonna) wrote:
>> Why doesn't now back up legislation that would give stay at home moms
>> the same tax credit as working moms. We sacrafice a career to be full
>> time parents, we deserve to get credit for it!
>
> There already are. The feds already have the tax refund for child
> care (EIC).

The EIC, or Earned Income Credit, is not a child care credit. Instead, it is
a refundable credit given to lower income working persons only, with the
primary target being working persons with children. Regardless of whether or
not the kids are in day care, the family may qualify for the EIC.
You may be referring to the child care credit, which is a non-refundable
credit given to working families who pay for day care. This credit tends to
benefit the wealthier families that have some income tax liability to be
offset by this credit. It does not help lower income families, since they
usually don't have any federal income tax liability.

Lealdonna raises an important question: why do we give subsidies to women
who work and place their kids in day care, but not to mom's who wish to stay
at home with their kids. Why do we value the working mother over the stay at
home mom?
In every single survey I have seen of working mothers, all of the studies
indicate that 70% or so of working mom's want to be at home more with their
kids. Why in the world do we not help women do what they want and feel is
important to them. Why do we subsidize the working mother so that she may
pay someone else to raise her kids when what she wants is to be with her
kids more?

On the October 10th show of "Sixty Minutes", there was an interview by
Leslie Stahl with women Harvard graduates who quit work to be with their
kids. The interview went to a representative of Harvard University, who
indicated that a study of Women Harvard graduates of childbearing age
indicated that only 38% of these women were working full time. In other
words, these women,have chosen to be with their kids.
Leslie Stahl went on to interview Linda Hirshman, professor and philosopher,
who basically called these women traitors, and said that their choices will
hurt other women.
I felt that her attitude was quite limited: an alternative approach is" How
wonderful it is to the future of our country that large numbers of Harvard
Graduates are spending their time raising their children".

And If women of privilege are choosing to opt out of working when they have
children, does this not have something to do with a self-created glass
ceiling ?
Gary K.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Black Hat
Subject:	Re: It Already Exists (was: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit)
Date:	23 Oct 2004 09:57:46 -0400

"I felt that her attitude was quite limited: an alternative approach is" How
wonderful it is to the future of our country that large numbers of Harvard
Graduates are spending their time raising their children".

I'm not so sure it would be "wonderful". I kinda worry about what kind
of mothers, and especially wives, these high achieving stay-at-home moms
would end up being.
I kinda worry with all that displaced ambition, and high expections and
standards, they would turn into a crossbreed between Martha Stewart and a
Marine drill instructor. Since they cant achieve much of anything
themselves, they may measure their success on how well their kids and
husband achieve.

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Nevermind
Subject:	Re: It Already Exists (was: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit)
Date:	27 Oct 2004 09:31:36 -0400

From:	Barb P
Subject:	Stay-at-home v. Career is false dichotomy (was: It Already Exists)
Date:	27 Oct 2004 09:31:33 -0400

"Black Hat" wrote in message news:<8ZDdd.959$Nf7.356@trndny02>...
> "I felt that her attitude was quite limited: an alternative approach is" How
> wonderful it is to the future of our country that large numbers of Harvard
> Graduates are spending their time raising their children".
>
> I'm not so sure it would be "wonderful". I kinda worry about what kind
> of mothers, and especially wives, these high achieving stay-at-home moms
> would end up being.
> I kinda worry with all that displaced ambition, and high expections and
> standards, they would turn into a crossbreed between Martha Stewart and a
> Marine drill instructor. Since they cant achieve much of anything
> themselves, they may measure their success on how well their kids and
> husband achieve.

IMO, there's even more to it than that. If Harvard-graduating women
really decide to do that in droves, don't you think people are going
to start to question their getting a Harvard education in the first
place (especially if it's in a field unrelated to child care?) I
mean, it would be nice if *everyone* could get a Harvard education and
not ever feel any pressure to use it in any particular way. But I
think we are far from that ideal.

I advocate more flexibility generally. i.e. not *having* to choose
between one extreme (staying home full time or working at a typically
non-professional part time job) and another (long hours career where
you see your kids for an hour each day). I advocate this for both men
and for women, those who went to Harvard and those who went to
community college. Why does this even have to be a particularly
feminist issue? Wait, I know why - because people seem to think this
"women in the workplace" thing is some grand experiment and if we find
out it harms children, we're going to have to pull the plug on it.
Never mind what it means for women's overall financial security (like
in the case of divorce). Never mind what it means for their
identities and ambitions. Never mind the impact it has on what little
girls dream of becoming some day. We can ignore all that because
otherwise it might mean that *men* (who presumably don't want to see
neglected kids any more than women do) will have to do their fair
share!

I remember talking about this with you a while back, Gary (a few
years, I think!) and remembering that conversation recently inspired
me to write a goofy little dialogue on my blog. The characters are
completely fictional and their arguments are conglomerations of
various things I've heard. It responds to the the "look at all the
high-power business women going home to bake cookies" thing that I've
seen a lot in the media recently.

You can read it at this link:
http://heartmindsoul.blogspot.com/2004/09/ice-cream-store.html

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Nevermind
Subject:	Re: Stay-at-home v. Career is false dichotomy (was: It Already Exists)
Date:	9 Nov 2004 07:02:19 -0500

preuning@hotmail.com (Barb P) wrote in message news:...
> "Black Hat" wrote in message news:<8ZDdd.959$Nf7.356@trndny02>...
> > "I felt that her attitude was quite limited: an alternative approach is" How
> > wonderful it is to the future of our country that large numbers of Harvard
> > Graduates are spending their time raising their children".
> >
> > I'm not so sure it would be "wonderful". I kinda worry about what kind
> > of mothers, and especially wives, these high achieving stay-at-home moms
> > would end up being.
> > I kinda worry with all that displaced ambition, and high expections and
> > standards, they would turn into a crossbreed between Martha Stewart and a
> > Marine drill instructor. Since they cant achieve much of anything
> > themselves, they may measure their success on how well their kids and
> > husband achieve.
>
> IMO, there's even more to it than that. If Harvard-graduating women
> really decide to do that in droves, don't you think people are going
> to start to question their getting a Harvard education in the first
> place

Let 'em.

What if a harvard-graduated woman went on to become the CEO of a
pharmaceutical company -- would that be more or less wasteful of a
Harvard education than being a stay-at-home mom? What if she became a
full-time artist who perpetually struggled to make ends meet? A waste
of an elite education? What if she became a Harvard professor who
spent her life writing articles only other Harvard types read (while
teaching future potential stay-at-homers)? What if she went insane
while doing her thesis and lived the rest of her life as a bag lady?
Who is anyone to judge what career choice (or nonchoice) is worthy of
someone else's schooling? You should know that not everyone defines
success the same way.

Also, remember that almost all stay-at-home moms are temporarily so.
Especially if she's extremely bright and well-educated. She'll be out
in the working world again within a decade. Maybe she'll need more
training to get back into a great job (whatever that means to you),
but having Harvard on your resume will always help.

> (especially if it's in a field unrelated to child care?) I
> mean, it would be nice if *everyone* could get a Harvard education and
> not ever feel any pressure to use it in any particular way. But I
> think we are far from that ideal.

We're far from the ideal of everyone being able to get a Harvard
education (not that I would put a Harvard ed in a place of high
priority in my "ideal world"), period. (Of course, throughout,
"harvard" is really just shorthand for "advanced, especially elite,
higher education".)

> I advocate more flexibility generally. i.e. not *having* to choose
> between one extreme (staying home full time or working at a typically
> non-professional part time job) and another (long hours career where
> you see your kids for an hour each day).

But since the working world shows no sign of moving in that direction
anytime soon, what do you suggest?

> I advocate this for both men
> and for women, those who went to Harvard and those who went to
> community college. Why does this even have to be a particularly
> feminist issue?

Because it's mostly women who are actively seeking that flexibility
and it's mostly women who are feeling awful about going back to and
being out at traditional full-time jobs.

What working women need to do is to stop taking the brunt of being a
working parent on themselves. If the dad takes turns with the mom
leaving work to care for a sick kid or going to teacher confs. or
making dinner after a long day at the office, he will soon start
pining for a more flexible workplace in which leaving early
occasionally isn't anathema or partially/occasionally working-at-home
is an option or doing flextime (so parents can juggle schedules). But
I think it's common in two-working-parent couples for mom to still be
the "primary caregiver" as opposed to the shared caregiver.

But as always in these conversations, one needs to remember that there
are simply more moms than dads who WANT to be home with their babies.
Sorry, that's a fact. Plenty don't want to, and that's fine. Many
should not do so even if they feel the desire. But that desire and
it's gender-specific nature does need to be kept in mind when
considering these things.

>

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.

From:	Stefano MacGregor
Subject:	Re: Stay at home Moms should get tax credit
Date:	12 Oct 2004 15:00:55 -0400

Lealdonna@hotmail.com (lealdonna) wrote in message news:...

> Why doesn't now back up legislation that would give stay at home moms
> the same tax credit as working moms. We sacrafice a career to be full
> time parents, we deserve to get credit for it!

Assuming, first of all, that by "now" you mean "NOW", the National
Organization for Women:

I see two cases of stay-at-home moms.

1) Married. There is a married couple, only one of whom works.

o Are you saying that this couple should get a tax credit for this?
If so, why?

o Should the couple get =no= tax credit if it is the husband who
stays at home? If so, why?

2) Single. She is unemployed.

o Are you saying that she should get a tax credit for not working?
If so, can I get one for quitting my job, too?

o Are you saying that she should get this tax credit only if she has
children? If so, then shouldn't an employed woman get the same tax
credit for having children? If not, why not?

I think we need to have the situation more clearly defined here before
it can be discussed rationally.

--
Stefano

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.