Posted on 24. Aug, 2003 by Brian Reid in General
Last post on taxes for at least a little while. Rebel Mom and I had a discussion about Murkowski’s tax break for at-home parents. I was intrigued, R.M. was turned off by it. Her rationale:
a) It’s not means tested, meaning that the same philosphical problem that dogs the child care credit now (rich double-income parents reaping tax benefits they don’t need) will arise with at-home parents (lets face it, at-home parents of corporate execs or big law firm partners don’t need the benefit, even if there are families that would benefit).
b) Anything that rewards at-home parents is likely to have the effect of driving women out of the workforce and into the home in far, far greater numbers than it would drive dads into a caregiving role. And while Rebel Dads wants to remove the barriers to full-time fatherhood, Rebel Mom points out that such a policy would reinforce certain stubborn barriers to women in the workforce.
So that leaves a tricky gender-equity paradox: how to give men incentives to stay home without ginning up a system that makes it more difficult for women to remain in the workforce? Obviously, offering men the same kind of benefits offered to women (paternity leave, paid paternity leave, etc.) is one solution. Are there other easy ones? Hard ones?
Brian
24. Aug, 2003
RD -
Although I fully agree w/point one, with all due respect to RM, point two just doesn’t hold any water for me. First, it ignores free will (“driving”?). Second, 500 bucks wouldn’t be enough (in and of itself) to necessarily get me to give up my job. Third, how does this policy “reinforce barriers to women in the workforce”?? A repeal of sexual harrassment laws, for example, would do that. But I can’t see how extending a tax-break that others already enjoy does. This tax-break wouldn’t make it more difficult for them to stay; it would make it easier for them (or their husbands) to leave. The two simply are not equivalent.
Michael Weber
25. Aug, 2003
Here’s what I know about taxes this month: I got a check in the mail for $400. Since I’m so fed up with partisan politics in Washington, I’ll consider that $400 a donation to the “Buy My Vote Fund” in 2004. Thanks George W., that $400 will be very useful in paying the outragous health insurance premiums I’m paying since I’m no longer working! How’s that for the economy!
-mw
Rebel Dad
25. Aug, 2003
Brian -
Rebel Mom has had to deal with all manner of silly questions since she became pregnant (Will you finish your professional education? Will you look for a job? A full-time one? Really? Even though you have a child?), all suggesting that her proper place may be in the home. Added to that is a tax system that essentially punishes two-income families by taxing the lower income at the family rate and the continuing, subtle wage discrimination.
In short, RM feels like she’s being pushed against her will back into the home. And Murkowski’s bill would only add to that pressure.
Adding an additional incentive to stay home will further serve to push parents — mostly mothers — out of the workforce.
And while having more parents at home is probably a good thing, the sex of those parents driven out of the workforce is likely to favor women about 50-to-1. I don’t think society would be well-served by a return to the gender roles of the 1950s. Hence my original question: can we encourage at-home fatherhood without creating a new generation of Donna Reeds?
I see two ideal solutions, neither easy: 1) figure out ways to lower the social barriers to men staying home without sending a signal that a women’s place is in the house and 2) just give all parents additional tax benefits, given the economic importance of childrearing.
Brian
25. Aug, 2003
RD-
Careful about how you let your word-choice influence your interpretation.
Assuming for the moment that the proposed tax break has the EFFECT of lessening the number of women in the workforce, this simply does not mean that they were either “pushed” or “driven” or otherwise coerced. Seems cause and effect are being confused here.
Also — In essence, the argument RM is making appears to be this: It is more important to have women in the workplace than at home. To me, this seems to be the proposition upon which the rest of the argument is based, no? Q: “Why should we not support this tax break?” A: “Because it will lessen the number of women in the workplace and women having women working is the greater good.”
Does that seem a fair assesment of RM’s position?
Rebel Dad
25. Aug, 2003
I see your point, and I was intentional in my word choice. Offering tax breaks (other word choice: “bribe”
) to stay home may indeed “push” or “drive” women back into the home. Because it’s a carrot and not a stick may be mostly a philosophical distinction.
I think it is a fair assessment of the RM stance to say that keeping women in the workforce is a greater good than offering a marginal tax credit that — while it will undoubtably benefit many families that need and deserve the support — actually ineffectively funnels money to those who need it. I believe that RM would love to see a benefit for at-home parents living at some percentage of the poverty line (150 percent? 200 percent?), but a broad-based tax credit for at-home parents may not be a net positive for society.
Personally, I’m still wicked conflicted on this one. I believe that 1) parental care is the best possible care. I believe that 2) that care should be encouraged. And I believe that 3) care should be given by the parent best able to provide it — regardless of sex — if we ever want to get to a gender-neutral society. A tax credit would (probably) support (1) and (2) at the expense of (3). Right?
kelly
13. Dec, 2006
I am a stay at home mother, my husband is a construction worker. If I were paying for child care it wouldn’t be worth it for me to be working anyway. We struggle through the winter and live paycheck to paycheck most of the time. I believe this is best for my son and would like to get a tax credit at the end of the year. It is each parents choice weather staying home is best for them regardless of sex and no tax break will change that.