lol

what a weird way to look at this.

Why is it strange? If person A is a nanny and takes care of person B's kids and person B is also a nanny who takes care of person A's kids, you would be fine taxing both person A and B. If they took care of their own kids, they are doing the exact same labor but pay zero taxes. In the latter scenario, person A is effectively paying themselves an income to perform labor. This is called "imputed income" and while it may seem strange at first, it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about taxing labor/value instead of the transfer of cash. The most common scenario for imputed income is when landlords stay in an apartment that they own.

In your example, the value is quantified through the exchange of currency. That's what all government's collection of tax is based on really, currency exchange.

There is no quantification happening with a mother taking care of her kid nor should there be lol. We'd end up in a pretty dystopian society with this type of logic. Taxing parents for taking care of their kids? Like just saying it out loud makes it sound even more ridiculous.

sounds like something to government would do. tax a person for taking care of their own kids and if you cant pay it then the government takes care of the kids.

People = slave to the corporations until the people wake up. The longer it take the worst it'll get. You are born to chose a path and bring an income in said path. The one who succeed the most are the families who teach their kids really young the values of working/money because this is the sad world we live in. If you let your kids play with toys for too long, he will be at a disadvantage against future kids who will learn at a very young age to be self sufficient.

does anybody wonder why the elites dont send their kids to public school?

The government ALREADY taxes you on imputed income through the marriage penalty and a variety of other self-services through a ban on deductions. Keep in mind, I was strictly talking about this in a vacuum. Obviously, if you want to have pro-family policy, you wouldn't want to do this at all.

There is a quantification for the care though. It might not be as granular as you'd think, but the average cost of care in your zip code would be a pretty good estimate. I don't think we'd live in a dystopian society given that other countries tax imputed income and we have indirect ones through subsidies (or lack thereof), deductions (or lack thereof), and a tax on certain benefits.


This post was edited by thundercock on May 9 2021 06:29pm

Dare I ask what is the marriage penalty?

A daycare worker providing some minimal supervision for a child is nothing close to what a mother or father does for a child. They’re not comparable.

Framing the world in these types of terms could absolutely lead to some dystopian future. Mothers should never have these type of questions in framing their the decision on mothering.

My value add as a mother is 70k. My value add if I go work is more. Therefore I will do the latter. I personally see a lot of issues arising from that type of logic.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on May 9 2021 06:38pm

California gave tcock the commie AIDS

For some income levels, your tax burden is higher if you are married than it would be if the two of you filed separately and were unmarried. That is called the marriage penalty.

The cost of a child far outweighs any tax burden that they would have. Women ALREADY think about the financial costs of having a child and that's why so many women seek an abortion.