4 ms·
That’s because a nanny is a luxury, not a necessity. There’s lots of people who figure it out without a nanny. There is a deduction for child care and it shoul
by prepend 6y ago
That’s because a nanny is a luxury, not a necessity. There’s lots of people who figure it out without a nanny.
There is a deduction for child care and it should be higher, but there’s no reason why your $50k nanny expenditure should be tax exempt.
This is what I meant by tax policies that would favor the rich. You’re trying to figure out how to deduct a larger amount than millions of people make. That wouldn’t be fair would it?
You don’t pay tax on your super cool vacation either. Even though it releases stress and is quite nice.
It would be impossible to figure out a fair amount. Instead they just give a standard deduction and incentivize certain things like charities.
- moltar 6y agoIf you look at it in the context of a company, then nanny is just an employee. If a company can have more revenue by employing a nanny then why not? It’s like saying having an office janitor is a luxury. It’s just a function, like any other, that leverages time.
- prepend 6y agoAnd I was using it to illustrate the problem of treating individuals like corporations for this purposes. A company is not allowed to hire a nanny for an individual because it’s not essential, but an office janitor is. The difference between childcare and nanny is huge. Treating individuals like companies for tax purposes would be super regressive and a benefit to the rich that would not apply to the poor. Daycare costs $5-25k/year and that’s lots less than a nanny. Why should other taxpayers subsidize your nanny preference?
- encoderer 6y agoThat’s one take.