4 ms·

We have 3 kids in daycare right now so you'll really just have to forgive me for also finding it essentially useless. It's less than 1/36th of our annual childc

We have 3 kids in daycare right now so you'll really just have to forgive me for also finding it essentially useless. It's less than 1/36th of our annual childcare expenses. It's not like I'm going to turn it down but if it went away I would not even notice.

ajross 3y ago
> We have 3 kids in daycare right now so you'll really just have to forgive me for also finding it essentially useless. It's less than 1/36th of our annual childcare expenses The credit is $2k per kid, plus a $6k cap for the CADC credit. If you're spending $144k on care[1] this credit isn't for you. That's just ridiculous. Don't ask the federal government to pay you a 4x urban minimum wage just to have kids, that's not a good use of my tax dollars (and I say that as a fellow parent). But a few thousand dollars to help out folks on the margin can absolutely keep people in the workforce and out of poverty. Just don't expect your boutique day care in Sunnyvale or whatever to be a free ride. [1] You clearly aren't. You're just confused about the generosity of this benefit, or more likely make too much and are on the phase-out schedule for high income taxpayers.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The DCFSA is tax free contribute, so you are only saving taxes, not the entire amount of the benefit. But I see you are talking about other things? The CADC goes down based on income, and I think it is superseded by the DCFSA at higher incomes, although that magic always alludes me in TurboTax.
  - ajross 3y ago
    I don't get it then. Is this all just a whine about progressive taxation? If you make a tech salary you don't get this benefit, it's not for you. No one wants to pay for FAANG scions in their taxes and they never will. That doesn't obviate the point that the US federal government provides really quite reasonable (if not super generous by western standards) child care benefits, and thus all the hyperbole above ("no solution", "useless", etc...) is basically wrong.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      It’s not a whine about progressive taxation. It is just stating that the tax benefits are not meaningful incentives to have more kids, especially for middle class and above. It’s like, “thanks, but this doesn’t really move any needles in significant directions.” So techies are even less likely to reproduce, because as you say, no one is interested in encouraging them and the HCOL areas they live in have wicked child care costs. So maybe we should just be happy with our below replacement birth rate, and figure out other ways to live in a world worth increasingly fewer people?
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      I guess the main confusion here was what was meant by no-op, as in "no-op in deciding whether to have more kids or not."

ajross 3y ago

> We have 3 kids in daycare right now so you'll really just have to forgive me for also finding it essentially useless. It's less than 1/36th of our annual childcare expenses The credit is $2k per kid, plus a $6k cap for the CADC credit. If you're spending $144k on care[1] this credit isn't for you. That's just ridiculous. Don't ask the federal government to pay you a 4x urban minimum wage just to have kids, that's not a good use of my tax dollars (and I say that as a fellow parent). But a few thousand dollars to help out folks on the margin can absolutely keep people in the workforce and out of poverty. Just don't expect your boutique day care in Sunnyvale or whatever to be a free ride. [1] You clearly aren't. You're just confused about the generosity of this benefit, or more likely make too much and are on the phase-out schedule for high income taxpayers.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
The DCFSA is tax free contribute, so you are only saving taxes, not the entire amount of the benefit. But I see you are talking about other things? The CADC goes down based on income, and I think it is superseded by the DCFSA at higher incomes, although that magic always alludes me in TurboTax.
- ajross 3y ago
  I don't get it then. Is this all just a whine about progressive taxation? If you make a tech salary you don't get this benefit, it's not for you. No one wants to pay for FAANG scions in their taxes and they never will. That doesn't obviate the point that the US federal government provides really quite reasonable (if not super generous by western standards) child care benefits, and thus all the hyperbole above ("no solution", "useless", etc...) is basically wrong.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    It’s not a whine about progressive taxation. It is just stating that the tax benefits are not meaningful incentives to have more kids, especially for middle class and above. It’s like, “thanks, but this doesn’t really move any needles in significant directions.” So techies are even less likely to reproduce, because as you say, no one is interested in encouraging them and the HCOL areas they live in have wicked child care costs. So maybe we should just be happy with our below replacement birth rate, and figure out other ways to live in a world worth increasingly fewer people?
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    I guess the main confusion here was what was meant by no-op, as in "no-op in deciding whether to have more kids or not."