Kirsten Gillibrand And Rand Paul, The Senate's Odd Couple, Team Up Again

[lib3rtarian]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/...-rand-paul_n_5327697.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

WASHINGTON -- In today's bitterly divided U.S. Senate, there are at least two lawmakers on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum who have found a way to work together.

With little public fanfare this week, Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) teamed up for the third time in a year on a legislative item.

Paul became a cosponsor of Gillibrand's bill to amend the federal tax code to give financial assistance to parents purchasing child care services. As the official description reads:

"Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers who do not otherwise itemize their tax deductions a deduction from gross income (above-the-line deduction) for their employment-related expenses incurred in caring for a child under the age of 13 or a child who is physically or mentally incapable of self care (qualifying child). Limits the dollar amount of such deduction in a taxable year to $7,000 for taxpayers with one qualifying child or $14,000 for taxpayers with two or more qualifying children. Allows an annual inflation adjustment to such amounts for taxable years beginning after 2014."

​

Promoting the idea at a forum on working families on Monday, Gillibrand said the goal was to help parents care for their kids while they're on the job.

"If you can’t afford child care -- as many middle class families can’t, and you don’t have a family option -- the choice you’re left with is to leave your job and stay at home to care for your children," Gillibrand said. "That means less income for working families, more women leaving the workforce, and a weaker middle class."

The bill is in its nascent stages, with just one other cosponsor -- Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). Even though it faces a long road to passage, it already has a modicum of significance. Rare is the case when ideological foes team up. And when they do, it is often on matters involving foreign policy, such as skepticism over the use of drones or the desire to pull back government surveillance.

But Gillibrand and Paul seem eager to build a new post-partisan resume. The two teamed up in January to propose a bill that would finally end the authorization to use military force in Iraq, and bring an official close to the Bush-era war.

Earlier, Paul was one of Gillibrand's staunchest GOP allies in her bid to remove military sexual assaults and other serious crimes from the military chain of command. Texas tea party Sen. Ted Cruz (R) joined that effort.

“While we may not agree on everything, Sen. Gillibrand and I are both willing to cross party lines to accomplish legislative goals that we all can agree on," Paul said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I will continue to reach out to all legislators, regardless of party, and look forward to working more with Sen. Gillibrand and other colleagues in the future.”

 

[dannno]

Oohhh wow time to start a babysitting service.

 

[FriedChicken]

I read the article but my head is full of snot tonight (I think I'm getting sick) and my comprehension level is low ... what does this bill do? Is it a tax credit or an "earned income tax credit"?
Like, $7000 in fewer taxes or $7000 added to your return regardless of what you paid in?

... Is this an incentive to stay home with your kids or an incentive to put them in daycare?

Wait ... is this allowing you to write off day care expenses on a non-itemized form up to $7000?


In the end - is this handing out freebies or is it allowing some to keep more of their own money?

 

[twomp]

I read the article but my head is full of snot tonight (I think I'm getting sick) and my comprehension level is low ... what does this bill do? Is it a tax credit or an "earned income tax credit"?
Like, $7000 in fewer taxes or $7000 added to your return regardless of what you paid in?

... Is this an incentive to stay home with your kids or an incentive to put them in daycare?

Wait ... is this allowing you to write off day care expenses on a non-itemized form up to $7000?


In the end - is this handing out freebies or is it allowing some to keep more of their own money?

Sounds to me like they can write off their day care services so in a sense, it's keeping more of their own money.

 

[eduardo89]

Is it a tax credit or an "earned income tax credit"?

Sounds like neither. It sounds like a deduction, so you can deduct up to $7000 from your total taxable income amount.

 

[FriedChicken]

Sounds to me like they can write off their day care services so in a sense, it's keeping more of their own money.

I'm cool with that.
What I don't want is a reimbursement (indirectly gov paid childcare / freebie).

Since my goal is a 0% income tax (though I'm still pragmatic about it) I don't mind deductions no matter what they are. Although some I obviously favor more than others.

Personally this isn't one of my favorites.

 

[mit26chell]

I'm cool with that.
What I don't want is a reimbursement (indirectly gov paid childcare / freebie).

Since my goal is a 0% income tax (though I'm still pragmatic about it) I don't mind deductions no matter what they are. Although some I obviously favor more than others.

Personally this isn't one of my favorites.

What do you have against a tax credit? It's better than a deduction in that you are actually getting some of your tax money back. Ron would support this as a credit I bet.

 

[eduardo89]

What do you have against a tax credit? It's better than a deduction in that you are actually getting some of your tax money back. Ron would support this as a credit I bet.

The problem with a tax credit is that many people use it as a form of welfare if they use it to get a refund above hat they paid in. You get more money then you put in in some cases, whereas with a tax deduction the amount of your income taxable is reduced.

 

[mosquitobite]

Will there be an income limit? Will it only count if both parents work? (ie, will wealthy (non-working) mothers who hire nannies to do the grunt work while she plays tennis get the deduction?)

 

[RabbitMan]

Will there be an income limit? Will it only count if both parents work? (ie, will wealthy (non-working) mothers who hire nannies to do the grunt work while she plays tennis get the deduction?)

Yes, they wrote a bill so theoretical wealthy women can pay nannies while they play tennis. Seriously? Give them some credit.

Childcare is SOOOO much more expensive than it used to be, this is actually a really smart deduction to implement and would result in more women being able to stay in the workforce. This is one great example of how fiscal conservatives can be Pro-Women. I hope Rand keeps up this streak of Pro-Minority Conservative legislation, it makes him seem in touch while presenting an actual alternative in policy.

 

[eduardo89]

Will there be an income limit? Will it only count if both parents work? (ie, will wealthy (non-working) mothers who hire nannies to do the grunt work while she plays tennis get the deduction?)

Why shouldn't they get the deduction? You should be in favor of reducing everyone's taxes.

 

[francisco]

Will there be an income limit? Will it only count if both parents work? (ie, will wealthy (non-working) mothers who hire nannies to do the grunt work while she plays tennis get the deduction?)

I am not an expert on this proposed legislation but I note the following clear language:

"Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow taxpayers who do not otherwise itemize their tax deductions a deduction from gross income (above-the-line deduction) for their employment-related expenses incurred in caring for a child..."

[emphasis mine]

Note that wealthy people tend to itemize. This proposed legislation confers a benefit to people who are not in a position to itemize because they don't have expenses (like State Income taxes, Property taxes, Mortgage Interest) that are greater than the Standard deduction.

 

[limequat]

I like reduced taxes, but I don't like incentivizing day care. Meh.

 

[FriedChicken]

What do you have against a tax credit? It's better than a deduction in that you are actually getting some of your tax money back. Ron would support this as a credit I bet.

I don't mind a true tax credit, as in a refund. I just don't like payments. I earn just under $30,000 and have two kids and my wife stays home with them - so with the household dependents, income and credits combined on our taxes last year we got $5,000 MORE than we paid in through the year.
Tax payers shouldn't be paying me for anything, I haven't provided a service to them, and when I do - I'll send 'em an invoice and they can pay me then.

... I still took the money and felt a little dirty about it. So I can deal with the fact I'm a hypocrite - but I'll never try to justify the system. Its wrong.

Will there be an income limit? Will it only count if both parents work? (ie, will wealthy (non-working) mothers who hire nannies to do the grunt work while she plays tennis get the deduction?)

It probably won't be able to be used by the wealthy - but if it is I'll be glad for it. I don't much care for separating people into classes based on income. If I'm eligible the rich should be as well.

I like reduced taxes, but I don't like incentivizing day care. Meh.

Exactly how I feel about the whole thing. I'm cool with reducing taxes but, honestly, I'm not on board with the idea that women are better off at work and kids are better off at daycare.
I've actually considered the rising daycare cost a blessing in disguise for society because many women opted to stay home with their kids rather than leave them with others - I personally think that is a net gain.

My wife tried to keep up with her career after we had our first child for about 6 months. She was becoming miserable and being away from her kid was taking a toll on her mentally.
I'm not saying everyone is the same but I bet more women than not would feel more fulfilled raising their family.


... but we homeschool. So she is literally with them all day. If they were enrolled in a public or private school where they were gone for 8 hours a day she would probably go back to work for that time.
But then we wouldn't be needing daycare, so ... yeah.

All opinions to the side: Yay for reducing taxes.

 

[Crashland]

Well since men are generally not socially pressured to sacrifice their careers to be stay at home dads, men generally don't deal with this issue. For women, they do, and I would rather them be able to decide that based on their own choices. Easing the financial burden of daycare makes the choice more about what the woman truly wants. Its a matter of freedom, I don't think its my business to tell people how to live their lives or how to raise their kids.

 

[FriedChicken]

Well since men are generally not socially pressured to sacrifice their careers to be stay at home dads, men generally don't deal with this issue. For women, they do, and I would rather them be able to decide that based on their own choices. Easing the financial burden of daycare makes the choice more about what the woman truly wants. Its a matter of freedom, I don't think its my business to tell people how to live their lives or how to raise their kids.

no, I would never tell someone what they should or shouldn't do either. I'm directing my opinion at no one and recognize everyone has the right to their own decision.
And, yes, it does feel odd having an opinion on the matter since I'm a man.

Its difficult to find a tax credit I would disagree with. The exceptions are when they would make an incentive to do something blatantly immoral IMO. (like writing abortions off on your taxes ... I wouldn't support that. I'm sure some here will disagree with me.)

Gillibrand is surely much further to the left on this than we are though. This is probably the best she can do and is being pragmatic about it because she actually has a somewhat principled stand on the matter.
However, I'm sure she would push for government funded childcare, in the name of giving women freedom to decide how to raise their family without feeling financial pressure, if there was any chance of it passing. I would absolutely appose that.

So, again, the ideology behind supporting this bill for me isn't so women have more freedom in choosing between raising family and furthering careers. Its simply that I don't much care for the income tax and I support with few exceptions someone being able to decrease them through any means possible.
Heck I'd probably support being able to write off pet food on your taxes, so yeah, childcare is much further up the list than that.

 

[FriedChicken]

Easing the financial burden of daycare makes the choice more about what the woman truly wants..

Not trolling, just a question that I think I already know the answer to.
How far does easing the financial burden extend with you? Is this a cause worthy of taxing the community to support? as in, is this a subsidy you would consider supporting?

I don't think you would support that, so I'm not suggesting you do. Just wanted clarification and thought it might be good to clear that up for others in the thread as well.