Cutting taxes vs. Family Leave Act

[AFB]

Text

 

[AFB]

Fixed the link

 

[Darkhawk28]

I reduction in taxes isn't going to make it so only one parent has to work. But a parent being able to take off work to tend to a sick child would have an impact.

 

[SuperTool]

The average working family with a house and a couple kids doesn't work 5 months for taxes. They get tonnes of deductions. And considering the government pays $10K to educate their two kids every year, they probably get a net benefit from the government if you consider benefits minus taxes.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I reduction in taxes isn't going to make it so only one parent has to work. But a parent being able to take off work to tend to a sick child would have an impact.

Maybe the should be reduced enough so that a parent can stay home to care for children and family members.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I reduction in taxes isn't going to make it so only one parent has to work. But a parent being able to take off work to tend to a sick child would have an impact.

Maybe the should be reduced enough so that a parent can stay home to care for children and family members.

That would require more than a tax cut, I'm afraid. Cost of living is just too high nowadays. Mind you, I'm not paying for daycare. I work the graveyard shift, my wife works during the day and I take care of the kids while she's at work.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I reduction in taxes isn't going to make it so only one parent has to work. But a parent being able to take off work to tend to a sick child would have an impact.

Maybe the should be reduced enough so that a parent can stay home to care for children and family members.

That would require more than a tax cut, I'm afraid. Cost of living is just too high nowadays. Mind you, I'm not paying for daycare. I work the graveyard shift, my wife works during the day and I take care of the kids while she's at work.

Actually it would not require that much with daycare being as expensive as it is. Alot of family barely break even after paying for daycare with a second parent working.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
I reduction in taxes isn't going to make it so only one parent has to work. But a parent being able to take off work to tend to a sick child would have an impact.

Maybe the should be reduced enough so that a parent can stay home to care for children and family members.

That would require more than a tax cut, I'm afraid. Cost of living is just too high nowadays. Mind you, I'm not paying for daycare. I work the graveyard shift, my wife works during the day and I take care of the kids while she's at work.

Actually it would not require that much with daycare being as expensive as it is. Alot of family barely break even after paying for daycare with a second parent working.

Well, financially, having my wife and myself working at the same time (while kids in daycare) because of a tax break that would help pay for said daycare, would be a wash. But, sanity-wise, it would help. But again, if a child is sick, the wife or myself would still have to pull the child from daycare (still get charged, mind you) and take off from work costing us a day's wages.

 

[theblackbox]

I believe in the family leave act as it applies to medical neccesity. The fmla is important to the workplace.
Iwork for a computer software company in Atlanta, GA. On October 11 of this year I had major back surgery, l5-s1 fusion and lum/lam-disc.
Having been an employee for 5 years I was able to use the FMLA to get an LOA from work that protected my job and ensures when i am healthy and released back to work, my job will be there for me.
That, along with STD and my accrued vacation, sicktime, and benefits has ensured that I have not lost any money due to the loa. I have been able to recover and maintain my job and wages.
I still pay taxes on my salary while on leave, and don't mind, because this is coming through for me, allows me to keep my insurance without going on cobra, and allows me to go back to work 2-3 months later doing what i did before.
So i have to say i like the fmla.

 

[NesuD]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The average working family with a house and a couple kids doesn't work 5 months for taxes. They get tonnes of deductions. And considering the government pays $10K to educate their two kids every year, they probably get a net benefit from the government if you consider benefits minus taxes.

:roll:

Umm the government doesn't pay to educate anyones children. They simply take the tax revenues designated for that purpose and redistribute it. The taxpayers all collectively foot that bill even the taxpayers who are childless or whose children have long since grown. To say that taxpayers get a net benefit because the cost of educating their children for 1 year may or may not exceed what they pay in taxes is specious and misleading. Taxpayers must continue to contribute to the expense of public education whether they have children in the system or not. I would say that what most people pay in over their lifetimes will far exceed what was spent on their childrens education.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: NesuD

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The average working family with a house and a couple kids doesn't work 5 months for taxes. They get tonnes of deductions. And considering the government pays $10K to educate their two kids every year, they probably get a net benefit from the government if you consider benefits minus taxes.

:roll:

Umm the government doesn't pay to educate anyones children. They simply take the tax revenues designated for that purpose and redistribute it. The taxpayers all collectively foot that bill even the taxpayers who are childless or whose children have long since grown. To say that taxpayers get a net benefit because the cost of educating their children for 1 year may or may not exceed what they pay in taxes is specious and misleading. Taxpayers must continue to contribute to the expense of public education whether they have children in the system or not. I would say that what most people pay in over their lifetimes will far exceed what was spent on their childrens education.

:roll:
Nice try twisting my words.
I didn't say "taxpayers" get a net benefit. I sure don't get a net benefit. I said an average working family with a house and a couple of kids gets a net benefit. And you just can't back up your numbers. If taxpayers didn't get a net benefit from government spending, why do they keep electing big spending politicians?

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The average working family with a house and a couple kids doesn't work 5 months for taxes.

You clearly are not an average working family with a house and a couple of kids. You do not understand the US tax structure.

And you just can't back up your numbers.

Ok, back up yours.

Bill