2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Irish#1]

Women?

Don't start.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That's a bullshit pander. Parents shouldn't be subsidized for abandoning their children. Women should be encouraged to raise children, not to outsource the next generation to the communal cesspools known as daycare. Utter bullshit to propose a de facto tax on stay-at-home parents.

Also, lowering tax rates is not "giving" money to anybody. It's not the government's money to give. It belongs to the people and there's nothing illegitimate in "allowing" people to keep what they rightfully earned in the first place.

Don't you mean "udder" haha. 9am jokes. Sorry. (reference to your breastfeeding post)

Edit: Btw, I completely disagree with your post.

 

[drayer54]

Agree. Republicans have to find a way to pick better candidates to run for president. Hillary is a very beatable candidate whom just about everyone believed was going to win ... and the GOP picked Trump. It's like they want to lose.

President Hillabeast will be the responsibility of every tin foil hat wearing primary voter who said, "he says things different from everyone else, I should vote for him...."

 

[wizards8507]

Edit: Btw, I completely disagree with your post.

You think a daycare does a better job of raising a child than the child's mother?

 

[wizards8507]

Donald Trump’s Tax Hike on Investors: Terrible Idea | National Review

 

[IrishJayhawk]

You think a daycare does a better job of raising a child than the child's mother?

Why only a mother? And why the false dichotomy, i.e., it's daycare or parents, but it can't possibly be both?

 

[RDU Irish]

Donald Trump’s Tax Hike on Investors: Terrible Idea | National Review

The problem lies in fund managers getting an interest in a fund without equal equity contributed. That sounds an awful lot like earned income to me.

 

[wizards8507]

Why only a mother?

I addressed this already. More mothers stay home than fathers. That's a statement of fact. Obviously it can be fathers too, if that's what works best for a family given each parent's disposition and earning potential. As I said, it tends to be mothers because 1) women are the ones who require medical leave through the actual act of giving birth, so they're leaving the workforce for at least a short time in the first place, 2) women breastfeed and men do not, 3) women are inherently more nurturing than men, and 4) men tend to be physically stronger than women, which makes a difference in labor-based employment.

None of these are absolutes and everything I'm advocating in terms of tax policy would apply to stay-at-home fathers as well. It's just easier to type "mothers" than "mothers and fathers" to avoid confusion about whether I'm talking about a single parent per household or both parents in a given household.

And why the false dichotomy, i.e., it's daycare or parents, but it can't possibly be both?

If both parents work full time "normal" shifts (i.e. something resembling 9 to 5), the child is spending more waking hours in daycare than they are with either parent, even if you include the weekends. That works for some families and everyone should be free to choose that, but I don't think it's something we should be actively encouraging through our tax policy.

The problem lies in fund managers getting an interest in a fund without equal equity contributed. That sounds an awful lot like earned income to me.

That's a red herring. Hedge funds don't hold assets long enough for long term capital gains treatment in the first place, so they're paying ordinary income rates anyways (for the most part).

 

[BleedBlueGold]

You think a daycare does a better job of raising a child than the child's mother?

Of course not. My problem with your post is that you essentially defined a woman's role once she has kids.

But if you're going to toss out that family values rhetoric, then I hope you support better parental leave policies.

People should be able to work hard in their careers and support their families while also building wealth for their future. They should also be able to spend time with their kids. We as a country should promote both. Not one or the other.

I will say that I think it's better to help out on the front end (allowing people paid time off to raise their kids) versus a tax credit on the back end....which only helps the financial aspect and not the actual child raising aspect. If that makes sense.

 

[wizards8507]

Of course not. My problem with your post is that you essentially defined a woman's role once she has kids.

I did not say "women must stay home once they have kids." I simply said that we should not discourage women from staying home with our tax policy. The modern-era feminist push for women in the workplace has completely demonized women who choose to stay home.

But if you're going to toss out that family values rhetoric, then I hope you support better parental leave policies.

I support employers offering those policies as a way to attract and retain talent, but they should not be imposed as a matter of law.

People should be able to work hard in their careers and support their families while also building wealth for their future. They should also be able to spend time with their kids. We as a country should promote both. Not one or the other.

I will say that I think it's better to help out on the front end (allowing people paid time off to raise their kids) versus a tax credit on the back end....which only helps the financial aspect and not the actual child raising aspect. If that makes sense.

This is a completely perverted view of the employer-employee relationship. That relationship is one in which labor is voluntarily exchanged for a wage. You can't force employers to pay the wage when there's no labor associated with it.

 

[RDU Irish]

You think a daycare does a better job of raising a child than the child's mother?

Our kids benefited from socialization quite a bit in daycare. When they hit school they have been well ahead of virtually all of the stay at homers socially and academically out of the gate.

As for the wife's roll, barefoot and preggers is their place, right!

There is no recovering from an extended departure from a career for men or women. I see (usually moms) take years off during their kids formative years only to be relegated to menial, low skill positions when they try to re-enter the work force (often once they hit school age and especially once they hit middle school and parent in school involvement is more limited).

So please, take care to contribute to her spousal IRA and keep her skills up to par (mind you probably not advancing) while she is child rearing. Her long term mental health, including self worth and self confidence, are usually better served as her ability to be independent is preserved. Not to mention the risk dependent spouses take in case they end up divorced or widowed. Financial risks for single income families are substantially higher than that for two income families for if/when someone loses their job.

My wife stayed home with them for a year after we moved (Kindergarten and 2 year old at the time) and started getting batty. She needed work life balance and hanging with kids all day wasn't getting it done. Plus - her credentialing could only be on hold for a few years before she would have to completely re-do her NP education

 

[RDU Irish]

I addressed this already. More mothers stay home than fathers. That's a statement of fact. Obviously it can be fathers too, if that's what works best for a family given each parent's disposition and earning potential. As I said, it tends to be mothers because 1) women are the ones who require medical leave through the actual act of giving birth, so they're leaving the workforce for at least a short time in the first place, 2) women breastfeed and men do not, 3) women are inherently more nurturing than men, and 4) men tend to be physically stronger than women, which makes a difference in labor-based employment.

None of these are absolutes and everything I'm advocating in terms of tax policy would apply to stay-at-home fathers as well. It's just easier to type "mothers" than "mothers and fathers" to avoid confusion about whether I'm talking about a single parent per household or both parents in a given household.


If both parents work full time "normal" shifts (i.e. something resembling 9 to 5), the child is spending more waking hours in daycare than they are with either parent, even if you include the weekends. That works for some families and everyone should be free to choose that, but I don't think it's something we should be actively encouraging through our tax policy.


That's a red herring. Hedge funds don't hold assets long enough for long term capital gains treatment in the first place, so they're paying ordinary income rates anyways (for the most part).

BS - Private equity is the biggest culprit and hedge funds are more of a compensation scheme than a definitive investment strategy. Tons of long only funds out there focused on stock selection and long term holding periods, often use of leverage is a bigger source of the "special" strategy than some secret short term trading sauce. LBO timelines are measured in years, not months.

Buffett the tax hypocrite might the best example - carried interest might be the source of the vast majority of his wealth, and it will never be taxed since he will give it all to B&M Gates Foundation.

So I agree that TRUE LT cap gains deserve preferential tax treatment to income - assuming the current tax framework is what we are forced to work within.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Our kids benefited from socialization quite a bit in daycare. When they hit school they have been well ahead of virtually all of the stay at homers socially and academically out of the gate.

Our daughter has also been quite healthy. I'd guess that it's partially due to being at daycare.

 

[RDU Irish]

Of course not. My problem with your post is that you essentially defined a woman's role once she has kids.

But if you're going to toss out that family values rhetoric, then I hope you support better parental leave policies.

People should be able to work hard in their careers and support their families while also building wealth for their future. They should also be able to spend time with their kids. We as a country should promote both. Not one or the other.

I will say that I think it's better to help out on the front end (allowing people paid time off to raise their kids) versus a tax credit on the back end....which only helps the financial aspect and not the actual child raising aspect. If that makes sense.

I don't like government regulating paid time off - why should companies be forced to take on that expense - unfunded mandates on companies are even worse than unfunded mandates on states IMO? Providing tax breaks to help offset the tremendous cost of raising kids is the realm for government involvement. The current structure forces more affluent to work less and have fewer kids - child tax credit phases out from $110-$130k - increasing your marginal taxes paid by 5% for each kid you have over that income range and providing no support for families making over $130k. Single parent? $75-$95K is the phaseout.

Child Care deduction is even more convoluted but dramatically reduces for higher earners on top of being capped at $3000 of expenses for one kid and $6000 for two or more. Anyone who has paid for daycare can attest that this doesn't even scratch the surface of the total cost.

Why not provide real incentive for more affluent families to have kids? These financial incentives are the reason poorer people have more children and richer have fewer. Tweak the incentives to try and push those numbers in the other direction - but not through mandates on companies and states.

 

[wizards8507]

Lots here to unpack.

Our kids benefited from socialization quite a bit in daycare. When they hit school they have been well ahead of virtually all of the stay at homers socially and academically out of the gate.

As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with daycare. I do have a problem with our tax policy pushing families towards daycare.

As for the wife's roll, barefoot and preggers is their place, right!

No, they're allowed to wear shoes.

There is no recovering from an extended departure from a career for men or women. I see (usually moms) take years off during their kids formative years only to be relegated to menial, low skill positions when they try to re-enter the work force (often once they hit school age and especially once they hit middle school and parent in school involvement is more limited).

You're equating "financial well-being" with "well-being" and I think that's extremely destructive. You say "there is no recovering from an extended departure from a career," I say "there is no recovering from lost time with children who, as we all know, grow up too fast."

So please, take care to contribute to her spousal IRA and keep her skills up to par (mind you probably not advancing) while she is child rearing.

IRAs are for the poors. I have a full pension, a Traditional 401(k), and a Roth 401(k). So we're good on retirement savings, but thanks for the advice.

Her long term mental health, including self worth and self confidence, are usually better served as her ability to be independent is preserved.

"Independence" strikes me as a remarkably backwards goal to strive for in a marriage. It's the same kind of toxic mentality that leads to pre-nups and married couples with separate bank accounts.

Not to mention the risk dependent spouses take in case they end up divorced or widowed.

I will never make any decision in my marriage based on how easy it would make it to get divorced. And the financial risk of death is completely mitigated if the working spouse is sufficiently insured (i.e. 10 times your income).

Financial risks for single income families are substantially higher than that for two income families for if/when someone loses their job.

The research doesn't support your position. Google "The Two Income Trap." It's the only thing Elizabeth Warren has ever gotten right. When both parents work, the family becomes dependent on both incomes such that the loss of either one is catastrophic. Your risk of job loss is doubled when there are two jobs to lose.

My wife stayed home with them for a year after we moved (Kindergarten and 2 year old at the time) and started getting batty. She needed work life balance and hanging with kids all day wasn't getting it done. Plus - her credentialing could only be on hold for a few years before she would have to completely re-do her NP education

That's fine, but it's also anecdotal. I've seen far more "batty" women in the work place than those my wife encounters in her "mom groups" and whatnot. The most common thing we encounter from working moms is resentment and envy.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Me9yrREXOj4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[RDU Irish]

Take it an extra step - I am a big fan of state level boarding schools. Rich folks send their problem kids to military school (or just to free up their social calendar) - I'm sure most of you know someone that took extreme measure to remove their kids from bad school/social situations paying for private schools. Not an option for the poverty level.

Controlled environment with strong role models and building habits for success.

Make it a first step for social workers - essentially removing kids from broken homes for 5 days a week or even months at a time while reducing the bad parental influence.

Give that single mom a SCHOOL CHOICE to focus on her career/job during the week while the kid(s) are at boarding school and she can give them her full attention on weekends/breaks.

 

[wizards8507]

I am a big fan of state level boarding schools.

That's some dystopian shit, brah.

 

[Rack Em]

Take it an extra step - I am a big fan of state level boarding schools. Rich folks send their problem kids to military school (or just to free up their social calendar) - I'm sure most of you know someone that took extreme measure to remove their kids from bad school/social situations paying for private schools. Not an option for the poverty level.

Controlled environment with strong role models and building habits for success.

Make it a first step for social workers - essentially removing kids from broken homes for 5 days a week or even months at a time while reducing the bad parental influence.

Give that single mom a SCHOOL CHOICE to focus on her career/job during the week while the kid(s) are at boarding school and she can give them her full attention on weekends/breaks.

That removes nearly every element of parenting and makes it a business relationship.

 

[Irish Insanity]

You think a daycare does a better job of raising a child than the child's mother?

Have you seen some of these mothers, and fathers, in modern society. Unfortunately there are cases where the daycare would be better.

I addressed this already. More mothers stay home than fathers.

That's simply because, ya know, the whole women make less thing.

 

[NDohio]

Our kids benefited from socialization quite a bit in daycare. When they hit school they have been well ahead of virtually all of the stay at homers socially and academically out of the gate.

I'll have to go home and tell my Valedictorian/Student Body President/three-time All-Region Soccer player that she is well behind all those daycare kids...

Lots here to unpack.


As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with daycare. I do have a problem with our tax policy pushing families towards daycare.


No, they're allowed to wear shoes.


You're equating "financial well-being" with "well-being" and I think that's extremely destructive. You say "there is no recovering from an extended departure from a career," I say "there is no recovering from lost time with children who, as we all know, grow up too fast."


IRAs are for the poors. I have a full pension, a Traditional 401(k), and a Roth 401(k). So we're good on retirement savings, but thanks for the advice.


"Independence" strikes me as a remarkably backwards goal to strive for in a marriage. It's the same kind of toxic mentality that leads to pre-nups and married couples with separate bank accounts.


I will never make any decision in my marriage based on how easy it would make it to get divorced. And the financial risk of death is completely mitigated if the working spouse is sufficiently insured (i.e. 10 times your income).


The research doesn't support your position. Google "The Two Income Trap." It's the only thing Elizabeth Warren has ever gotten right. When both parents work, the family becomes dependent on both incomes such that the loss of either one is catastrophic. Your risk of job loss is doubled when there are two jobs to lose.


That's fine, but it's also anecdotal. I've seen far more "batty" women in the work place than those my wife encounters in her "mom groups" and whatnot. The most common thing we encounter from working moms is resentment and envy.

All of this but especially the bold. As were are going into our youngest being a senior, every minute that we have gotten to spend with our children has been worth it.

When my wife did go back into the workplace she has had to deal with working mothers all the time that give her "it must have been nice to be able to stay at home with your children".

Take it an extra step - I am a big fan of state level boarding schools. Rich folks send their problem kids to military school (or just to free up their social calendar) - I'm sure most of you know someone that took extreme measure to remove their kids from bad school/social situations paying for private schools. Not an option for the poverty level.

Controlled environment with strong role models and building habits for success.

Make it a first step for social workers - essentially removing kids from broken homes for 5 days a week or even months at a time while reducing the bad parental influence.

Give that single mom a SCHOOL CHOICE to focus on her career/job during the week while the kid(s) are at boarding school and she can give them her full attention on weekends/breaks.

I have no words...

 

[RDU Irish]

That removes nearly every element of parenting and makes it a business relationship.

I know a lot of folks that have sent kids to military/boarding schools when their kids get mixed up in some bad shit. Good families who barely have the resources to do so but make that sacrifice to the tremendous benefit of their kids. Very high success rates and the kids thank them for it. Now if you are stuck in a shit school surrounded by drugs and gangs - wouldn't you love that option BY YOUR CHOICE? And if you are a social worker who doesn't want to remove that kid but know you need to - isn't this an easier out?

If you can't acknowledge that these scenarios exist, let alone are common - then be grateful for the utopia you are existing in.

 

[ACamp1900]

That removes nearly every element of parenting and makes it a business relationship.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The estate tax is evil and I'm disappointed that you disagree.

The individual estate tax exemption for 2016 is $5.45 million. Any couple with a net worth even remotely in that neighborhood can (and almost always does) double that amount (to ~$11 million) via a standard revocable living trust with an asset split upon the first spouse's death. Since Congress dramatically increased the exemption in 2010, fewer than 0.2% of American decedents have paid any estate tax.

Taxes, which are as old as civilization itself, fall into one of three general categories-- consumption, income or wealth. Consumption taxes are disfavored for general revenue generation because they're very regressive (since the poor consume virtually all of their income), and they're also burdensome to police/ collect. Income taxes are much easier to police/ collect, but they also disincentivize work/ investment. Wealth taxes, on the other hand, suffer from almost none of these problems. Though they're not as easy to police/ collect as income, they're the least regressive sort of tax, and they don't disincentivize any socially beneficial activities.

Estate planning is a major part of my practice, so I deal with this stuff on a daily basis. Assuming you agree that taxes are a necessary evil, why do you think the estate tax is particularly odious compared to its alternatives?

 

[connor_in]

Have you seen some of these mothers, and fathers, in modern society. Unfortunately there are cases where the daycare would be better.

Have you seen some of the daycares out there? Especially in the what is affordable range for many families?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TGRT0DRYE14" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[RDU Irish]

I'll have to go home and tell my Valedictorian/Student Body President/three-time All-Region Soccer player that she is well behind all those daycare kids...



All of this but especially the bold. As were are going into our youngest being a senior, every minute that we have gotten to spend with our children has been worth it.

When my wife did go back into the workplace she has had to deal with working mothers all the time that give her "it must have been nice to be able to stay at home with your children".



I have no words...

You should ask your kid to interpret my statement then - OUT OF THE GATE means starting out in school not finishing. Smoother transition, IMO, but that pretty much disappears by first grade.

y'all are perfect example of right wing social engineering being just as bad as left wing social engineering. Government's concern should be on economic output. Daycare subsidies increase the long term earnings potential of the working mothers (to pick on mothers) and put two people on the tax rolls instead of one. Welfare encourages having kids and not working. Incentives to encourage financially self sufficient people to have more kids without giving up careers is a good thing IMO.

Not to mention - WTF about single parents? F-U for making the wrong choice?

 

[wizards8507]

The individual estate tax exemption for 2016 is $5.45 million. Any couple with a net worth even remotely in that neighborhood can (and almost always does) double that amount (to ~$11 million) via a standard revocable living trust with an asset split upon the first spouse's death. Since Congress dramatically increased the exemption in 2010, fewer than 0.2% of American decedents have paid any estate tax.

Taxes, which are as old as civilization itself, fall into one of three general categories-- consumption, income or wealth. Consumption taxes are disfavored for general revenue generation because they're very regressive (since the poor consume virtually all of their income), and they're also burdensome to police/ collect. Income taxes are much easier to police/ collect, but they also disincentivize work/ investment. Wealth taxes, on the other hand, suffer from almost none of these problems. Though they're not as easy to police/ collect as income, they're the least regressive sort of tax, and they don't disincentivize any socially beneficial activities.

Estate planning is a major part of my practice, so I deal with this stuff on a daily basis. Assuming you agree that taxes are a necessary evil, why do you think the estate tax is particularly odious compared to its alternatives?

If we were debating the merits of income tax OR estate tax, I might agree with you. However, our system has both (among others) and the income tax isn't going anywhere. For that reason, I object to the estate tax on the grounds that it's the final cog in a machine of compound taxation.

Consumers pay consumption taxes on goods and services they acquire from companies. Companies are taxed on profits. Employees pay taxes on their salaries and use the net proceeds to become investors. Investors are taxed when their investments go up in value or when dividends (the already-taxed profits of companies) are paid. Then you want to tax that balance again when the investor dies?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If we were debating the merits of income tax OR estate tax, I might agree with you. However, our system has both (among others) and the income tax isn't going anywhere. For that reason, I object to the estate tax on the grounds that it's the final cog in a machine of compound taxation.

Consumers pay consumption taxes on goods and services they acquire from companies. Companies are taxed on profits. Employees pay taxes on their salaries and use the net proceeds to become investors. Investors are taxed when their investments go up in value or when dividends (the already-taxed profits of companies) are paid. Then you want to tax that balance again when the investor dies?

I posted about a major Republican donor claiming that repealing the estate tax is "the linchpin of the conservative movement." That the GOP is still being steered by idiots like that during a populist revolt would embarrass even Marie Antoinette.

Of all the ways our government collects revenue, the estate tax is the least regressive and the least distorting. You can make a strong case that our byzantine tax system is drastically in need of simplification, but it's still inexcusable that the GOP is out to kill the least problematic tax we currently collect.

 

[wizards8507]

I posted about a major Republican donor claiming that repealing the estate tax is "the linchpin of the conservative movement." That the GOP is still being steered by idiots like that during a populist revolt would embarrass even Marie Antoinette.

Yes, principle aside, that comment is asinine and tone deaf from a purely political perspective.

Of all the ways our government collects revenue, the estate tax is the least regressive and the least distorting. You can make a strong case that our byzantine tax system is drastically in need of simplification, but it's still inexcusable that the GOP is out to kill the least problematic tax we currently collect.

*Shrug.* It's the only tax that seems killable. Even if it's the least problematic tax, I still consider the elimination of any tax a net positive thing.

 

[RDU Irish]

Lots here to unpack.


As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with daycare. I do have a problem with our tax policy pushing families towards daycare.


No, they're allowed to wear shoes.


You're equating "financial well-being" with "well-being" and I think that's extremely destructive. You say "there is no recovering from an extended departure from a career," I say "there is no recovering from lost time with children who, as we all know, grow up too fast."

Your feeling is subjective while the majority of the "wage gap" discussion is a result of women taking time off to be caregivers for children and parents.


IRAs are for the poors. I have a full pension, a Traditional 401(k), and a Roth 401(k). So we're good on retirement savings, but thanks for the advice.

I, I, I have so we are good... your wife is fully dependent on you and you obviously prefer it that way.

"Independence" strikes me as a remarkably backwards goal to strive for in a marriage. It's the same kind of toxic mentality that leads to pre-nups and married couples with separate bank accounts.


I will never make any decision in my marriage based on how easy it would make it to get divorced. And the financial risk of death is completely mitigated if the working spouse is sufficiently insured (i.e. 10 times your income).

10x will only replace 40% to 50% of your income - 10x is a rule of thumb from a time of much higher interest rates. Not to mention disability which can be more financially debilitating than death for a variety of reasons.

The research doesn't support your position. Google "The Two Income Trap." It's the only thing Elizabeth Warren has ever gotten right. When both parents work, the family becomes dependent on both incomes such that the loss of either one is catastrophic. Your risk of job loss is doubled when there are two jobs to lose.

This makes zero sense - if you live paycheck to paycheck - you are at risk with any reduction of income whether it is from one income or two. At the same time - a 100% reduction of income is absolutely more devastating than a 40%-60% loss of income. In addition - you have ability to reduce more expenses as two income family going to one with daycare expenses, shopping, food prep, etc.

That's fine, but it's also anecdotal. I've seen far more "batty" women in the work place than those my wife encounters in her "mom groups" and whatnot. The most common thing we encounter from working moms is resentment and envy.

We can surely agree that one size does not fit all.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Me9yrREXOj4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

.

 

[wizards8507]

I, I, I have so we are good... your wife is fully dependent on you and you obviously prefer it that way.

Hey...

Fuck you.