Posted on 09/13/2016 4:44:33 PM PDT by bobsunshine
NEW YORK, NY – Today Mr. Trump will proposes an innovative plan to bring federal tax policies in line with the needs of today's families. His plan is not for the wealthy, but rather provides the biggest benefit to working- and middle-class families. This plan is needed because child care expenses are one of the largest expenses in many families, complicating a family's decision on how to care for young children. The Trump reforms will allow a family to make the choice of whether a parent should work outside the home or not without bias from the tax code. Having employed and empowered thousands of women at every level throughout his entire career, Donald Trump understands the needs of the modern workforce.
Proposals Contained In Mr. Trump Child Care Plan
PROPOSAL: The Trump plan will rewrite the tax code to allow working parents to deduct from their income taxes child care expenses for up to four children and elderly dependents. •The deduction is available for taxpayers who take the standard deduction as well as itemize deductions, and will be capped at the average cost of care for the state of residence. Individuals earning more than $250,000 (or $500,000 if filing jointly) will not be eligible for the deduction. For a family earning $70,000 per year in the 12 percent tax bracket with $7,000 in child care expenses, the deduction would reduce taxes by $840 per year. •The plan will offer child care spending rebates to lower-income taxpayers through the existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). This could mean almost $1,200 per year per eligible family. •Mr. Trump's plan will ensure stay-at-home parents will receive the same tax deduction as working parents, offering compensation for the job they're already doing, and allowing them to choose the child care scenario that's in their best interest.
PROPOSAL: The Trump plan would create new Dependent Care Savings Accounts (DCSAs) so that families can set aside extra money to foster their children's development and offset elder care for their parents or adult dependents. These new accounts are available to everyone, and allow both tax-deductible contributions and tax-free appreciation year-to-year-unlike current law Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), which are available only if it is offered by an employer and does not allow balances to accumulate. •When established for a minor, funds from a DCSA can be applied to traditional child care, after-school enrichment programs and school tuition-contributing to school choice. To help lower-income parents, the government will match half of the first $1,000 deposited per year. •When established for an elderly dependent, a DCSA can cover a variety of services, including in-home nursing and long-term care.
PROPOSAL: Mr. Trump's plan will provide regulatory reform to promote new family-based and community-based solutions, and also add incentives for employers to provide child care at the workplace. The ability to set aside funds will be particularly helpful to women, low-income workers and minorities, who are statistically more likely to reduce time working outside the home in order to provide unpaid care.
PROPOSAL: The Trump plan will guarantee six weeks of paid maternity leave by amending the existing unemployment insurance (UI) that companies are required to carry. The benefit would apply only when employers don't offer paid maternity leave, and would be paid for by offsetting reductions in the program so that taxes are not raised. This enhancement will triple the average paid leave received by new mothers.
BFL
Nice.....................
A bureaucrat/accountant’s dream...
LOL, your post pic!!
OUTSTANDING, we are all in the same basket. :)
#ILLary just being #ILLary.
I worked in corporations all my life. The top execs and shareholders always, always came first, second, third and then some. It was very difficult during my child-rearing era when women were new in the exec suite, pay really was unequal then, and childcare options were fewer.
What I take from this article is that he says there will be no net increase in costs to employers. The plan has foreseen that some employers will try to game the system and has answered perhaps the most obvious attempt.
What I would like to know is whether there is an exemption cut-off, such as businesses hiring fewer than 50 people or fewer than 25, etc. to protect entrepreneurs and start-ups.
Could you describe your specific objections, in relation to what he wrote there?
There is a segment of the USA population that gets screwed with all the benefits for ‘children & their parents”.
I am female. 76 + years old & still doing some part time work.
I NEVER had any children.
Every time a woman was out of work to have a kid or another kid, the work load just increased for all of us. When she came back to the job,the time off the doctor’s visits, etc, were legendary.
I was punished by these kids of laws for NOT having any kids. Discrimination-——
IF you want to work-—then WORK——
IF you want to have kids-—then have kids.
NOT BOTH. Yes, Virginia-—you CANNOT have it all. Choose!!!
As a life long bookkeeper, I can well imagine small businesses are cringing over all these new PAID benefits for new parents. Minimum wages-—Obamacare-—now this. Iknow a number of clients I once had would fold under the weight of all these government demanded payments for getting pregnant. I also worked many jobs where there were NO health or dental benefits. IF I owned a business today & needed employees, I would pay them more & let them find their own health care. It is a never-ending nightmare to administer such benefits.
My brother had about 60 employees year around. He calculated that it took over 1 1/2 employees to do all the administration of the paperwork JUST TO HAVE THE BENEFITS ......One got paid over $75,000 a year due to the complex rules they had to follow.
Could you describe your objections in relation to what he actually wrote there? You were self-employed, right?
I'm wondering how that would affect start-ups and whether there is an exemption for small businesses.
Legally they can't be fired for maternity leave.
As with many other things, a Trump admin is going to have to be the bulldozer and the developer. He may be able to make plans for a great conservative future, but it will take more than one administration to get there—it has taken the best part of a century to sink this low, and it began with the communist revolution of 1910 and its Fabian Socialist infiltrators from Wilson through FDR, the SCOTUS, Senator Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, the Clintons and Obama to totally destroy the relationship between the sexes. Marxist/feminism has altered society and law to regard the basic social unit as the individual, not the family as the Founders clearly intended.
If the next administration just lowers a conservative boom, it would leave existing children and teens very vulnerable and continue to throw many into poverty and a feral existence, such as we are seeing in the Dem strongholds, only then it would be "our" fault.
We have to grow our way back to a family-oriented culture, and I hope that under Trump's leadership there can be some progress. But we cannot expect perfection. As others have noted, I'm willing to accept this bitter pill (I gagged when Ivanka brought it up at the convention, but my 30-something offspring thought it was great), if it means having a restored economy, slashed immigration, a rebuilt military and excellent justices of the SCOTUS.
How would you do that? And what about divorced mothers?
As for the complaints people are having over the nature of this tax break— not being available to people making 250k or more: I can’t fathom a single reason why Trump should make himself vulnerable to attacks of “another tax break for the rich!” just to make ideologues feel better about tax fairness.
As a tax deduction it will not help the average working family at all because with current deductions and credits a very large percentage already pay no taxes. So what does another deduction do for them?
On a political level, the fact it is for the middle and worker class is just a brilliant move. It wins these people over, pulls the rug from beneath the Democrats, and attracts women.
Not when they realize it doesn't help them at all.
We have bigger priorities to fight right now, and this plan helps solve real problems Americans are having.
Not really, no.
And what if those increases don't materialize?
That's factored in. Read the plan linked to the header.
You mean the EITC. That's what allows most lower income families to pay no taxes to begin with so it's already there. With the expansion mentioned, maximum of $1200, then that will provide little help.
I love the smell of BS in the late morning
I was never self-employed,but worked for a company that DID allow 6 weeks paid maternity leave. When several were out at one time the rest of us were overworked but at least the taxpayer wasn’t footing the bill which would happen with Trump’s plan.
I also think childcare tax credit for a couple earning as much as $500,000.00 a year is dreadful.
.
You have an interesting point. That is normally how things work.
I was just referring to the mom staying home isn’t affordable anymore. I went PT and made big sacrifices. But, it was so worth it. Up to 5, kids don’t realize that things are 2nd hand or not up to date. Later they start wanting stuff that has a heftier price tag. I’d call those days being tight and working pt some of the best days. Of course I had a good savings to fall back on for unexpected issues (car repairs, extra time off, etc). But,. A simpler life is good.
It’s sad that things have come to this, thanks to the groups and people you mentioned, but I can’t disagree with anything you said. You stated it very well.
I have to agree with you on that last point. Perhaps their family does have a blind spot on where the break-even point is with most people.
As far as others working harder to help the women out on leave, that is a good thing unless it breeds resentment in a small shop; but it’s also good if the tax code addresses actual inequities between those who bear children and those who don’t. It’s a big can of worms, but we have to start somewhere. See my post 130 above.
And thanks for replying! :-)
A tax deduction for the medical costs of your children is getting back money that is, otherwise, being looted from you via healthcare costs far higher than our European counterparts. There are people in the United States going bankrupt because they can't afford their medical bills, and this tax break for children is a welcome relief from that. Yes, lots of working class Americans will be getting back a larger tax refund as a result, and I support that 100%. Coming from a dirt poor working class family, I know this money is depended on by folks who have seen their quality of life and wages deteriorate thanks to 'TruCon" subservience to "Free Trade". A larger tax refund means not having to spend all this money to fatten up your local pharmaceutical company when you could be buying a new car or taking a class. I'll also add that the costs are so minimal that they'll largely be paid back anyway in Trump's overall tax plan, so there's no legitimate complaint other than doctrinal purity at stake here.
Government social engineering always inevitably ends in disaster.
Blind devotion to Libertarian economics also has a nasty tendency of leading to disaster. Just look at Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz and their support for TPP or Chinese manufacturing. When you have True Conservatives standing up for third world labor, it's time to take a deep breath, step back, and begin to ponder an important question: Why does common sense and national interest not trump abstract ideology?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.