Daycare.com Forum

Go Back   Daycare.com Forum > Daycare and Taxes

Daycare and Taxes All things related to Taxes and running a Daycare post here. Topics of tax exemptions, forms, filings, tax write offs, IRS etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-16-2017, 01:34 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default Government Tax Plan Will Be Good For Business

In order to get Senator Rubio's vote on the new tax bill, the language included tax breaks for families that use childcare. Increasing the refundability of the Child Tax Credit from 55% to 70%. If it passes, this expansion will be good for daycare/childcare businesses.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/u...-tax-bill.html

Republicans’ $1.5 Trillion Tax Plan Appears on Track to Pass Next Week
"One of the biggest changes came on Friday, when lawmakers agreed to a demand by Mr. Rubio to expand the child tax credit by allowing families who owe no federal income taxes to still claim up to $1,400 of the $2,000 child tax credit, up from $1,100 in the original version. But that change was offset by limiting the bill’s benefits to some higher-income families, and by restricting it to children age 16 and below, down from 17 and below in the Senate bill. The net result was a credit that is more lucrative for lower-income earners but actually slightly less costly than the Senate bill."
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-16-2017, 04:00 PM
Sunchimes's Avatar
Sunchimes Sunchimes is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,795
Default How?

I'm not trying to argue, but I don't see how this will help me. I don't have kids at home. It isn't going to make parents say, "Hmm, I think I will get a job and find daycare since they raised the child care credit." I'm almost 65, I think it is going to hurt us in ways I can't even begin to predict.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:31 AM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunchimes View Post
I'm not trying to argue, but I don't see how this will help me. I don't have kids at home. It isn't going to make parents say, "Hmm, I think I will get a job and find daycare since they raised the child care credit." I'm almost 65, I think it is going to hurt us in ways I can't even begin to predict.
It would seem that parents would have more money and options to spend on their childcare. I guess we will see if more businesses have an uptick on income as it plays out in the future.
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2017, 04:47 AM
Josiegirl's Avatar
Josiegirl Josiegirl is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Right here
Posts: 8,820
Default

I haven't read much about the upcoming tax changes, ok, I haven't read any of it.
What other changes are happening that will affect us? Lower middle class, to be exact.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2017, 06:45 AM
Cat Herder's Avatar
Cat Herder Cat Herder is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,693
Default

Where will this tax break be funded from, though?

IME, giving young parents a break that equates to more available income does not change their priorities. How many of us have given free childcare to help out a family "in need" only to have them buy big screen TV's, gaming stations or I-Phones then post about it on Facebook? I have.

I don't think this will trickle to childcare providers. Maybe it will benefit the retail and service industry as a whole. That may benefit our local economy by association. Unless, of course, the source of the funding comes from our seniors of other groups who actually put in the hard work and deserve it.
__________________
- Unless otherwise stated, all my posts are personal opinion and worth what you paid for them.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-17-2017, 03:55 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Herder View Post
Where will this tax break be funded from, though?

IME, giving young parents a break that equates to more available income does not change their priorities. How many of us have given free childcare to help out a family "in need" only to have them buy big screen TV's, gaming stations or I-Phones then post about it on Facebook? I have.

I don't think this will trickle to childcare providers. Maybe it will benefit the retail and service industry as a whole. That may benefit our local economy by association. Unless, of course, the source of the funding comes from our seniors of other groups who actually put in the hard work and deserve it.
This would be better answered by Tom Copeland or your accountant. In order to get the deduction, a parent would need to spend the money on childcare. Parents would have to spend money in order to get the money back. It offers parents the ability to now spend more on the childcare, since they can deduct more. That’s how I am reading it.

How we pay for it or any expenditure is in the model that is put forth by Congress. We added a extra $10 trillion to our debt the last eight years. You can decide if it was well spent or not. Our GDP was pretty stagnant during that time around 2 % per year. Every point that it goes up, adds $3 trillion into the economy per year (says Wilbur Ross, current United States Secretary of Commerce.). We were pretty well tapped out with $20 trillion in debt but with the current GDP rising per quarter, it should allow for more headroom to borrow and spend. The coming budget bill has to still be approved but I think the added money flowing into the economy will give Congress reason to approve and pass it.

GDP (Gross Domestic Product) Defined: https://www.thebalance.com/component...-chart-3306015

http://www.bushcenter.org/publicatio...r-america.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/26/tax-...-gdp-jump.html
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-17-2017, 07:37 PM
Tigerlilly's Avatar
Tigerlilly Tigerlilly is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 65
Default

Well it might have some small benefits but the larger picture is that this is not good for the poor and benefits the wealthy by a large margin. I am not into kicking people when they are down.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-17-2017, 08:46 PM
hwichlaz's Avatar
hwichlaz hwichlaz is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: California
Posts: 1,737
Default

This hurts me. Kids suddenly become VERY expensive at 16. We should still be getting that tax credit...it should have been expanded until 18, not reduced to 16.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-18-2017, 03:14 AM
nannyde's Avatar
nannyde nannyde is offline
All powerful, all knowing daycare whisperer
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 7,233
Default

I'm very anxious to hear Tom Copeland's view of it once he gets his highly experienced in child care issues paws on the final bill.

I'm particularly interested in deductions. Now that my son is nearly 18, I will be back to single instead of single head of household. I hope we are still able to deduct time space, payroll, and goods as we have in the past.

I agree the child tax credit should have extended to 18 instead of increasing the existing credit. They are way more expensive as they get older (and more annoying which we should be compensated for in some fashion).
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-18-2017, 03:32 AM
daycarediva's Avatar
daycarediva daycarediva is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nannyde View Post
I'm very anxious to hear Tom Copeland's view of it once he gets his highly experienced in child care issues paws on the final bill.

I'm particularly interested in deductions. Now that my son is nearly 18, I will be back to single instead of single head of household. I hope we are still able to deduct time space, payroll, and goods as we have in the past.

I agree the child tax credit should have extended to 18 instead of increasing the existing credit. They are way more expensive as they get older (and more annoying which we should be compensated for in some fashion).
hear hear!

Seriously, we have two kids left for the child tax credit and pay out the wazoo in taxes (both self employed, and our gross puts us in a higher tax bracket)

I would like to see special needs kids have a higher deduction, for instance, and for LIFE, if they're 100% disabled and will always be a dependent (like my 16 year old son)
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:23 AM
Cat Herder's Avatar
Cat Herder Cat Herder is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
This would be better answered by Tom Copeland or your accountant. In order to get the deduction, a parent would need to spend the money on childcare. Parents would have to spend money in order to get the money back. It offers parents the ability to now spend more on the childcare, since they can deduct more. Thatís how I am reading it.
Thanks That makes more sense.
__________________
- Unless otherwise stated, all my posts are personal opinion and worth what you paid for them.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:29 AM
mommyneedsadayoff's Avatar
mommyneedsadayoff mommyneedsadayoff is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,656
Default

From what I read, it should benefit everyone, because it reduces rates. Of course, wealthier will be benefited more, because they pay more taxes, but I think it reduces the tax burden on the middle class as well, so hopefully everyone gets to keep more of the money they have earned.

As far as paying for it, they need to start managing things more efficiently, so our tax money goes farther. Although, I have read that our tax money actually just goes to pay the interest on our debt at this point, so it's not really aiding social programs or helping to fund the hundreds programs we have now, but regardless, the amount of money wasted is mind boggling. The defense budget is a huge portion of funds that are wasted and misused. Trillions have been spent on war and it looks to have no end in sight. There are numerous dept of the government that have been proven to be highly inefficient, yet they remain operating as usual. (The TSA is one recent one that comes to mind).

All in all, though, I wanted a reduce rate and the Obama care mandate to be gone, but until the tax code is simplified to the point of being like 5 pages , it's all kind of smoke and mirrors. You think you are saving, but you are paying more somewhere else, because I really don't think our government can afford to let us keep more of our own money.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-18-2017, 05:38 AM
midaycare's Avatar
midaycare midaycare is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,659
Default

I'm a big fan of trickle down economics, I do think it works. Lowering the cost to do business in America was essential to make us competitive in the global market.

The thing about this kind of plan is it will take time to see how it affects us.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:20 AM
Tigerlilly's Avatar
Tigerlilly Tigerlilly is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Michigan
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by midaycare View Post
I'm a big fan of trickle down economics, I do think it works. Lowering the cost to do business in America was essential to make us competitive in the global market.

The thing about this kind of plan is it will take time to see how it affects us.
We'll, you're wrong. Trickle down did not work in the 80's under Reagan and was a miserable failure under Bush. The wealthy are a very small group of people. They do not have the purchasing power to grow or stabilize an economy. It doesn't matter how much money they have to put towards their businesses. If buyers do not have the money to buy goods and services companies do not grow.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-18-2017, 06:28 AM
midaycare's Avatar
midaycare midaycare is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Midwest
Posts: 5,659
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigerlilly View Post
We'll, you're wrong. Trickle down did not work in the 80's under Reagan and was a miserable failure under Bush. The wealthy are a very small group of people. They do not have the purchasing power to grow or stabilize an economy. It doesn't matter how much money they have to put towards their businesses. If buyers do not have the money to buy goods and services companies do not grow.
Okay. I'm out of the conversation here. In my opinion it works.

I realize I'm a conservative (that doesn't mean Republican) and I enjoy the heck out of Trump. That doesn't make my opinions popular with many in this group, but it doesn't make me wrong.

I would spend the time, effort, and energy to back up my statements, but to what purpose? You don't sound like you're in the mood to have a kind debate.

This forum is for kind support of others.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-18-2017, 12:38 PM
Miss A's Avatar
Miss A Miss A is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
This would be better answered by Tom Copeland or your accountant. In order to get the deduction, a parent would need to spend the money on childcare. Parents would have to spend money in order to get the money back. It offers parents the ability to now spend more on the childcare, since they can deduct more. That’s how I am reading it.
I see CatHearders POV, and while this may seem like a logical thought process regarding $$, many low income families will not use it to their benefit.

I termed a family like this. They received their childcare credit, used a portion to pay their bills, but then instead of putting the rest into savings to pay future bills, they blew it. Big screen Tv's, New phones, name brand clothing for themselves, you name it. Then, August rolled around, and surprise surprise the family could not afford to pay their bills, they had fallen behind on loan payments for items they purchased with their tax money.

I just see this as a continuing cycle, one that having more expendable income at the end of the year will not solve.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-18-2017, 01:19 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss A View Post
I see CatHearders POV, and while this may seem like a logical thought process regarding $$, many low income families will not use it to their benefit.

I termed a family like this. They received their childcare credit, used a portion to pay their bills, but then instead of putting the rest into savings to pay future bills, they blew it. Big screen Tv's, New phones, name brand clothing for themselves, you name it. Then, August rolled around, and surprise surprise the family could not afford to pay their bills, they had fallen behind on loan payments for items they purchased with their tax money.

I just see this as a continuing cycle, one that having more expendable income at the end of the year will not solve.
I would imagine most "low income" families are on some type of subsidy anyway and would never have benefited from this provision.

Our only way of finding out if it helps will be in the way our businesses and livelihoods advance or not in the coming months and years. Just like the Legislative and Executive branches. If our lives are not better in 4 years, we get to change what is not working. If they pass this bill, at least we get to see if it works.
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-19-2017, 10:08 AM
TomCopeland's Avatar
TomCopeland TomCopeland is offline
Business Author/Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,783
Default New tax bill

I'm waiting for Congress to pass the bill before I write about it. I'll be posting an article about it shortly thereafter and how it affects family child care.
__________________
http://www.tomcopelandblog.com
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-19-2017, 10:15 AM
daycarediva's Avatar
daycarediva daycarediva is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by midaycare View Post
Okay. I'm out of the conversation here. In my opinion it works.

I realize I'm a conservative (that doesn't mean Republican) and I enjoy the heck out of Trump. That doesn't make my opinions popular with many in this group, but it doesn't make me wrong.

I would spend the time, effort, and energy to back up my statements, but to what purpose? You don't sound like you're in the mood to have a kind debate.

This forum is for kind support of others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by midaycare View Post
I'm a big fan of trickle down economics, I do think it works. Lowering the cost to do business in America was essential to make us competitive in the global market.

The thing about this kind of plan is it will take time to see how it affects us.

As a fellow trump supporter, I will stand up for you here. Trickle down economics WOULD work. Yes, they reduce the federal budget, but they have a multiplier effect on economic growth. Tax cuts put money back in business owners pockets- which they spend, right back into the economy. My dad owned a construction company and the 80's/under Reagan, he had over 100 employees and they had great benefits, solely because of his tax cuts. When those were rescinded, he had to let employees go.

It's not just little ole college educated, upper middle class, minority, small business owning trump supporters like me who agree- many economists concur.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...rt-laffer-says

I live in NY, and my husband and I are both small business owners. Nothing screams STALLED GROWTH more than New York State. Our businesses are so over taxed it's easier to just move out of state, or shut down, or hire a better accountant to get more tax loopholes than it is to hire more employees and advance our businesses. We tend to hoard money, not spend it, because the tax breaks aren't there and we always end up paying in, to both the state and the IRS, in addition to our quarterly tax bills- which alone could easily support a family of 4.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-19-2017, 10:17 AM
daycarediva's Avatar
daycarediva daycarediva is online now
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 11,201
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I would imagine most "low income" families are on some type of subsidy anyway and would never have benefited from this provision.

Our only way of finding out if it helps will be in the way our businesses and livelihoods advance or not in the coming months and years. Just like the Legislative and Executive branches. If our lives are not better in 4 years, we get to change what is not working. If they pass this bill, at least we get to see if it works.
Depends on the availability of subsidy. I have two families enrolled who certainly qualify- both work FT, but right around minimum wage. After childcare, they're scraping by. The waiting lists in our state are pretty harsh right now.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-19-2017, 11:11 AM
Cat Herder's Avatar
Cat Herder Cat Herder is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
I would imagine most "low income" families are on some type of subsidy anyway and would never have benefited from this provision.
I was referring to the working poor, like I was as a young parent, who make just enough to not be eligible for subsidy. Due to our own life choices. I have no experience of receiving subsidies or help finding resources in my youth. It led me to try harder, dig deeper. I also did not always make the best decisions at that age (18-25) . My post was not so much intended to be judgement as it is what I view as truth from experience. From my perspective.

All that to say I'd like to see more help for our seniors. A group I do not belong to, btw. That was my intent.
__________________
- Unless otherwise stated, all my posts are personal opinion and worth what you paid for them.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-19-2017, 11:43 AM
Cat Herder's Avatar
Cat Herder Cat Herder is offline
Advanced Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 9,693
Default

Joint filers

12 percent: $19,050 to $77,400
22 percent: $77,400 to $165,000

__________________
- Unless otherwise stated, all my posts are personal opinion and worth what you paid for them.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-19-2017, 12:35 PM
CityGarden's Avatar
CityGarden CityGarden is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: The Happiest Place on Earth
Posts: 1,575
Default

I am not seeing any benefits from the plan to me (yet)..... I am waiting on others in this field like Tom to chime in.
  • I am hopeful my business deductions will be the same or better as I cannot afford to not have those and stay in this business.
  • I am also hopeful removing the individual mandate will not cause my insurance premiums to sky rockets. I already felt the increase in premiums under the ACA and do not see any incentive to insurance companies to reduce those premiums based on this tax bill. Health insurance is large monthly expense for the middle class.
  • I am concerned about eliminating the deduction for state and local income taxes - I'm in California so one of the highest rates in the nation I believe. This can mean a great deal of money for me.
  • Lastly I am concerned about repeal of several tax exemptions and deductions for higher education. To reach my career and professional goals I will need to get my Master's and possibly higher. Given the high cost of those programs I'm concerned...
I personally would be more supportive of taxes IF I felt they contributed to me personally (i.e. universal health care, high quality free public education Kindergarten - Phd, etc.). We have been a war my entire life, Sept. 11th, mass shootings by Americans on US soil, mass incarceration, outside countries hacking on US companies (Sony, etc.) and on our election process --- sorry but I do not feel "protected" to justify our massive defense spending.

Further, I do not understand why the Republicans would not be the party pushing for universal heath care --- based on my study of history in the past they would have been the party most likely to back something like it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-19-2017, 02:35 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGarden View Post
I am not seeing any benefits from the plan to me (yet)..... I am waiting on others in this field like Tom to chime in.

I am also hopeful removing the individual mandate will not cause my insurance premiums to sky rockets.
Yes, it will be interesting to hear what Tom says. He understands the childcare field and how tax deductions work in our favor.

Health insurance should be as easy as car insurance. Without the mandate you could choose catastrophic insurance and just pay for regular medicals bills yourself. That is what I have been doing anyways with the high deductible for insurance that I couldn't use. My high cost insurance never paid for anything. Currently in California, it is against the law to buy catastrophic insurance without having standard health insurance.

How about I just choose the insurance that I need. I don't need to pay for mammograms but I'm currently covered for them. As a a matter of fact, I don't go to doctors or take medication. I spend a fortune though on quality foods. I want to spend my money on what I need. I only pay a few thousand dollars on all my cars and I am covered to the max and can include a million dollar umbrella policy for a few extra hundred dollars. That is how health insurance should be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGarden View Post
I am concerned about eliminating the deduction for state and local income taxes - I'm in California so one of the highest rates in the nation I believe. This can mean a great deal of money for me.
Well you are right there. California along with states like New York and New Jersey are going to get hit. I believe its political payback to some extent in order to "feel the pain" of liberal policies and government in those states.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CityGarden View Post
Further, I do not understand why the Republicans would not be the party pushing for universal heath care --- based on my study of history in the past they would have been the party most likely to back something like it.
Its too expensive. (BernieCare would cost roughly $13.8 trillion over its first decade of operation). If the government could keep the GDP at 4% or higher per year and get the federal deficit to single digits, it could be possible but with pharma and the medical fields charging such high costs, it makes it improbable IMO. I would rather everyone have free preventive care. That would be a medical insurance in itself.
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html

Last edited by Michael; 12-19-2017 at 02:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-19-2017, 09:54 PM
CityGarden's Avatar
CityGarden CityGarden is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: The Happiest Place on Earth
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Yes, it will be interesting to hear what Tom says. He understands the childcare field and how tax deductions work in our favor.

Health insurance should be as easy as car insurance. Without the mandate you could choose catastrophic insurance and just pay for regular medicals bills yourself. That is what I have been doing anyways with the high deductible for insurance that I couldn't use. My high cost insurance never paid for anything. Currently in California, it is against the law to buy catastrophic insurance without having standard health insurance.

How about I just choose the insurance that I need. I don't need to pay for mammograms but I'm currently covered for them. As a a matter of fact, I don't go to doctors or take medication. I spend a fortune though on quality foods. I want to spend my money on what I need. I only pay a few thousand dollars on all my cars and I am covered to the max and can include a million dollar umbrella policy for a few extra hundred dollars. That is how health insurance should be.
I have a SA child with allergies and I need full coverage but it should not need to cost me so much money. I can insure a high end car full coverage for less than I can insure my daughter and myself for health care ---- that is a shame. Sadly I make too much to get entitlements and too little to not feel the sting financially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Well you are right there. California along with states like New York and New Jersey are going to get hit. I believe its political payback to some extent in order to "feel the pain" of liberal policies and government in those states.
Yes I do feel like perhaps we are being punished like naughty children, but I was trying to not be political in my post. Just sharing my concerns on the tax aspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Its too expensive. (BernieCare would cost roughly $13.8 trillion over its first decade of operation). If the government could keep the GDP at 4% or higher per year and get the federal deficit to single digits, it could be possible but with pharma and the medical fields charging such high costs, it makes it improbable IMO. I would rather everyone have free preventive care. That would be a medical insurance in itself.
I was not saying BernieCare (and honestly I don't know what that was... ) I am talking way prior to the ACA, prior to the Clinton's attempt at health care.... it just seemed like an initiative the Republicans would have owned in the past. Also "too expensive" is relative.... this tax bill shows the government is okay with the risk of expanding the debt, the amount of defense spending, etc. it is all a matter of priorities.

But I am going to try to remain hopeful...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-20-2017, 12:05 PM
Mom2Two's Avatar
Mom2Two Mom2Two is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: U. S. A.
Posts: 1,239
Default

Does anyone know if the credit is refundable from business taxes owed? So many deductions don't apply to business taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-20-2017, 12:27 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom2Two View Post
Does anyone know if the credit is refundable from business taxes owed? So many deductions don't apply to business taxes.
Tom Copeland is waiting for the tax bill to be signed and released to the public. He will then write an article and give us some answers.
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html

Last edited by Michael; 12-20-2017 at 01:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-20-2017, 01:02 PM
TomCopeland's Avatar
TomCopeland TomCopeland is offline
Business Author/Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,783
Default Health insurance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Yes, it will be interesting to hear what Tom says. He understands the childcare field and how tax deductions work in our favor.

Health insurance should be as easy as car insurance. Without the mandate you could choose catastrophic insurance and just pay for regular medicals bills yourself. That is what I have been doing anyways with the high deductible for insurance that I couldn't use. My high cost insurance never paid for anything. Currently in California, it is against the law to buy catastrophic insurance without having standard health insurance.

How about I just choose the insurance that I need. I don't need to pay for mammograms but I'm currently covered for them. As a a matter of fact, I don't go to doctors or take medication. I spend a fortune though on quality foods. I want to spend my money on what I need. I only pay a few thousand dollars on all my cars and I am covered to the max and can include a million dollar umbrella policy for a few extra hundred dollars. That is how health insurance should be.



Well you are right there. California along with states like New York and New Jersey are going to get hit. I believe its political payback to some extent in order to "feel the pain" of liberal policies and government in those states.



Its too expensive. (BernieCare would cost roughly $13.8 trillion over its first decade of operation). If the government could keep the GDP at 4% or higher per year and get the federal deficit to single digits, it could be possible but with pharma and the medical fields charging such high costs, it makes it improbable IMO. I would rather everyone have free preventive care. That would be a medical insurance in itself.
The problem with you saying that you only want to buy the type of health insurance you want is that you don't know what's going to happen to your health in the future. So, you buy a cheap policy now because your health is good, but next year you get a serious illness that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Secondly, car insurance is not like health insurance. Yes, an umbrella policy will cover you for most car accidents, but there is no similar policy for health insurance because of the unknowable high cost of medical expenses. That's the point of requiring everyone to get basic health insurance. The healthly subsidize the sick. Then when the healthy get sick, they know that they will be covered.

And what about those, under the new law, choose not to be insured at all because the mandate is gone. When they get sick, who will pay? We all will pay. And it will be more expensive because the uninsured are less likely to seek preventative care and this will cost more in the long run.

Isn't it better that we all pay in for insurance knowing that we may not need every aspect of the coverage, but knowing that everyone will be covered. When everyone is paying something for insurance, the premiums are lower for all of us.
__________________
http://www.tomcopelandblog.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-20-2017, 02:46 PM
Michael's Avatar
Michael Michael is online now
Admin & Owner-Daycare.com
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Moorpark CA, Ocean Ridge, FL
Posts: 6,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCopeland View Post
The problem with you saying that you only want to buy the type of health insurance you want is that you don't know what's going to happen to your health in the future.
Yes, that is why I have insurance. I don't go cheap on my car premiums either but I pay far less than my health insurance. One of my cars alone was covered in 2 accident for over $140k. I only pay $2000 a year on that car and my insurance company has not dropped me. Health insurance in this country is broken, even with the ACA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCopeland View Post
That's the point of requiring everyone to get basic health insurance. The healthy subsidize the sick. Then when the healthy get sick, they know that they will be covered.
I understand the concept but it doesn't and hasn't worked, just ask the people that can't pay the high premiums for their $10k deductible insurance.

There are many things "Americans" can do to make our health better. When I was younger, I use to be on food stamps and welfare. It was embarrassing when, at the checkout counter, they had to tear off the food stamps in front of everyone. These days those stamps are replaced by a subsidized EBT card. Many of the people that I see using these cards are buying the most destructive foods for their bodies. Not only will it make them less healthy, but they are going to be worse off as they get older unless they change their lifestyle. The expense for bad personal health management only compounds over time. This is another part of our failed health-care system. If people can't manage their health, there is not enough money in the world to take care of them. Likewise, the unhealthy will be less likely to contribute to paying those costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCopeland View Post
And what about those, under the new law, choose not to be insured at all because the mandate is gone. When they get sick, who will pay? We all will pay. And it will be more expensive because the uninsured are less likely to seek preventative care and this will cost more in the long run.
Medical and pharmaceutical costs are out of control. One of the things I actually liked about paying my medical costs myself, was being able to negotiate that cost with different doctors. They wanted my cash and would charge me less in order to get immediately paid. That is empowering but in essence I only have catastrophic insurance covering me while my insurance premium is paying for someone else's insurance.

There should be cross-state competition, cross-country medication competition. There could be many ways to manage the costs better. Likewise, with over $20 trillion in debt, we can't afford to insure everyone totally, but we should totally insure everyone with preventative care. Whereas everyone gets basic care along with health/food/lifestyle education and management. Preconditions must be covered, but if younger citizens don't want full coverage or no coverage, that should be their choice with the consequences. Catastrophic insurance should be a stand-alone plan and not predicated on high deductibles and as a secondary insurance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCopeland View Post
Isn't it better that we all pay in for insurance knowing that we may not need every aspect of the coverage, but knowing that everyone will be covered. When everyone is paying something for insurance, the premiums are lower for all of us.
Being benevolent is the American way, but as Americans, we get to try new policies to see if they work or not. Currently, I think those Americans that have their preconditions covered and that had never had health insurance and now do, are very happy. But we can't kill the economy over it. Then everyone loses. My hope is that the US can raise its GDP to 4% or more per year and in turn, create more tax revenue for the government. That will allow for universal health care and free college for all that want it. It comes down to money, which may seem insensitive but is the reality.
__________________
Michael Castello
http://www.ccin.com/about.html

Last edited by Michael; 12-20-2017 at 02:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-20-2017, 05:30 PM
TomCopeland's Avatar
TomCopeland TomCopeland is offline
Business Author/Trainer
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 2,783
Default Health insurance

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael View Post
Yes, that is why I have insurance. I don't go cheap on my car premiums either but I pay far less than my health insurance. One of my cars alone was covered in 2 accident for over $140k. I only pay $2000 a year on that car and my insurance company has not dropped me. Health insurance in this country is broken, even with the ACA.



I understand the concept but it doesn't and hasn't worked, just ask the people that can't pay the high premiums for their $10k deductible insurance.

There are many things "Americans" can do to make our health better. When I was younger, I use to be on food stamps and welfare. It was embarrassing when, at the checkout counter, they had to tear off the food stamps in front of everyone. These days those stamps are replaced by a subsidized EBT card. Many of the people that I see using these cards are buying the most destructive foods for their bodies. Not only will it make them less healthy, but they are going to be worse off as they get older unless they change their lifestyle. The expense for bad personal health management only compounds over time. This is another part of our failed health-care system. If people can't manage their health, there is not enough money in the world to take care of them. Likewise, the unhealthy will be less likely to contribute to paying those costs.



Medical and pharmaceutical costs are out of control. One of the things I actually liked about paying my medical costs myself, was being able to negotiate that cost with different doctors. They wanted my cash and would charge me less in order to get immediately paid. That is empowering but in essence I only have catastrophic insurance covering me while my insurance premium is paying for someone else's insurance.

There should be cross-state competition, cross-country medication competition. There could be many ways to manage the costs better. Likewise, with over $20 trillion in debt, we can't afford to insure everyone totally, but we should totally insure everyone with preventative care. Whereas everyone gets basic care along with health/food/lifestyle education and management. Preconditions must be covered, but if younger citizens don't want full coverage or no coverage, that should be their choice with the consequences. Catastrophic insurance should be a stand-alone plan and not predicated on high deductibles and as a secondary insurance.



Being benevolent is the American way, but as Americans, we get to try new policies to see if they work or not. Currently, I think those Americans that have their preconditions covered and that had never had health insurance and now do, are very happy. But we can't kill the economy over it. Then everyone loses. My hope is that the US can raise its GDP to 4% or more per year and in turn, create more tax revenue for the government. That will allow for universal health care and free college for all that want it. It comes down to money, which may seem insensitive but is the reality.
Our health care system is in much better shape than it was before the ACA. You fail to acknowledge all the positives of the ACA. Insurance premiums have risen at a slower rate than before the law. Health outcomes are better. People are using preventative care. Bankruptcies because of medical costs are a thing of the past. However, things can and should be improved. But, our country was worse off health wise before the ACA. Surely we can agree on that. For some people they do pay much more for health insurance now, than before, but is the exception, not the rule.

However, to focus on the lifestyles of some poor people is scapegoating. That's not what is driving up health care costs or raising insurance premiums. We certainly can afford to insure everyone if we change our nation's priorities. Dismantling the ACA will increase health care costs even more. To say that people should have the choice of whether or not to get health insurance and then suffer the consequences if they can't pay for their medical expenses is a terrible moral position to take. A twenty-one year old gets cancer and we tell her you're on your own? How about the one month old child who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical treatments? Do we tell her parent she is out of luck because he parents didn't get insurance? The ACA is not bankrupting our economy.

There are ways to improve our health care system - for sure. Let's not leave people behind when we improve it.
__________________
http://www.tomcopelandblog.com
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-20-2017, 07:49 PM
Mom2Two's Avatar
Mom2Two Mom2Two is offline
Daycare.com Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: U. S. A.
Posts: 1,239
Default

I would say that it's a good idea to have a means-tested social safety net for those with reasonably unexpected catastrophic medical expenses. Other than that, I would leave things the way they were before ACA.

There's a medicaid waiver (I think it's state level but I'm not sure) for those with chronic illness so that they aren't bankrupted from the expenses that are on top of their health insurance.

I grew up with "free" education (think limited seats at the university, no general education, no second chances, have to know what you want to "be when you grow up" at about 15 years, so that you take all the right requirements in year 11 & 12 to gain a place in the exact right program). It's waaaaaay better here. Having the market provide pressure is a good thing.

For example, DS is very good at math and programming. He's going to the less expensive, local 4 year university and it will do him just fine.

Universal health was implemented when I was a teen. It was originally supposed to be covered by a 1% increase in taxes. Well, of course soon that wasn't enough. And now, the health care is awful. No Aussies want to be a doctor, because they dont' get paid enough. The doctors barely speak English, because they are from Eastern Europe and other countries.

A lot of care is clinic care, because the nice, red carpet office visits that we are used to are more expensive. So my sister, with gestational diabetes, gets to sit for hours, waiting her turn to be seen in clinic.

People with any money buy private insurance on top of the public care. They get better care. They don't have to go on wait lists for normal care. My dad had aggressive cancer but had to go on a wait list for surgery, because he just had public health care and there were no hospital beds available.

I don't think there are any perfectly pretty solutions to health care. The reality is that our technology advances, and it's expensive, and we are an ageing population. But I do think the best of the solutions is to leave the market in charge as much as possible but with the social safety net for those with the greatest need, since the poor and disabled are simply not an efficient market.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
government, tax benefits

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who Are You Voting For This Election Michael Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 165 05-10-2016 02:53 PM
Request for Exception (Supervision Plan) Jack Sprat Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 3 02-01-2016 10:36 AM
Missing The Good, Not The Crazy, Annoying And Bad! (LONG) rosieteddy Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 9 05-12-2015 08:53 PM
Making The Jump to Infant Care...Good or Bad Idea? AfterSchoolMom Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 3 06-07-2010 03:39 PM
Need a plan B SimpleMom Daycare Center and Family Home Forum 1 08-18-2009 07:47 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM.



Daycare.com         Find A Daycare         List Your Daycare         Toys & Products                 About Us

Daycare.com
Please read our Disclaimer before continuing.

Topics pertain mainly to the following States:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming