Shafted by the stimulus package - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-11-2008, 01:42 PM
 
cyndimo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 'tween the valley and the sea, CA
Posts: 412
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Making Rain View Post
In that same vein, I wonder is same sex couples can use common law marriage as a loop hole? I've never read the details in our state, my hubby did ages ago, but I wonder if it is actually clear about that? That would certainly be interesting.
interesting... I suspect not, or we'd have heard about gay couples and all the Aspen, um, if not weddings, "shacking-ups?" Probably has something to do with the "Defense" of Marriage Act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dubfam View Post
I stay home with both of our kids. We would qualify for so much more $$ on our tax return every year if our kids were in daycare (in order to help offset the cost to lower income working families) but they don't place any value on staying home to care for your children.
Actually, they do something about it -it's often called the "Marriage Penalty"... I'll make up some random numbers to see if this makes sense:
Suppose for a single person making 50k, the tax rate is 20%, a single person making 100k, the tax rate is 30%, and a married couple making 100k is 25%.
If you and your DP each make 50k and you are unmarried, you each pay 20% for a total of 20k.
If you and DH each make 50k and ARE married, you pay a total of 25%, for 25k. Actually, it doesn't matter in this case who makes the money. If DH makes 100k all by himself, you still file jointly and it's the same tax rate.
But, if you and DP are not married and he/she is able to find a job that pays 100k, to replace your income so you can stay home, he/she will pay 30%, or 30k.

So, if both parties work for money, you pay less if you are unmarried.
However, if you are married, you get (in this example) a 5k tax bonus for staying home. But, for us unmarrieds, it's a super non-marriage penalty. (and gets worse when one of you dies, and you don't get social security, your house gets reappraised for property tax purposes, you owe estate taxes on all your jointly held assets, you have to pay for probate to keep DP's relatives from claiming what's yours, etc!)

... stepping off soap box now...
cyndimo is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-11-2008, 03:27 PM
 
dawningmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: North Carolina!
Posts: 4,523
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As an FYI, there is no federal record of marriages (those records are held at the state level) and it's not something that gets crosschecked on joint returns. Same with sex of taxpayers. I'm just saying.

DOMA does say you cannot file married filing jointly on federal returns. I have yet to hear about any audits of same-sex couples for that reason, though. Often, it's more financially advantagous for couples to file one Head of Household and the other Single anyway, especially is there is a large disparity in the income.

eta: I in no way am defending DOMA. I believe it to be both oppressive and unconstitutional. I was just tossing out some info.

I'm a morning person.  We actually do exist.
dawningmama is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 04:17 PM
 
FondestBianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama_Leah View Post
Hmm, not sure if this is always the case. A friend of ours worked for State Farm Ins. and he had a low pay policy on himself and half a million on his wife. He advises families with a SAHM to put more money on the woman since they are worth more. (especially since they have 7 kids) Most wives will get social security checks if their husband dies.
We have State Farm actually. Our agent definatly said we can set it at whatever we want. We can make mine more if we choose. But, if you look at the basic rating levels, it rates SAHM lower than fathers with full time occupation. I wasn't talking about the agents specifically but, rather the stardard rating system that the payscale is based on. We just set it according to the rating system because we wanted to pay a plat rate of $50 a month and that is how it most easily worked out. If we even them it would have been an oddball payment like $57.62....

Just found it sad that the rating system rates us lower to begin with. But, I am glad you are able to set your amount at whatever you choose reguardless.

~TRACY, wife to loving dh, mommy to dd (10/05), ds(12/08), 3 kitties, & 2 pups.
FondestBianca is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 04:26 PM
 
FondestBianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dubfam View Post
This is what I have been frustrated about.
Since we aren't technically married I don;t count, even though dp claimed me as a dependent on his taxes.

I stay home with both of our kids. We would qualify for so much more $$ on our tax return every year if our kids were in daycare (in order to help offset the cost to lower income working families) but they don't place any value on staying home to care for your children. :

I just don't get it!!

I am glad that we knew all of this ahead of time...but I really had to put in an effort to figure it out, so I can certainly understand why lots of people are being caught off guard.


.
Yah, we weren't expecting any moeny for me in the stimulus package. It would have been a nice surprise though. And yes, I'm a bit annoyed that taxes don't allow SAHM to qualify for any kickback. Although we aren't putting out the money for daycare we should be able to write things off just like people can for work. Like gas costs for taking children to the doctors, extra food needed because the child is home all day, extra costs for raise in elictrical bills (because we are home all day caring for our children), etc, etc.

For awhile my husband was self employed as a professional athlete. Because he did most of his training at home we were able to write off the square footage of the part of our home he used to train in, write off the gas for him to go other places to train and compete, write off a portion of our power bills, phone bill, any money spent on equiptment used for training, etc. We found so many silly deductions that it offset his income as an athlete... it shouldn't have but, they let us write off sooooo much that IMO didn't have much to do with his sport or training. But, it was legal so we did it.

Now why can't we do the same for me watching our children and why am I not concidered self employeed? I make no real income aside from my bills being paid by my husband so technically all of my write offs should result in tax return!

hmmmm

~TRACY, wife to loving dh, mommy to dd (10/05), ds(12/08), 3 kitties, & 2 pups.
FondestBianca is offline  
Old 05-11-2008, 04:32 PM
 
FondestBianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Washington
Posts: 2,592
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Making Rain;11187424]My DH files as married, because after seven years you are common law married in Colorado. Do you have common law unions in your state? Though, I suppose if you're getting married this summer, it doesn't really matter. Congratulations!

Commonlaw was done away with in my state a few years back... but, right now thats a good thing. Since I don't have to claim his income I qualified for preg medical through DSHS. I am garunteed to keep it for 2 months after baby is born. If we were commonlaw I would not qualify. Even though we are getting married this summer I got pregnant first and applied for preg med first so I don't have to have a evaluation of income until Feb of next year. So, it's a loop hole I'm both benifiting from and being screwed over by. No tax return or stimulus check but I get med ins... but, to keep the med ins and can't make any money of my own unless under the table (and I may or may not be already doing that ).

and thank you

~TRACY, wife to loving dh, mommy to dd (10/05), ds(12/08), 3 kitties, & 2 pups.
FondestBianca is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 12:56 AM
 
lizziebits's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 536
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://www.wifr.com/home/headlines/18989259.html

It seems some mistakes were made. If you had over $3000 tax liability, and filed jointly, you should have received $1200 plus $300 for each kiddo.

Mommy to two super cute kids.
lizziebits is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 05:22 PM
 
momsgotmilk4two's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 1,629
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=dhinderliter;11182996]i understand your pain! it does seem bass ackwards to me as well...more tax liability means you make more means you get more....make less get less...weirdos!

[QUOTE]

More tax liability means you put in more, so you get back more. I'm a sahm and according to our tax guy, we should be getting the full amount back. $1200 for the two of us, $300 for each of our 3 kids. Ours is just going into savings to put back the money we used to pay off a cc so that we'll have a down payment for a house.
momsgotmilk4two is offline  
Old 05-18-2008, 11:03 PM
 
amandaleigh37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,697
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We were expecting 1500 (married filing jointly + 1 child), but got 1150?

Amanda , mama to my two boys: N (10/06) and : A (7/09)
amandaleigh37 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off