Strollerderby : taxes

Morning News - Rush Angers His Own People

Brett Singer — Mon, 04 May 2009 13:00:00 GMT

Rush Limbaugh angers a lot of people, but usually hunters are not in that group. But not anymore. The Washington Times reports that Rush has several groups of "sportsmen", specifically hunters (isn't "sportsmen" too generic a term?) all fired up because he's been working with the Humane Society. Why? Well, because gun owners hate puppies! OK, OK, I'm being silly. The real reason is because the Humane Society "is in fact an organization that opposes hunting, fishing, and trapping." So by hanging with them, Rush is now in the dog house with groups like Ducks Unlimited. (Better hope they're unlimited since you keep shooting at them! Get it? G'night, ladies and germs.)

We hear a lot about taxes. Ever wonder which companies pay the most -- or the least? Business Week has a surprising list. Some companies pay next to nothing. Yes -- almost NOTHING. Here's the list of those who pay the least, and the poor schnooks who pay the most.

Speaking of Republicans, Jeb Bush (remember him?) and of his fellow Republicans think that it's "time to leave Reagan behind." That would be interesting, since Reagan has kind of been the patron saint of all things Conservative and Republican since, like, forever. Or at least the last twenty or thirty years. Maybe the next guru of the past will be Nixon?

And speaking of Republicans and taxes, Jack Kemp died. I always thought Kemp got kind of a raw deal when he ran for Vice-President with Bob Dole. I guess it wasn't that bad, but that race was against Bill Clinton at the height of his popularity, and whoever ran on the Republican ticket was probably destined for failure. His legacy appears to be not as a Vice-Presidential loser but as an early champion of "supply-side" economics and Republican tax cuts. (I'm over-simplifying both for space and because I don't really understand economics. So if anyone wants to fill in the gaps, feel free to do so. You even have my permission to call me a dummy. It's OK. My kids do it all the time.) Kemp was 73 and died of cancer. Sad.

This isn't that new a story, but its pretty funny. Two people were caught, um, doing it, on the lawn in front of Windsor Castle. Yep -- that's the Queen's lawn. This sentence is as clasically British and Shakespeare: "Ignoring signs asking visitors to Please Keep Off The Grass, the man and woman, said to be in their early 30, selected a spot near the castle's Garter Tower and stripped off in full view of hotels, pubs and shops." Yes, because the real problem is that they were on the grass.

Oh, and let's not forget swine flu. Apparently there have been more cases reported, but it's not exactly Bubonic Plague. Yet. Here are some stats to scare ya into sanitizing your hands and those of your children. In the U.S. of A., 30 states are reporting swine flu cases. 19 countries. 800 people total, mostly in North America, with Colombia being the first in South America. (What an honor.) In Europe, Spain has the most cases, with 44. 30 people have been hospitalized. Yeah, it's a real party in the world these days.

If you'll excuse me, I have to go wash my hands. Again. See you tomorrow.

Image: s0rethumbs

Mexican Sesame Street Addresses Swine Flu

YouTube Helps Man Deliver Baby

OctoMom's Kid - Bite Mark And Black Eye

Consumer Reports Responds to Sling-Hate Outrage

Swine Flu - Are You Worried About Your Kids?

What They're Babbling About: It's All Relative

JeanneSager — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:26:00 GMT

One of the best things about blogging are the varied looks at similar subjects in the news every week - just adding more to the conversation. Take a look at how we're related to everyone else in the blogosphere this week - and how we're not - in this week's What They're Babbling About.

After reading Hannah's post this week about the black girls showing preference for white baby dolls, a review of the new book "I'm Chocolate, You're Vanilla" is apropos. The book on raising black and multiracial children gets the full treatment at The Anti-Racist Parent.

Always bragging about your family tree that goes back to someone great? The joke was on you this week with Familylink.com's April Fool's e-mail claiming addressees had been confirmed as relatives of President Obama. - Salt Lake Tribune

Madeline's look at the names that aren't coming back went hand-in-hand with the April Fool's Name post by The Name Lady this week. Can you spot the fake? - ParentDish

I shared the secrets to the childcare tax credit . . . and Lil Sugar's got a question for you - do you pay your nanny taxes? - Lil Sugar

Shannon helped us hop into spring with her Peep show - now find out what it's like to pull a Mythbusters on Peeps. - CafeMom

Image: PeepResearch

Talking Taxes: How the Childcare Credit Works

JeanneSager — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:36:00 GMT

Do you send your kids to daycare? Have an in-home sitter?

As long as you work - and pay the nanny/manny/babysitter on the books - families with two kids can claim up to $6,000 in tax credits this year. So how does it work?

Your kids have to be under age thirteen. You may be worried about leaving the fourteen-year-old alone in a house with a well-stocked liquor cabinet, but the IRS doesn't care.
You must be making an income. Ya know, that's why they call it a credit on your INCOME taxes.
If your employer gives you money toward childcare, that must be deducted from the amount you're claiming. If your employer is that type, please give me his number. I want to work there.
You can't write off what you pay to one of your other kids to watch their siblings (sigh) or what you pay your spouse to watch your kids. If you're paying your spouse to watch their own child, you might want to find a new spouse (sorry, just saying).
If you're paying someone to come to your house rather than paying someone who has their own daycare or a sitter who has her own business, you may owe the government more because you're an official employer. This gets a lot of big important big wigs in trouble just as they're about to be confirmed as something even bigger and more important, so check this one closely. It might do to even hire an accountant. Just don't pick this guy.
The kid being babysat must have lived with you for at least half of 2008. If he hasn't, why did you need a babysitter?
Your filing status must be single, married filing jointly, head of household or qualifying widow(er) with a dependent child. In other words? You have to file . . . AND have a kid. Imagine that.
If you didn't pay out $3,000 for childcare for your one child, you don't get a $3,000 credit. If you didn't pay out $6,000 for two kids or more, you don't get a $6,000 credit. Those are simply the top end (try telling that to your daycare provider).

There are more tips over at the IRS Website, but these are the biggies. Are you going to be filing for a tax credit for childcare this year? Is it worth it?

Image: No Time For Laundry

Morning News: McCain Takes Aim at Obama's Fancy 'Copter

Madeline Holler — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:00:00 GMT

At yesterday's Fiscal Responsibility Summit -- attended by the President and high-ranking Congress members, not free-spending teens and their pursed-lipped mothers as the name might suggest -- John McCain scolded Obama for an expensive fleet of helicopters that could soon be at the president's disposal. "Your helicopter is now going to cost as much as Air Force One," the Arizona Senator said to his former rival, who basically said, "yeah, I don't think I need them either." NB: the helicopters were ordered during the Bush administration.

Obama's response should only endear him further to a large number of Americans. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll, he's get high marks for his first month in office and for the almost $790 billion stimulus package and the $75 billion mortgage bailout program. Nearly 8 in 10 respondents say the President has exceeded their expectations. Love fest? Not from everyone. Republicans aren't as happy as they were back during the trasition. And few of any party seem to like the idea of bailing out the auto industry. Michigan? Ouch?

Still, more, more, give them more!

All the hundreds of billions in bailouts and the projected $1.5 trillion deficit by year's end makes this record-breaking Yves St. Laurent art auction look just kind of profitable. $261 million? It was lying around in the couch cushions.

A San Francisco lawmaker has got a great money-making scheme. Taxing pot! It's his state's largest cash crop (huh. We thought it was almonds.) and he thinks Californian's deserve a cut of the package.

Make $300 just by cutting up your American Express credit card. Really. They'll pay you.

Now, now, don't get mad if you got rid of that account years ago. It's a fact: anger can kill you. Settle down!

Will Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel be the next to resign over tax dodging? Apparently, there are questions about whether he should have listed the Washington, D.C., basement room where he has lived for five years -- for free! -- on his taxes. Could he have written off the the air mattress and naked light bulb dangling from the ceiling?

Random: A Miami University student discovered an authentic fingerprint of Abraham Lincoln. That's cool! And odd.

Great, great news for Bedouin girls in Israel's Negev: genital mutilation is no more. It's gone. Over. Does not happen. What changed? The laws, for one. But also education, showing you can't just threaten to put people in jail.

Welcome to the world, Scarlet Starr (Hollywood name ...). She's the new baby girl and first child of Sporty Spice, Mel C.

The Real Story Behind Palin's Nomination

Economy Kills Kids' Fun As We Know It

Photo: HuffPo

Education for All? Not in New Hampshire

JeanneSager — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:32:00 GMT

Would you send your kids to kindergarten if it was going to cost you money? It's the only choice provided to parents in Hudson, NH, the last city in the contiguous U.S. not to offer free kindergarten to its children.

The city of twenty-five thousand has been ordered to comply with a 2007 New Hampshire law calling for universal kindergarten by this fall, but district officials are bucking the order. They need more money to make it happen, they say.

I'm honestly surprised there are place left in the U.S. where school wouldn't be offered free of charge to families. It's not just Hudson. There are nine other school districts in the Live Free or Die State that will have to add universal kindergarten this fall (the other districts have already started making provisions to do so). There's also one school district in Alaska that does not provide kindergarten to its kids (gee, think Gov. Sarah Palin might want to take a look at that one now that she has some extra time on her hands?).

. What ever happened to the right to an education (yes, I know, it's not in the Constitution - but it should be)? I was equally surprised several years ago when I first learned that kindergarten wasn't mandatory. Having been enrolled at five, having had my brother follow me at five, having heard about my parents' kindergarten classrooms, I mistakenly thought this was a given. Not so. My husband is one of millions of Americans who didn't attend kindergarten (he's the one who first told me about it).

But keeping your child home for the year, or opting for a private institution rather than public is one thing. Not being offered the service at all? It sounds like another case of someone putting the priorities on money instead of on kids.

Study results have varied on the benefit of full-day kindergarten for kids, the most recent report surmising that the good it does disappears by the time the kids are in eighth grade. But if ninety-nine point nine percent of American kids are given free kindergarten, it stands to reason that the Hudson kids are being discriminated against by not being afforded the same opportunities.

For the same services provided for other kids, Hudson parents are expected to pay as much as $4,000 to $8,000 at a private institution. More than ninety percent of the parents pay up, but not everyone can afford the fees. The economic downturn is only making it harder. Ironically that's just why the city of Hudson says they can't make the change.

Despite offers of state aid, Hudson wants more. Considering the taxpayers are already being burdened (via the demand of private tuition costs), wouldn't it be more appropriate to levy a tax on the citizens that would go across the board and make education available to every kid?

A little reminder to the city of Hudson - parents aren't the only one who benefit from their children getting an education. So how about stepping up for the sake of all citizens - even those under four feet tall?

Image: Mary Mail

School to Parents: Donate Toilet Paper

JeanneSager — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:36:00 GMT

You know things are bad when you don't have money for toilet paper. Not even the sandpaper variety common to public schools.

That's just how bad things are for the Detroit school district; letters are being sent to parents asking them to pack their kids' backpacks with TP.

Academy of the Americas administrators were also asking for light bulbs, trash bags, paper towel rolls. I understand the Detroit school system's finances are looking about as good as the economics of my own state government (proud New Yorker here) at the moment. I remember reading reports that cited a deficit as large as $400 million in a more than $1 billion budget. This story from the Detroit News puts the figures closer to a $140 million deficit.

The state stepped in last month to help, appointing an emergency manager to begin the long task of straightening out the district finances. Yes, last month, at a point so late in the game that one kindergarten through eight school is asking parents to buy their kids' toilet paper.

What does that say about a state's attitude towards education and toward the children? Not to mention the fact that parents are already PAYING for these things via their taxes. It hardly seems appropriate to ask them for more (although, yes, as a parent, I would probably pony up a few extra rolls of Charmin' to ensure my child's classroom didn't turn to leaves), especially in light of the economy. Come to think of it, it wouldn't seem appropriate in more flush times either. Public education has been widely accepted as a right in our country, and parents can be charged for their children's truancy.

Parents expect that when they send their children to school, they will receive a certain quality of care; a quality equal or greater than the minimum of childcare that social service agencies would require of a parent. Not providing children with toilet paper to clean themselves when they defecate is not providing an adequate level of care; I wouldn't call it a stretch to deem that child abuse.

What else could we cut from district spending before toilet paper? How about administrators' salaries? The recently fired superintendent was making $280,000 a year - a far cry from the salaries of the average citizen of Detroit.

Image: PopGadget

Should Out-of-Work Parents Get Off Child Support Hook?

Babble Talk: Kids Tackling Global Poverty

Would You Buy a 9-Year-old a Porsche? Beckham Would

NY Proposes Taxing Non-Diet Soda

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:00:00 GMT

OK Gov. Paterson: I know you've got a wicked budget hole, and we all have to "share the pain." I also know that this country has a severe health crisis with escalating rates of diabetes, heart disease, etc. and that soda and related sugar-water drinks (or, more specifically, high-fructose-corn-syrup drinks) are bad for us and our kids.

But can we work through a few of the logical problems with your proposed "obesity tax" here?

1. It only applies to "nondiet" sodas (and fake juice drinks), thereby giving the implicit healthy stamp of approval to "diet" drinks full of artificial sweeteners, which cause many people a wide range of health problems, from dizziness to migraines, while to others they just taste gross. They also interfere with efforts to adjust to a healthier, lower-sugar diet. Not to mention that carbonated diet sodas still are acidic enough to eat away at kids teeth and still don't hydrate like water or provide nutrients like milk. Remember also that soda—diet and nondiet—is also a major source of people's caffeine fixes (and young kids having caffeine worries me more than their having sugar, frankly).

Basically, this just shows the folly of trying to decide on high what's healthy for people: it varies. I have some extremely health-conscious friends whose son is super allergic to tons of things—so right now he's eating a lot of Fritos (all corn, no cross-contamination). If you tried to tax "junk food," for example, you'd be hitting them hard.

2. Like any sales tax, this going to fall most heavily on the poor, who buy a lot of soda often because it's what's sold at the corner store. Study after study has shown that living in a "food desert" is a primary cause of unhealthy eating choices. Without changing that, adding a tax is like raising the gas tax without investing in public transportaiton. (If the tax is high enough to make bodega owners stock healthier drinks instead, we might see some benefit, but I'm skeptical.)

3. Recent studies have shown that it's possible to be both fat and fit. You say you don't want to make kids feel bad for being overweight. So don't. Instead encourage the good stuff, which is what will really make the difference: access to healthy food and drink, enough sleep, and exercise (recess! later school start times! healthy foods in schools! walking and biking to school!). I know that won't balance the budget. I'm sorry.

Photo by Qfamily.

More by this author:

Mommy's Little Tax Deduction, And How To Get It

Kate Tuttle — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:33:00 GMT

You know how everyone always gives you lots of unsolicited advice before you have a baby? Like, "your life is gonna change forever!" or "sleep when the baby sleeps"? One thing people rarely tell you, but should, is this: daycare is hella expensive. Luckily, there are a few ways you can defray these costs -- either through the federal Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit or through a Flexible Spending Account through your work.

It's too late to sign up for an FSA for 2008, but for those trying to figure out what will work best for 2009, here's a handy calculator.

For those without an FSA but looking to claim the daycare credit (which is left unclaimed by thousands of parents who are eligible), the National Women's Law Center has assembled this useful resource. Thanks, women!

More by this author:

Will Libraries Go the Way of Video Stores?

Miriam Axel-Lute — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 19:15:00 GMT

Anyone who has both used Netflix and had an overdue library book knew it was only a matter of time until the same model was used for books. And in fact, there are a few companies out there who have been sailing in those waters, like Booksfree and Book Swim. Book Swim is now specifically promoting itself to pregnant women ("It costs a lot to buy all those pregnancy books only to discover that most of them are useless and mostly designed to scare the crap out of you." Ahem, my words, not theirs) and also parents of the voracious read-to-me set ("save money spent on buying lots of children's books that can be rented instead." Their words, not mine).

While it appeals on some level, I have quibbles with the execution: They have not yet gotten the one of the main keys to Netflix's success, which is having everything, not just the most popular stuff. I looked up several of my daughter's favorites on Book Swim, and they weren't there. Not only that, but her not-all-that-obscure beloved tales don't come anywhere near meeting the fine-print criteria for the cheery "just tell us what you want and we'll buy it for you!" option, which include "an Amazon sales rank of at least 20,000." That's pretty narrow folks. I think there must be 20,000 best-selling unofficial political biographies alone.

If you're going to charge $20 to 40/month for 3 to 11 books at a time (Book Swim. Don't get fooled by their low intro rate—it's one month only) or $10 to $50/month for 2 to 15 books at time (Booksfree), you need super-duper-special selection and service. Remember folks, you are competing against free. I suppose if I had to drive to the library, or had a work schedule that conflicted with its hours, the delivery aspect would be more of a draw and feel like less of an environmental faux pas, but from my home office it just looks like one more lost excuse to get out of the house for 15 minutes. (And it's worth noting that many libraries apparently will deliver too under some circumstances.)

I'm sure the right person with sufficient capital could iron out these issues, add a recommendation engine, and be really in business. (Unless the higher cost of shipping books compared to DVDs just makes it an idea whose time hasn't come after all. It's possible.)

But what really troubles me, of course, is the idea of abandoning the library. Libraries still serve as one of the rare public meeting spaces not devoted to commerce. They help kids with research and adults with job hunts and starting businesses and their own formal and informal educations. Libraries buy books based on both popularity and serving their public. They tend to fight the good fight to make sure controversial material is available. You know, good qualifty-of-life, bastion of democracy stuff.

We recently had a budget vote on a large plan to expand and upgrade the branch libraries up here in Albany, so I've seen the research about the social and economic benefits of a good library. But I've also heard from the kooks who say that with the Internet and big-box bookstores, we don't need libraries anymore, and I hate the idea of giving them more ammunition. I know book renters would still pay their library taxes, but usage rates and general familiarity are crucial to keep libraries' budgets away from the ax.

I think with the right savvy, libraries are up to the task of competing with even an improved book rental service. Already, through inter-library loans you can get almost anything, and with my countywide system's online reservation system, it's almost as easy as Netflix to request something. A little slow to get it, but that should be fixable. Make renewing easier, with a warning system when something's coming due, and you're most of the way there for me.

Besides, for picture books, the library already wins hands down: My daughter gets the tactile adventure of browsing the shelves and discovering hidden gems, and we get the excuse of "Oh, that has to go back to the library now!" when a not-quite-gem has worn out its welcome.

Photo by Sugar Pond.

More by this author:

Six Steps to a Parent-Friendly Wedding

They Say: Microwave Safe Ain't

Best of FameCrawler: Week of October 17th

Whit Honea — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:00:00 GMT

John McCain Does The Monster Mash

More Private Angelina Photos Leaked

Joe the Plumber: The Videos!

Tina Fey "You Ignorant Slut"*

PlumberGate: Joe The Plumber IS Related to Charles Keating, and Also Owes Back Taxes!

Lisa Bonet Confirms She's Pregnant

Russell Crowe Says Sons Are Complete Opposites

Joe the Plumber: Republican Plant and Relative of Charles Keating?

Gwen Stefani Worries About Her Weight

Michael Jackson's Kids Unmasked!

Denis Leary: Autism Means Your Kid Is Stupid and Lazy

Billy-Bob Trumps David Duchovny In The TeaLeonifornication Stakes

How much is Sarah Palin worth?

Brett Singer — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:00:00 GMT

One of Sarah Palin's claims during the debate was that she was "Joe Six-Pack" (shouldn't that be Jane Six-Pack?), part of her folksy, "I'm just like you, America" thing.

So I thought I'd find out just how much money she actually had.

In the past, I've never been terribly interested in Presidential candidates' financial disclosures. This is probably because I assume that if someone has reached a point where they can run for President or Vice-President of the United States, they probably have a few bucks. But when Palin made her claim at the debate last week, my curiosity was piqued.

Sarah Palin and her family seem to be on the lower end of the political wealth spectrum. According to their tax returns, "The Palins paid $22,721 in taxes on $166,080 adjusted gross income last year."

I couldn't open the PDF file provided by the McCampaign (here it is if you want to try: PDF link), so I dug a little more and found Palin's financial disclosure forms from when she ran for office in Alaska. In addition to her family's income, they have investments that look like they total about $200,000. I say "about" because the money is in various funds and the value fluctuates, especially these days. Plus the form is from 2007, so who knows what her money is in now. So maybe the value is between $100,000 and $200,000, depending on the day.
(Note: here is the site where I found the link to her return, which is available here as a PDF file.)

Does that make her rich? Not really. She has five children, and Bristol has one on the way. However, if you include "the estimated value of their property and investments…[the Palins] appear to be worth at least $1.2 million," according to ABC News. I admit that I'm not sure if this number is accurate, but it sounds plausible. Palin and her husband also have no credit card debt, unlike most Americans. Bottom line: even if you go with a low-ball estimate, the Palin family are not exactly living paycheck to paycheck.

What's the point of this exercise? Palin may claim to be "Joe Six-Pack", but I think she's more "Jane Case of Wine." That's fine with me, by the way. But why lie about it?

Image: ABC News

Obama not sure how long he's been married

Morning News: Who's Winning With Only 30 Days Left?

Scrooge McDuck explains inflation

Giant Palin Poster

They say: Sarah Palin should step down

Palin: Women Who Don't Support Other Women Go to Hell

McCain Talks to the Gays: Part Two, Adoption

Should We Raise Little Democrats or Republicans?

Virginia Teachers Get Flack for Pro-Obama Email

Palin's Email Hacked and posted online; UPDATE: Anonymous Hacker Speaks

Goodbye Plasma Screen Hello Child Support!

SunnyChanel — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:56:00 GMT

Across this great land of ours, there is a whole slew of bummed out deadbeat moms and pops. Why? Because those much coveted economic stimulus checks from the government are “are being intercepted and funneled toward the support of their children.”

The Associated Press found that more than 1.4 million of the stimulus checks (a total of about $831 million) have been seized by child support agencies and being held for families who are owed funds.

Sure the M.I.A moms and dads may have wanted to spend this windfall on baubles or booze, but most would agree that the fruit of their loins really should come first. Sadly, the kids aren’t always getting the money. It may take a while for families to get their hands on it, if it all. “The intercepted checks in Massachusetts, for example, are deposited with the state and held for 180 days to allow the parent to file an appeal. If the appeal is denied, the money is turned over to the parent who has custody — in most cases, the mother — unless she has been on public assistance, in which case the funds can go back to the state and federal government to reimburse the taxpayers.”

How are these checks being diverted? “States submit the names and Social Security numbers of deadbeat parents to the IRS, which crosschecks those names against the lists of taxpayers receiving stimulus checks. The IRS then sends the deadbeat parents' checks straight to state child support agencies.”

Sorry deadbeats, big brother is watching you. For more of the story check out the complete AP piece here.

How Taxes Stack Up

Amy Kuras — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:04:00 GMT

It's Tax Day, and you are either sweating out your tax forms at the last minute or you’ve already spent your refund and are smugly awaiting your stimulus payment. Or you’re like me, bleary eyed and cranky because you wanted to make sure you had an extra day to deal with problems and thus stayed up incredibly late last night.

Has I been snug in my bed right on time, though, I would still hate paying taxes to our current government and be extra pissy today because I had to. Especially after looking at this press release from the Council on Contemporary Families at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It lays out what family-friendly benefits US families get for their tax money versus what people in other industrialized nations get for their (admittedly higher) tax dollars. Check it out:

•   In Norway, parental leave allowance is 54 weeks at 80% pay or 44 weeks at 100% to be shared any way the parents wish, although the mother must take three weeks before birth and six weeks immediately after and the father must take five weeks off if they intend to use any leave (yes, must, not "if they have a sympathetic boss and can afford to, maybe"). Adoptive parents are eligible for 51 weeks off at 80% pay or 41 weeks at 100%.

•   In Greece, either parent can use up to 17 months of leave time, and receive an additional hour off per day until the child is 30 months old, or two hours per day for 12 months and one hour per day for the next six months.

•   In Belgium, free early childhood education is available to all children starting at the age of 2 1/2.

We couldn’t even deduct child care.
Sigh.