照顾者和税制改革:快照前后

S. McCormack
{"title":"照顾者和税制改革:快照前后","authors":"S. McCormack","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3579034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) changed the way families are taxed, starting in tax year 2018. By rearranging a myriad of deck chairs, politicians painted rosy pictures of families reaping the benefits of tax reform. In reality, however, generalizations cannot be made and the extent to which any one family gains or loses depends on particular facts. Even more obscured is the way in which the TCJA changed –– and failed to change –– the taxation of different types of caregivers. This Essay seeks to provide needed clarity in this area. It begins by offering snapshots of how parents of minor children were taxed immediately prior to and after the TCJA’s enactment. Specifically, while the TCJA expanded some of the general benefits available to parents of minor children, it failed to expand — and in critical cases, even preserve — specific benefits that are contingent on “parenting model.” For instance, the TCJA departed from historical norms by rolling back benefits reserved for unmarried parents and failed to make long over-due inflation adjustments to provisions of the Code that allow dual earning couples and unmarried parents (but not sole earning couples) to recover childcare costs incurred to work outside the home. These snapshots reveal how Congress, through the TCJA, picked winners and losers, enacting tax reform that disproportionately favored sole earners at the expense of other parents. \n \nThis Essay next turns to other types of care-giving, such as elder care, and develops two more pre-and post-reform snapshots. These pictures show how the inequities that result from Congress’ favoritism of sole earners extend to other care-giving arrangements and how these inequities compound for members of the “sandwich generation” who provide both parental and non-parental care. In the end, this Essay develops a series of snapshots that contrast starkly with rosy political rhetoric and which reveal that the TCJA not only failed to address many pre-existing tax inequities between caregivers but also made them worse.","PeriodicalId":183243,"journal":{"name":"Elder Law Studies eJournal","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Caregivers and Tax Reform: Before and After Snapshots\",\"authors\":\"S. McCormack\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3579034\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) changed the way families are taxed, starting in tax year 2018. By rearranging a myriad of deck chairs, politicians painted rosy pictures of families reaping the benefits of tax reform. In reality, however, generalizations cannot be made and the extent to which any one family gains or loses depends on particular facts. Even more obscured is the way in which the TCJA changed –– and failed to change –– the taxation of different types of caregivers. This Essay seeks to provide needed clarity in this area. It begins by offering snapshots of how parents of minor children were taxed immediately prior to and after the TCJA’s enactment. Specifically, while the TCJA expanded some of the general benefits available to parents of minor children, it failed to expand — and in critical cases, even preserve — specific benefits that are contingent on “parenting model.” For instance, the TCJA departed from historical norms by rolling back benefits reserved for unmarried parents and failed to make long over-due inflation adjustments to provisions of the Code that allow dual earning couples and unmarried parents (but not sole earning couples) to recover childcare costs incurred to work outside the home. These snapshots reveal how Congress, through the TCJA, picked winners and losers, enacting tax reform that disproportionately favored sole earners at the expense of other parents. \\n \\nThis Essay next turns to other types of care-giving, such as elder care, and develops two more pre-and post-reform snapshots. These pictures show how the inequities that result from Congress’ favoritism of sole earners extend to other care-giving arrangements and how these inequities compound for members of the “sandwich generation” who provide both parental and non-parental care. In the end, this Essay develops a series of snapshots that contrast starkly with rosy political rhetoric and which reveal that the TCJA not only failed to address many pre-existing tax inequities between caregivers but also made them worse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":183243,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Elder Law Studies eJournal\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Elder Law Studies eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3579034\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Elder Law Studies eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3579034","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《减税和就业法案》(TCJA)改变了家庭的纳税方式,从2018纳税年度开始。通过重新安排无数的躺椅,政客们描绘了一幅家庭从税收改革中获益的美好图景。然而,在现实中,不能一概而论,任何一个家庭的得失程度取决于特定的事实。更令人费解的是,TCJA改变了——但未能改变——对不同类型看护人征税的方式。本文试图在这一领域提供必要的清晰度。它首先简要介绍了在TCJA颁布之前和之后,未成年子女的父母是如何被征税的。具体来说,虽然TCJA扩大了对未成年子女父母的一些一般福利,但它没有扩大——在关键情况下,甚至没有保留——取决于“养育模式”的特定福利。例如,TCJA偏离了历史规范,取消了为未婚父母保留的福利,并且未能对法典中允许双职工夫妇和未婚父母(但不包括单身夫妇)收回在外工作所产生的托儿费用的条款进行早该进行的通货膨胀调整。这些快照揭示了国会如何通过TCJA挑选赢家和输家,制定税收改革,以牺牲其他父母的利益为代价,不成比例地偏袒唯一收入者。接下来,本文转向其他类型的护理,如老年人护理,并发展了两个改革前后的快照。这些图片显示了国会对唯一收入者的偏爱所导致的不平等是如何扩展到其他照顾安排的,以及这些不平等是如何在同时提供父母和非父母照顾的“三明治一代”成员身上加剧的。最后,本文发展了一系列快照,与玫瑰色的政治言论形成鲜明对比,揭示了TCJA不仅未能解决照顾者之间存在的许多税收不平等问题,而且还使其变得更糟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Caregivers and Tax Reform: Before and After Snapshots
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) changed the way families are taxed, starting in tax year 2018. By rearranging a myriad of deck chairs, politicians painted rosy pictures of families reaping the benefits of tax reform. In reality, however, generalizations cannot be made and the extent to which any one family gains or loses depends on particular facts. Even more obscured is the way in which the TCJA changed –– and failed to change –– the taxation of different types of caregivers. This Essay seeks to provide needed clarity in this area. It begins by offering snapshots of how parents of minor children were taxed immediately prior to and after the TCJA’s enactment. Specifically, while the TCJA expanded some of the general benefits available to parents of minor children, it failed to expand — and in critical cases, even preserve — specific benefits that are contingent on “parenting model.” For instance, the TCJA departed from historical norms by rolling back benefits reserved for unmarried parents and failed to make long over-due inflation adjustments to provisions of the Code that allow dual earning couples and unmarried parents (but not sole earning couples) to recover childcare costs incurred to work outside the home. These snapshots reveal how Congress, through the TCJA, picked winners and losers, enacting tax reform that disproportionately favored sole earners at the expense of other parents. This Essay next turns to other types of care-giving, such as elder care, and develops two more pre-and post-reform snapshots. These pictures show how the inequities that result from Congress’ favoritism of sole earners extend to other care-giving arrangements and how these inequities compound for members of the “sandwich generation” who provide both parental and non-parental care. In the end, this Essay develops a series of snapshots that contrast starkly with rosy political rhetoric and which reveal that the TCJA not only failed to address many pre-existing tax inequities between caregivers but also made them worse.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信