Right, that's where I've been with the FSA account. Unreasonably so back in the day. I was turned off by the hassle and complexity, but it would have been worth my time. Now forget about it.
I don't know how all of your plans were administered, but ours was easy to manage and well worth what little effort we had to put in. At one point, with three kids in daycare, we were spending upwards of $20,000 a year in daycare. We would just submit our daycare invoices to my wife's FSA administrator and get a check back for whatever we had put in. Now that all three kids are in school full time, we still have more than $5000 out of pocket with two special needs kids. The cut in the amount we can put in is going to directly effect my bottom line.
Mine isn't a hassle really - except the using up part if you mis-judged your expenses. It automatically credits me based on assumptions of what I paid out of pocket - so if I have a copay it's automatically deposited in my savings account without my doing anything.
FSA limit was a lot less than that. Anyway, aren't you supposed to be against loopholes and complicated tax plans and all that Dem stuff?
It was a lot less that that, $5000 less to be exact. Doesn't mean it didn't help, or that it still doesn't help. Why make the cut? It amounts to a middle class tax hike.
Apparently in this small way, yes. But since that particularly government largess (extra $2500 tax break) was bestowed upon you, it was ok...
I'm afraid someone who can pay more than $20,000 per year for daycare alone may have to give up their claim of "middle class". And like someone else mentioned, the average contribution is significantly less than the $2,500 cap. Seems to me that the cap affects a limited number of outliers.
I don't know, for three kids in full-day daycare is pretty much what I would expect for most markets. Still, I agree with your general point. It may be a valid complaint, but it's a complaint about one particular change out of many affecting a minority, however significant, of consumers.
False equivalency-you slightly lose some of your luxuries. In exchange I'll get to stay on my parents insurance and go to a doctor for the next year and be healthier then I've been since high school.(doubt I'll have insurance when I get done with school, as it turns out my profession is being dismantled and replaced with part time jobs with no benefits)
Depends on your definition of middle class and where he lives? I'm spending $15k on one kid and that's fairly cheap for daycares in Seattle that aren't "in home"...
I was just putting in a little "class warfare" jab ... I just get a little frustrated at some of the tax incentives for people who are presumed "middle class". I consider myself middle class but I can't afford to buy a house, start a small business, make charitable contributions or have 3 children to get a shot at some of these tax carrots. I'm also not low income enough to get a shot at the welfare freebies. I'm satisfied with my tax bracket (and frankly could afford to pay even more), but sometimes I wish there was a "single, childless, renter, responsible member of society" tax credit. Until I get that I won't shed a tear for someone that will have to have another $2,500 of their money taxed this year.
Except you're not acknowledging that those tax deductions/credits are meant to offset specific expenses. Believe me, a $1k tax credit doesn't even remotely cover the costs of having a child. But if you want to relocate California offers a $60 tax credit to renters ($120 for joint marrieds). A nice little bonus for those of us without mortgages that make itemizing worthwhile (and who have to pay California rents).
Definition of middle class aside, complaints about tax benefits for people with children feel as misguided as the myth of welfare mothers who keep having kids to get that sweet, sweet government check. Even with tax credits, which cap out way too low for my preference, my wife's income barely breaks even to cover childcare costs. But that's what we have to do to make sure her resume (or mine) doesn't have a five-year hole. Sure, it's our choice to have children (man, the second one is the real backbreaker), but procreation and population replacement are something we as society decided were A Good Thing™.
Like Barb said, the ACA doesn't affect dependent care limits (why would it?) http://www.wgains.com/Publications/Alerts.aspx?id=54
Can we all agree that stanger has a legitimate gripe here? I'm guessing he would have been better off with a public option.
Actually, it's $2500 times whatever his marginal tax rate is. Still, it's a legitimate, I think, complaint. It's costing him about $50 per month.
Yup. I mean, I still think the effect of ACA will be a net positive, and even stanger might come out in the black. But simply in terms of stuff that's calculable right now, yeah, I get his grievance.
If you have a job that makes it worthwhile to spend $15K on day care, then you're pushing the envelope on what constitutes the middle class.
Possible. But I think he may be confusing healthcare FSA's (for which the max amount is being lowered) and dependent care FSA's (for which it's not). I'm not about to pick on the guy, since I've been using FSA's for years and still get confused.
I'm sure you're aware, but MN does have this: http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/individuals/prop_tax_refund/Pages/Renters_Property_Tax_Refund.aspx. I got $17 from that one year. It offset the $17 I had to pay MN on my April 15th taxes owed balance.
One job? Maybe. But a lot of modest, two income households simply have to find a way to pay for daycare (which can easily run over $1,000/month). And what do you mean by 'worthwhile'? As opposed to what, one parent leaving the workforce and staying at home?
There comes a point in life where I believe that if people can't afford to have their 3,000 sq. foot house on 1 acre with a 2 car garage, 3+ kids, 3+ pets etc ... maybe they shouldn't aim so high. I'm not aiming this to anyone in this thread, more at people in my life who have big families in big houses with shiny cars, but they can't afford to go on weekend trip to the beach without defaulting on something. I'm not happy about my government subsidizing irresponsible hyper-consumerism. If conservatives can demonize low income people and their entitlements, I think they should be forced to justify their "middle class" entitlements by the same measure. With 16 trillion deficits the cuts should be measured equally. I applaud the FSA cap because it fits a greater pattern of fairness IMO. With the looming fiscal cliff and the projected cuts to government, I welcome any news of new revenue as good news.