Evening star., 1954-06-24
FederuI cuse

Your recent story on the income tax
deduction for working mothers who
hire babysitterS Chats bad word
it should be nurSemaid) says the House
version Of the thing would cost the
Treasury $40 million a year-the
Senate version would cost $3.50 million
a year.
I'm no statiStician and can't dispute
the loss to the Treasury, but have a
theory that If Congress made the de-
duction on perfectly equitable basis.
the Treasury would gain that many
million, rather than lose cent. I
would like to have the question an
swered by the Secretary Of the Trea-
sury and the Bureau Of Internal Re-
venue. Am right or am wrong?
My theory is this:
For a working mother, rich, poor or
average, to earn so much as $1,000 a
year on which to pay income tax in the
first place, she must hire a housekeeper
or place her children in all-day school.
She cannot do either without paying
out a minimum of $1,000 q year Gin
Washington it is nearer $1,000 to hire
a sub Stitute homemaker for her
young 'unS. For running her business, in
other words, which is making home
for her family, she must hire help and
pay it well, or the help Is lousy. the
mothers nerves run down, her earnings
fall off, her job may be jeopardized and
her capacity to help support the Gov
ernment by so much as a nickel may be
totally lost. If she's blessed with rich
husband, this needn't worry either her.
the Government or what is so fatuouSly
referred to as the good of society" But
if she's Struggler, married to a Strug-
gler, it is very serious thing to her, to
the Bureau of Internal Revenue and to
the so-called good of society" If she's
got no husband at all, the result Of poor
domestic help or trying to cope with
boarding house arrangements may, in
fact, render her charge on society,
rather than one of those brave, self
respecting millions able enough in body,
mind and nervous structure to carry
the awesome burdens of sustaining the
living standards of the whole free
world, while at the same time running
the arsenal for the whole of the free
worlds defense"
Widows earning as much as $1,000 a
year d11u GIJ11lS W u4d1AACo114 q 11OAAAO AOA
themselves and their child or children
discover that they cannot do it, under
present wage levels for domesticS and
present income tax laws. They try it
for while, because $1,000 sounds like
a good salary. But they discover them
selves like the rabbit trying to crawl
out the well-the rabbit that climbs
up one foot and falls back two. There
just isn't enough money to employ
competent help to run her business
which is a homelike atmosphere for
her children.
I submit to the Treasury Depart
ment, the Congress and the Bureau
of Internal Revenue that they would
strengthen the backs and bolster the
nervous systems of such important
wage-earnerS and taxpayers, if they
would allow these mothers (rich, poor
or average) to deduct all, every cent of
wages paid out for the running of
their buSineSS-the home. The only
questions the Bureau of Internal Rev.
enue is entitled to ask a man running
a business ESQ far as wages paid out are
concerned) is: Give us the names of
your employees, give us a statement Of
the withholding tax you have collect
ed in each employees name and give
us this employees social security pay
ments.
If all women, rich, poor and average,
who from necessity or from choice
employed help in the running of their
households and in the care of their
children were asked similar questions
when they claimed full, every cent of
wages paid out, deductions from their
own income, then I submit that the
Treasury would be better off than it
is today. Ellen Edwards.