Last post on taxes for at least a little while. Rebel Mom and I had a discussion about Murkowski's tax break for at-home parents. I was intrigued, R.M. was turned off by it. Her rationale:

a) It's not means tested, meaning that the same philosphical problem that dogs the child care credit now (rich double-income parents reaping tax benefits they don't need) will arise with at-home parents (lets face it, at-home parents of corporate execs or big law firm partners don't need the benefit, even if there are families that would benefit).

b) Anything that rewards at-home parents is likely to have the effect of driving women out of the workforce and into the home in far, far greater numbers than it would drive dads into a caregiving role. And while Rebel Dads wants to remove the barriers to full-time fatherhood, Rebel Mom points out that such a policy would reinforce certain stubborn barriers to women in the workforce.

So that leaves a tricky gender-equity paradox: how to give men incentives to stay home without ginning up a system that makes it more difficult for women to remain in the workforce? Obviously, offering men the same kind of benefits offered to women (paternity leave, paid paternity leave, etc.) is one solution. Are there other easy ones? Hard ones?