zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
This is fantastic! I hope they succeed and there is no abuse or other issues, because it will show how much an economy can grow when women are allowed to work to their full potential. Families who were previously in poverty because the mom would struggle to pay for childcare to work can now have assurance kids are ok while the mom can pursue jobs, start her own small business (huge chunk of businesses are small businesses ran by women) and prosper. If you pose your child’s safety vs another dollar, most parents would vote for their children. But if the children are taken care of, parents can give the economy their best and the taxes paid and GDP gained will pay back for the expense manyfold.

>>dzink+Y6
You realize a lot of people actually prefer to give their child their best instead of outsourcing it so they can focus on bettering the economy, right?

>>WD-42+59
And with this option they can have that choice. Right now, many don’t.

>>dzink+r9
With this option, they are now financially penalized for making that choice in order to subsidize those who don't. I'm not so sure that's a good thing.

>>Ajedi3+ce
My wife and I have no interest in ever having children, yet we are happy to pay property taxes that go to local public schools. Why? Because an educated society is better able to make educated decisions. We are being "penalized" for making the choice to not have kids in order to "subsidize" those who don't.

>>mcbobg+Bh
Correct. It all comes down to whether you believe parents leaving home to work on their careers instead of staying home to raise their kids is an unambiguous good that needs to be subsidized the same way education is.