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
Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare. Stay at home moms do not provide a less valuable service than childcare providers. This policy appears to disincentives children staying with their mother even when it is preferred.

>>mothba+w7
> Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare.

This is a great way to kill a policy.

It would technically be most fair if every parent was given the same amount of money per child, period. Then they could do what they needed or wanted with it.

But doing so would not only increase the costs dramatically (by a multiple) it would give money to many parents who didn’t need it for child care.

That’s great in a hypothetical world where budgets are infinite, but in the real world they’re not. The more broadly you spread the money, the less benefit each person receives. If you extended an equal benefit to parents who were already okay with keeping their children home, it’s likely that the real outcome would be reduced benefits for everyone going to daycare. Now you’re giving checks to parents who were already doing okay at home but also diminished the childcare benefit for those who needed it, which was the goal in the beginning.

>>Aurorn+cc
The real reason this is “bad” is because the policy actually being implemented is, as the GP comment demonstrates, to get women into the workforce. This requires the goal to be getting them out of the home away from their children. Thus, you must relatively penalize mothers who stay home and care for their children, which is what this policy does. Of course, it is worse for children, worse for families, worse for mothers, worse for just about everything except “business.”

Edit to add: It is only better for the business and the economy short term, because ultimately it results in a lower birth rate and below replacement level fertility is the main problem we currently have for the near-future economy

>>jtbayl+DA
You're reading waaaay too much into this. Nobody is getting penalized, this is a crab bucket mentality.

>>stickf+YB
Yes they are. If you stay at home you now pay an additional tax on top of everything else.

>>mothba+hC
Nobody's being targeted for additional tax. But correct, benefits aren't being spread evenly across the population. That's how pretty much all social benefits work.

Hell, think about how childless people must feel about this. Or the child tax credit. Nothing is "perfectly fair", but sometimes public policy is good enough.

>>stickf+tG
Childless people are getting the best deal of anyone. They get new social security payers with a better invested upbringing, all for paying out a pittance and offloading most of the cost onto parents -- all the meanwhile having their social security payout almost completely untied to making the investments needed to get their payment.

Childless people basically get their cake and eat it too under the social welfare scheme of most western countries, getting the benefits of children without having to deal with much of the drawbacks.