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
There are many things that may be better overall, but because they're not financialized, they don't show up on GDP and so are deemed "worthless."

Breastfeeding doesn't move money around, but formula does; things like that.

Cooking your own meal doesn't raise GDP beyond the cost of supplies, but door-dashing from a restaurant does.

>>bombca+39
More realistically here, there’s a limit to the funding any individual state can come up with to fund benefits. Tradeoffs have to be considered and increased workforce participation increases the tax receipts that fund these programs. It’s not much more complicated than that.

>>ch4s3+6e
I find it dubious that adding the people who don't find it financially feasible to use childcare to cover working hours will generate tax revenue to cover this due to the low income and low tax nature. Not to mention the addition of the cost from all the current paying families.

>>giantg+jm
> generate tax revenue to cover this due

That's not the claim I'm making. Someone entering the workforce has tax implications for a local government far beyond their individual tax receipts and will increase their future earning potential.

>>ch4s3+Om
You imply an overall net netral to net positive. I find it hard to believe that would total $12k per year. If there are complicated n-order effects, then perhaps you should call them out instead of saying it's not complicated.

>>giantg+Wn
> I find it hard to believe that would total $12k per year.

Again I didn't claim that. The tradeoff is generating some percentage of X benefit in economic activity vs some much lower percentage of X while X is also much larger.

>>ch4s3+XC
I fail to understand what value your initial comment holds. The grandparents of that comment was talking about financial feasibility of the program in the context of a proposed waiver. This necessarily implies that on-topic responses to that should be weighing financial feasibility of the program with and without the waiver. Your most recent comment seems to just be clarifying that your initial comment is just the same generalized explanation for the current expansion - expanding the benefit to the currently working higher earning parents where the return is unclear and logically dubious, thus providing some much lower percentage of X while X is much larger. The only way to claim what your comment is trying to is to also display some evidence that this current expansion will provide economic activity benefit beyond the previous program that had 4x poverty level means testing. Otherwise, it's simply "some much lower percentage of X while X is also much larger" vs the same thing with X being even larger.

>>giantg+KH
The idea of extending the program to pay people who aren't using the benefit directly sounds nice in theory but would cost way more and incentivizes people to not work. This necessarily makes the broader version of the program even more expensive than it appears at first. A working parent using a daycare voucher necessarily pays taxes back into the system and so does the day care. This offsets the cost a little. Giving essentially cash payments to people who stay at home has no such offset. So it is much more expensive and disincentivizes people working which might slightly offset the cost.

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

There is no way this is affordable to New Mexico. They're estimating the cost at $600 million a year, of about 6% of their total budget next year.

>>ch4s3+6q1
"A working parent using a daycare voucher necessarily pays taxes back into the system and so does the day care."

This assumes the value of the parent working is greater than the value generated by the alternative consumer spending.

"and incentivizes people to not work"

This would only incentivize low income individuals to not work, which could actually be beneficial as it could drive a living wage increase in that labor segment if employers had to compete against the benefit.