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
I just don't understand this mentality.

My wife is a stay-at-home mom. We are lucky that we can afford to do this. Most of our kid's friends have both parents working and they pay for child care. If suddenly they were able to have that childcare paid for, that would be wonderful! It doesn't affect our situation at all. Why would we oppose it? I don't need to have my own "waiver" payment in order for me to be in favor of my neighbor's burden being lifted.

It's like free school lunch. We pack our kid a lunch every day, but some families rely on the school-provided free lunch. It's never even occurred to me that we should get a $3/day payment because we don't take advantage of free lunch. Having free lunch available is unequivocally a good thing, regardless of whether we personally partake.

>>ryandr+cy
Also, stay at home mums often like to sometimes be able to use child care facilities. I doubt they feel cheated that they don't use it on the majority of days they prefer to spend with their kids...

>>notaha+Mz
But why not let them go to child care on those days, get those reimbursed, but also use the funds for other things (like supplies for raising kids at home, or to pay for other activities you take them to that aren’t just daycare)?

>>Silver+kD
Because the point of subsidising care is to remove cost barriers to parents getting back into work or dealing with other stuff or socialising kids in a day care environment, not to turn parenting into a profit centre

>>notaha+uG
Why would providing vouchers turn parenting into a profit center? That’s a cynical way to portray one side of this when you probably don’t take the same harsh view of the other side. The point of subsidizing care isn’t to get parents “back into work”. It’s to help people raise children. That’s it. You’re gatekeeping what this is for as a way to justify unnecessary centralization and a lack of choice where choice is possible.

>>Silver+dT
Providing vouchers to pay for daycare doesn't turn parenting into a profit centre. Providing parents with $12k per child per annum which they can either spend on daycare or anything else they want if they don't need daycare does (and has the opposite effect of the current policy: it keeps the opportunity cost of daycare the same and lowers the relative value of going back to work)

>>notaha+Uo1
I'm still lost as to why it's OK for daycares to be taxpayer subsidized profit centers but it's bad for a parent to receive the subsidies instead because some other parent may hypothetically be turning a profit on the kid if they just feed them pork and beans and stuff them into a closet.

>>mothba+wq1
I'm still lost as to why you think taxpayers need to pay people who don't need free stuff for not using the free stuff? I mean, if parenting during the daytime is so unpleasant or expensive parents need a $12k subsidy to stay at home, they can just use the daycare... right?

>>notaha+LD1
So your position is what, the people who currently weren't getting free daycare don't need it because they were already getting by? You went straight to what people "need" but then ignored the whole schtick we're discussing was NM going from means-tested to universal childcare even for people that don't "need" it.

I'm willing to accept that position, I'm not necessarily for free childcare, only believe that if childcare is to be free it should follow the child. I don't see at all how a mom taking care of a child "needs" the money less than a daycare worker/company taking care of the child. What you're proposing is just yanking the money away from them in a tax, then lording it over them that they have to take the latter if they want the cash back -- trying to track to which caregiver the money goes instead of just providing the resources for the child and let the parents decide what works best for their family.

>>mothba+4F1
> You went straight to what people "need" but then ignored the whole schtick we're discussing was NM going from means-tested to universal childcare even for people that don't "need" it.

Nope, I'm the one explicitly not ignoring the major rationale behind providing universal free childcare, which is that it removes a massive disincentive to using childcare (it's expensive), with the result that parents are less likely to work or take on other responsibilities some of the time and less likely to take their kids to nurseries to help socialise them.

People who mostly look after their own kids still benefit from the free care when they do need it, and those who would prefer to look after their children 24/7 regardless are essentially unaffected[1], unless of course they are the sort who upon seeing others enjoying a free lunch, become preoccupied by the thought the food supplier should probably pay them for having a full stomach.

[1]I mean, someone's paying a little more tax at the margin, but that's spread over a lot more people and the stay at home mums barely feature...

> I don't see at all how a mom taking care of a child "needs" the money less than a daycare worker/company taking care of the child.

You don't understand why daycare centre employees would like to earn a living? Or you don't understand that paying some trained professionals to look after your kids in a big building might cost a bit more than staying at home with them and maybe buying an extra meal or two?

I mean, if there is some stay at home parent that finds looking after their own children during the daytime such a burden they "need" an extra $1k per child per month to do it... they should probably just use the free childcare.

> What you're proposing is just yanking the money away from them in a tax, then lording it over them that they have to take the latter if they want the cash back

Nope. Actually, when it comes to yanking money and telling people they can get the cash back if they do something (have an infant kid and quit their job to look after it) that sounds rather more like your proposition of giving indiscriminate cash handouts to parents. I am pointing out that subsidising the amount of third party childcare parents actually want to consume requires considerably less tax money to be yanked away and has a different set of incentives.