zlacker

> With this policy, those who needed childcare but were priced out of the market will be able to access the service they needed.

And the rich parents who can afford childcare are also given a subsidy. A married parent who wants to stay home but can't quite afford it is forced to work. Is this really what you want? If it is the poor your care about why not subsidies just them?

>>bluGil+(OP)
> And the rich parents who can afford childcare are also given a subsidy.

That's fine.

> A married parent who wants to stay home but can't quite afford it is forced to work.

I don't get what point you think you're making. Do you believe that not offering universal child care changed that?

>>bluGil+(OP)
> A married parent who wants to stay home but can't quite afford it is forced to work.

I’m confused; how does your preferred policy solve this problem?

>>afthon+b5
I don't have a stated preferred policy here. I'm questioning if the post I replied to really preferred this policy.

Policy is a constant battle of unintended consequences. I clearly understand that nothing isn't immune from those consequences, and so I'm constantly adjusting my preferred policy trying to find the least bad compromise.

>>bluGil+(OP)
This isn't a perfect solution. If you want the most equitable then you go the UBI route. Otherwise you have to do fixes like this in order to make things better. Also you have to do the ROI on means testing