zlacker

Why wouldn't you want your friends to better be able to afford what you have, by getting an equal value stipend to stay at home if you're for universal childcare? There are many families that might be only one or two tuitions away from being able to stay at home with their child like they had wished, and assigning the waiver/voucher to the child instead of to the daycare can make that happen.

And no it's not a free lunch. If stay-at-home in a family isn't reimbursed, they are actually worse off, because now they have an additional tax they are paying that they did not have before. So now even more people like you who wanted a parent to stay at home are driven out of it because their family budget comes upon this tax.

>>mothba+(OP)
Let it go. Everyone gets some tax benefits that others don't. Childless people get many fewer social benefits than people with children. We don't need to quibble over microgrievances.

>>mothba+(OP)
I'm not sure I follow, but I'm open to being wrong. The point of this subsidy is not to encourage people to move from paid-childcare to stay-at-home. That's a totally separate economic decision. The point of it is to ease/eliminate the burden of those who require paid-childcare.

If we think there is a societal advantage to financially incentivize parents to stay-at-home with a subsidy, I'd be open to looking at the cost/benefit, but it's a different issue.

And I am not significantly worse off if my neighbor's childcare burden is lifted. Not every tax dollar I spend needs to come back to me in the form of a benefit.

>>mothba+(OP)
So if I pack my kids lunch but other kids get a "free" lunch I'm worse off? Yes there is no "free lunch" I'm paying a tax for something I don't need. The comment you are replying to already anticipates this. How is it not the same argument? Your budget comment also puzzles me. What if my existing family budget is put under stress by the "free lunch tax" so now I'm even further away from being able to pack my own lunch? How is it different? Because it's a "new" tax? You can make the same argument for any tax then. At the end of the day are your children better or worse off if their future fellow citizens are growing up under roofs that can't afford childcare or healthcare or food? For someone that seems to know enough about costs and incentives and tradeoffs you seem to have quite a constrained view. Also, I'm curious about your waivers claim re costs because I would think given the scenario you laid out that would make the program more expensive. Your taxed for things other people use more than you. That's what society is. The point of the comment you are replying to is that people obsess over this as if they are being personally violated when really it is often just greed in the face of the common good.

>>pear01+E6
It's very convenient that it is greed when the stay at home mom wants an equal voucher, but not greed when a mom joins a capitalist for-profit enterprise for whatever wage she can avail herself of with the childcare bill footed by everyone else. Which is precisely what we are discussing.

>>mothba+47
Make it a progressive tax then? The point was many people can afford to help others to make society better for all. But you only want to pay taxes for what you're personally interested in? If you think stay at home needs to be prioritized in some way, as another comment mentioned, that's a separate argument. You are also relying on scenarios that don't even sound plausible. If someone can barely afford stay at home and this tax makes it that painful for them, then make it more progressive. Then again I'm not sure they are equivalent. At the end of the day a majority deciding something like this is in the common interest and you having a problem because you won't personally take advantage of it sounds like greed to me. No one should be going broke because of this tax. If you think capitalist mommy is making too much while you foot the bill then wouldn't the remedy be to tax her more? Are you worried about people who can't afford the tax or do you just resent some people for getting societal benefits while also making more than you?

>>pear01+ka
I'm not talking about "prioritizing" stay at homes, I'm talking about just giving them the same thing the company/entity that would be taking care of their kid would get paid for doing it. I'm speaking of removing the prioritization for commercial childcare.

>>mothba+Ka
Semantic games. At the end of the day if x is prioritized more than y and you want x and y to be equal you do want a relative boost in the priority of y. So fine. As I said I'm not sure they are equivalent or how this specific objection can't be applied to any other tax in a way that feels implausible. Should I get a voucher if I pack my kids lunch? Why are we "prioritizing" commerical food preparation?

>>mothba+47
Your argument smacks of insincerity due to its limited scope of viewing SAHMs as moms providing childcare.

1/ You haven't mentioned how that SAHM must get a cooking credit, healthcare, retirement or house management credit or anything else in the litany of jobs required outside of immediate childcare and costs incurred by simply existing as a woman. Just a voucher for the hours, I assume, at which childcare would be open and none of the other hours

2/ A SAHP (thats stay at home parent) should be incentivized by raising wages and allowing life to be more affordable but your argument seems to be very focused on "moms" and "capitalist enterprises" and does not consider the reality that when SAHMs were more economically viable, it was not viable for all families.

>>ryandr+y4
> And I am not significantly worse off if my neighbor's childcare burden is lifted.

This seems like an unrelated consideration though. You may be significantly worse off. Maybe the government that provides this raises taxes considerably to make this work. Or maybe they take on crippling debt. Maybe their credit rating goes down.

>>stickf+24
We shouldn't provide any welfare services. Then we will all be equal. For as much as you Elsa folks quible about people being against giveaways, what is so harmful about not giving thigs away involuntarily?

>>pear01+zc
>Should I get a voucher if I pack my kids lunch?

Yes. And no. The gov gives the child X$ per week/month/year. The child parents use that money to take care of the child.

Society benefit from children that are well taken care of. Mechanisms to ensure that they are well taken care of are needed. Well funded daycare centers are one of the mechanism. A well funded household with a parent/grand parent/uncle is another one. In both case, an agency is in place to ensure the wellness level of the child.