zlacker

> We are lucky that we can afford to do this.

> It doesn't affect our situation at all. Why would we oppose it?

This is rather noble of you, but the reason is obvious. If the playing field were "levelled" then you wouldn't have to be lucky. It is all well and good that you are lucky, but there is a certain population who want to emulate your choice but are unable to, because they are missing precisely the marginal amount that the childcare provision costs. It is a political choice to say that those people should not be able to pursue home-care of the children in order that we can avoid giving out a rebate.

>>tempfi+(OP)
I never said I opposed a subsidy to encourage stay-at-home parenting. By all means, we should propose it and study its pros and cons.

But the lack of that subsidy should not cause someone to oppose a paid-childcare subsidy.

>>ryandr+o7
>> Would make sense IMO to provide an equal value waiver to those who take care of their kid rather than send them to childcare.

> I just don't understand this mentality.

I don't understand. Wasn't your original comment opposing an equal value waiver?