3 ms·

> do I remain in the workforce and pay $1-2k/month for childcare, or do I quit my job and raise my child/children? That the program "pays for itself" in increa

> do I remain in the workforce and pay $1-2k/month for childcare, or do I quit my job and raise my child/children? That the program "pays for itself" in increased taxes implies that the additional tax burden is at least the $1-2k/month required to pay for the childcare. So if you just cancelled the childcare and reduced the taxes you'd end up at the same place on average, except you wouldn't have non-parents subsidising childcare for parents.

lutorm 7y ago
I understood it as it would "pay for itself" in increased tax revenue in the future as the children who had access to better child care become more productive citizens. That sounds like how any other investment works, you pay now for a better situation in the future. If you argue that you don't want to pay now because you won't benefit in the future because you'll be dead, I assume you're not willing to support any other investments either. That sounds like you're just freeloading on the investments that our ancestors made.
- F_J_H 7y ago
  >children who had access to better child care become more productive citizens. From the article: But young Canadians who were eligible for the program experienced, as teenagers, “a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction” relative to Canadians from other provinces. So, did the Quebec child-care experiment “work”? Yes, for parents and public financing. Perhaps not for the kids.
jonas21 7y ago
No, the argument is that the program increases GDP because more women with children are participating in the labor force. A portion of that increase is collected in taxes, and if that amount happens to be the same or larger than what the government spends on childcare, the program "pays for itself". Non-parents are not subsidizing parents in this scheme. And if the additional amount collected in taxes is greater than the cost of the program, then parents are subsidizing non-parents. If you cancelled the childcare, the GDP increase would disappear, so the increase in tax revenue would disappear, and you wouldn't be able to reduce the tax rate.

lutorm 7y ago

I understood it as it would "pay for itself" in increased tax revenue in the future as the children who had access to better child care become more productive citizens. That sounds like how any other investment works, you pay now for a better situation in the future. If you argue that you don't want to pay now because you won't benefit in the future because you'll be dead, I assume you're not willing to support any other investments either. That sounds like you're just freeloading on the investments that our ancestors made.

F_J_H 7y ago
>children who had access to better child care become more productive citizens. From the article: But young Canadians who were eligible for the program experienced, as teenagers, “a significant worsening in self-reported health and in life satisfaction” relative to Canadians from other provinces. So, did the Quebec child-care experiment “work”? Yes, for parents and public financing. Perhaps not for the kids.

jonas21 7y ago

No, the argument is that the program increases GDP because more women with children are participating in the labor force. A portion of that increase is collected in taxes, and if that amount happens to be the same or larger than what the government spends on childcare, the program "pays for itself". Non-parents are not subsidizing parents in this scheme. And if the additional amount collected in taxes is greater than the cost of the program, then parents are subsidizing non-parents. If you cancelled the childcare, the GDP increase would disappear, so the increase in tax revenue would disappear, and you wouldn't be able to reduce the tax rate.