3 ms·

You're completely missing the point of the parent comment and misunderstanding the concept of what the workforce is. Being a part of the workforce in this cont

You're completely missing the point of the parent comment and misunderstanding the concept of what the workforce is. Being a part of the workforce in this context means you are contributing income taxes. A full time parent contributes $0 in income taxes from their labor and hence is not a part of the workforce. The value of raising a child full time is not at issue here and you're attacking a straw-man. A subsidized day care gives a parent the option of returning to the work force if they wish. This could be because they want to work, or because they have to to feed their family. The parent comment was pointing out that this choice does not result in a deficit to society but rather in a net surplus which makes it worth it to implement and offer regardless of how parents choose to raise their children.

topkai22 7y ago
That’s a problematic definition of in the workforce- in the US 32-47% of people filing tax returns have 0 or negative income tax liability. Paying payroll taxes might be a better definition. Regardless, accounting for value provided in “gray market” untaxed like child rearing, in home work, and volunteer work is very hard and subject to a lot of assumptions in economic models. It’s not a complete strawman argument to worry about it when discussing ROI. Theoretically, we should just grant parents a tax exempt voucher per child every month that is exchangeable for cash or daycare at equivalent rates. That way you aren’t disincentivizing stay at home parents or other familial care (like grandparents or shared part time parenting).