4 ms·

Given low fertility rates, companies that provide daycare should get large tax breaks.

mupuff1234 3y ago
Or you could just give the tax break to the parents instead of creating another corporate tax loophole that will most likely be abused.
- JamesBarney 3y ago
  You could, either works.
  - hot_gril 3y ago
    Neither way really impacts fertility rate if that's the goal. Many countries, esp in west and north Europe, have already found out that you can't pay people to have kids.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- ytdytvhxgydvhh 3y ago
  Individual parents aren’t generally in a position to open a daycare and make a meaningful difference in the supply of childcare. Employers may be able to do so.
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    give the parents the money and let them decide what to do with it
    - RhysU 3y ago
      All day cares will suddenly increase in price to the tune of the tax break.
  - ndriscoll 3y ago
    BLS data[0] indicate over 30% of married couples with children have a stay-at-home parent, and census data[1] indicate over 20% of childcare is provided by a non-parent relative. So family providing care is quite normal and close to the majority of the supply of childcare. [0] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t04.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t04.htm [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/child-care.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/child-care.ht...
- dgfitz 3y ago
  Or throw away the entire bullshit that is the US tax code and start over.
- acdha 3y ago
  A tax break only helps people who are paying enough in taxes for it to matter and when it’s well calibrated to match what daycare costs. It would generally be better for the government to provide daycare because they have much better scale and consistency on funding, employment – daycare employees are notoriously underpaid because it’s such a high overhead business – and especially real estate. Using state buildings and getting the workers on healthcare plans which have better economies of scale would be a lot more sustainable economically than having a bunch of small businesses with far less leverage trying to do it on a smaller scale.
  - loeg 3y ago
    > A tax break only helps people who are paying enough in taxes for it to matter No, tax deductions help higher rate taxpayers more, but "tax breaks" is a more broad/relaxed term that includes tax credits. Tax credits benefit everyone who files taxes and meets the criteria for the credit. > It would generally be better for the government to provide daycare Eh, that is kind of a wholly different argument. In some ways the credit is obviously better (maybe it frees up one partner who wants to to stay-at-home parent), and it can be used more flexibly than a government-provided care program, even if you assume arguendo that the government program would be good and/or good value.
    - acdha 3y ago
      If you’re going to be that pedantic, be sure to specify that you mean refundable tax credits – and then perhaps acknowledge the second half of the compound statement you’re replying to.
anthomtb 3y ago
Why does fertility rate matter? Subsidizing daycare seems beneficial in any circumstance.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > Why does fertility rate matter? I don't want to post spoilers here, but the inverted population pyramid is going to result in some interesting times.
  - AlexandrB 3y ago
    So would a permanent, non-inverted pyramid. Gotta bite the bullet at some point.
  - JeffSnazz 3y ago
    Only for people scared of degrowth. It's not that scary if you actually have some kind of consensus mechanism or conflict resolution, which is the thing we actually lack as a country that's scary as shit. Anyway, politicians could always loosen immigration. More people = bigger economy, higher wages for the rest of us, and generally immigrants have higher fertility rates. Somehow neither party wants to acknowledge this. (yes, the above would come with inflation too—this can be reclaimed pretty easily from the top of the wealth pyramid with taxes.)
    - astrange 3y ago
      > and generally immigrants have higher fertility rates Not by much, it's only higher in the origin country afaik. > yes, the above would come with inflation too Growing the economy isn't inflationary. > this can be reclaimed pretty easily from the top of the wealth pyramid with taxes Rich people don't contribute to inflation as much because they have lower marginal propensity to consume. You need to combat demand-side inflation by taking money away from everyone else, and supply-side inflation by increasing production.
      - JeffSnazz 3y ago
Rafuino 3y ago
Funnily enough, the CHIPS Act has provisions that require recipients of grants of a certain amount to provide childcare to employees. That might be the way of the future if we explicitly subsidize more and more industries directly...

Or you could just give the tax break to the parents instead of creating another corporate tax loophole that will most likely be abused.

JamesBarney 3y ago
You could, either works.
- hot_gril 3y ago
  Neither way really impacts fertility rate if that's the goal. Many countries, esp in west and north Europe, have already found out that you can't pay people to have kids.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
ytdytvhxgydvhh 3y ago
Individual parents aren’t generally in a position to open a daycare and make a meaningful difference in the supply of childcare. Employers may be able to do so.
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  give the parents the money and let them decide what to do with it
  - RhysU 3y ago
    All day cares will suddenly increase in price to the tune of the tax break.
- ndriscoll 3y ago
  BLS data[0] indicate over 30% of married couples with children have a stay-at-home parent, and census data[1] indicate over 20% of childcare is provided by a non-parent relative. So family providing care is quite normal and close to the majority of the supply of childcare. [0] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t04.htm https://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.t04.htm [1] https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/child-care.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/11/child-care.ht...
dgfitz 3y ago
Or throw away the entire bullshit that is the US tax code and start over.
acdha 3y ago
A tax break only helps people who are paying enough in taxes for it to matter and when it’s well calibrated to match what daycare costs. It would generally be better for the government to provide daycare because they have much better scale and consistency on funding, employment – daycare employees are notoriously underpaid because it’s such a high overhead business – and especially real estate. Using state buildings and getting the workers on healthcare plans which have better economies of scale would be a lot more sustainable economically than having a bunch of small businesses with far less leverage trying to do it on a smaller scale.
- loeg 3y ago
  > A tax break only helps people who are paying enough in taxes for it to matter No, tax deductions help higher rate taxpayers more, but "tax breaks" is a more broad/relaxed term that includes tax credits. Tax credits benefit everyone who files taxes and meets the criteria for the credit. > It would generally be better for the government to provide daycare Eh, that is kind of a wholly different argument. In some ways the credit is obviously better (maybe it frees up one partner who wants to to stay-at-home parent), and it can be used more flexibly than a government-provided care program, even if you assume arguendo that the government program would be good and/or good value.
  - acdha 3y ago
    If you’re going to be that pedantic, be sure to specify that you mean refundable tax credits – and then perhaps acknowledge the second half of the compound statement you’re replying to.

anthomtb 3y ago

Why does fertility rate matter? Subsidizing daycare seems beneficial in any circumstance.

willcipriano 3y ago
> Why does fertility rate matter? I don't want to post spoilers here, but the inverted population pyramid is going to result in some interesting times.
- AlexandrB 3y ago
  So would a permanent, non-inverted pyramid. Gotta bite the bullet at some point.
- JeffSnazz 3y ago
  Only for people scared of degrowth. It's not that scary if you actually have some kind of consensus mechanism or conflict resolution, which is the thing we actually lack as a country that's scary as shit. Anyway, politicians could always loosen immigration. More people = bigger economy, higher wages for the rest of us, and generally immigrants have higher fertility rates. Somehow neither party wants to acknowledge this. (yes, the above would come with inflation too—this can be reclaimed pretty easily from the top of the wealth pyramid with taxes.)
  - astrange 3y ago
    > and generally immigrants have higher fertility rates Not by much, it's only higher in the origin country afaik. > yes, the above would come with inflation too Growing the economy isn't inflationary. > this can be reclaimed pretty easily from the top of the wealth pyramid with taxes Rich people don't contribute to inflation as much because they have lower marginal propensity to consume. You need to combat demand-side inflation by taking money away from everyone else, and supply-side inflation by increasing production.
    - JeffSnazz 3y ago

Rafuino 3y ago

Funnily enough, the CHIPS Act has provisions that require recipients of grants of a certain amount to provide childcare to employees. That might be the way of the future if we explicitly subsidize more and more industries directly...