3 ms·

Because the point of subsidising care is to remove cost barriers to parents getting back into work or dealing with other stuff or socialising kids in a day care

Because the point of subsidising care is to remove cost barriers to parents getting back into work or dealing with other stuff or socialising kids in a day care environment, not to turn parenting into a profit centre

SilverElfin 1y ago
Why would providing vouchers turn parenting into a profit center? That’s a cynical way to portray one side of this when you probably don’t take the same harsh view of the other side. The point of subsidizing care isn’t to get parents “back into work”. It’s to help people raise children. That’s it. You’re gatekeeping what this is for as a way to justify unnecessary centralization and a lack of choice where choice is possible.
- notahacker 1y ago
  Providing vouchers to pay for daycare doesn't turn parenting into a profit centre. Providing parents with $12k per child per annum which they can either spend on daycare or anything else they want if they don't need daycare does (and has the opposite effect of the current policy: it keeps the opportunity cost of daycare the same and lowers the relative value of going back to work)
  - mothballed 1y ago
    I'm still lost as to why it's OK for daycares to be taxpayer subsidized profit centers but it's bad for a parent to receive the subsidies instead because some other parent may hypothetically be turning a profit on the kid if they just feed them pork and beans and stuff them into a closet.
    - notahacker 1y ago
      I'm still lost as to why you think taxpayers need to pay people who don't need free stuff for not using the free stuff? I mean, if parenting during the daytime is so unpleasant or expensive parents need a $12k subsidy to stay at home, they can just use the daycare... right?
      - mothballed 1y ago
        So your position is what, the people who currently weren't getting free daycare don't need it because they were already getting by? You went straight to what people "need" but then ignored the whole schtick we're discussing was NM going from means-tested to universal childcare even for people that don't "need" it. I'm willing to accept that position, I'm not necessarily for free childcare, only believe that if childcare is to be free it should follow the child. I don't see at all how a mom taking care of a child "needs" the money less than a daycare worker/company taking care of the child. What you're proposing is just yanking the money away from them in a tax, then lording it over them that they have to take the latter if they want the cash back -- trying to track to which caregiver the money goes instead of just providing the resources for the child and let the parents decide what works best for their family.
        notahacker 1y ago
        > You went straight to what people "need" but then ignored the whole schtick we're discussing was NM going from means-tested to universal childcare even for people that don't "need" it. Nope, I'm the one explicitly not ignoring the major rationale behind providing universal free childcare, which is that it removes a massive disincentive to using childcare (it's expensive), with the result that parents are less likely to work or take on other responsibilities some of the time and less likely to take their kids to nurseries to help socialise them. People who mostly look after their own kids still benefit from the free care when they do need it, and those who would prefer to look after their children 24/7 regardless are essentially unaffected[1], unless of course they are the sort who upon seeing others enjoying a free lunch, become preoccupied by the thought the food supplier should probably pay them for having a full stomach. [1]I mean, someone's paying a little more tax at the margin, but that's spread over a lot more people and the stay at home mums barely feature... > I don't see at all how a mom taking care of a child "needs" the money less than a daycare worker/company taking care of the child. You don't understand why daycare centre employees would like to earn a living? Or you don't understand that paying some trained professionals to look after your kids in a big building might cost a bit more than staying at home with them and maybe buying an extra meal or two? I mean, if there is some stay at home parent that finds looking after their own children during the daytime such a burden they "need" an extra $1k per child per month to do it... they should probably just use the free childcare. > What you're proposing is just yanking the money away from them in a tax, then lording it over them that they have to take the latter if they want the cash back Nope. Actually, when it comes to yanking money and telling people they can get the cash back if they do something (have an infant kid and quit their job to look after it) that sounds rather more like your proposition of giving indiscriminate cash handouts to parents. I am pointing out that subsidising the amount of third party childcare parents actually want to consume requires considerably less tax money to be yanked away and has a different set of incentives.
hellojesus 1y ago
The act of subsidizing childcare doesn't only help stay-at-home parents work, it forces everyone in the market to work more to maintain their same standard of living. Flooding the market with new labor increases the supply Against a fixed demand, this lowers wages. So everyone not getting the subsidy feels pressure from stagnating wages plus the increased tax burden. Let's assume that all those new laborers get paid and therefore demand also increases, moving the equilibrium so some of the wage stagnation pressure is dampened. It's still not going to offset the effect of new labor and taxes. All this does is modify the equilibrium of supply and demand in the market such that those not receiving the subsidies (or evem those not receiving as much subsidies as others) are negatively impacted through lifestyle discrimination.
- notahacker 1y ago
  > Let's assume that all those new laborers get paid and therefore demand also increases, moving the equilibrium so some of the wage stagnation pressure is dampened. It's still not going to offset the effect of new labor and taxes Let's not make the absurd assumption that parents continuing their careers and more daycare centres in operation must be net negative for economic growth. Even if that was the case, the alternative proposal to subsidise parents equally large amounts whether they use it to pay for childcare or not would result in a larger tax burden paid for from a smaller economic pie.

SilverElfin 1y ago

Why would providing vouchers turn parenting into a profit center? That’s a cynical way to portray one side of this when you probably don’t take the same harsh view of the other side. The point of subsidizing care isn’t to get parents “back into work”. It’s to help people raise children. That’s it. You’re gatekeeping what this is for as a way to justify unnecessary centralization and a lack of choice where choice is possible.

notahacker 1y ago
Providing vouchers to pay for daycare doesn't turn parenting into a profit centre. Providing parents with $12k per child per annum which they can either spend on daycare or anything else they want if they don't need daycare does (and has the opposite effect of the current policy: it keeps the opportunity cost of daycare the same and lowers the relative value of going back to work)
- mothballed 1y ago
  I'm still lost as to why it's OK for daycares to be taxpayer subsidized profit centers but it's bad for a parent to receive the subsidies instead because some other parent may hypothetically be turning a profit on the kid if they just feed them pork and beans and stuff them into a closet.
  - notahacker 1y ago
    I'm still lost as to why you think taxpayers need to pay people who don't need free stuff for not using the free stuff? I mean, if parenting during the daytime is so unpleasant or expensive parents need a $12k subsidy to stay at home, they can just use the daycare... right?
    - mothballed 1y ago
      So your position is what, the people who currently weren't getting free daycare don't need it because they were already getting by? You went straight to what people "need" but then ignored the whole schtick we're discussing was NM going from means-tested to universal childcare even for people that don't "need" it. I'm willing to accept that position, I'm not necessarily for free childcare, only believe that if childcare is to be free it should follow the child. I don't see at all how a mom taking care of a child "needs" the money less than a daycare worker/company taking care of the child. What you're proposing is just yanking the money away from them in a tax, then lording it over them that they have to take the latter if they want the cash back -- trying to track to which caregiver the money goes instead of just providing the resources for the child and let the parents decide what works best for their family.
      - notahacker 1y ago
        > You went straight to what people "need" but then ignored the whole schtick we're discussing was NM going from means-tested to universal childcare even for people that don't "need" it. Nope, I'm the one explicitly not ignoring the major rationale behind providing universal free childcare, which is that it removes a massive disincentive to using childcare (it's expensive), with the result that parents are less likely to work or take on other responsibilities some of the time and less likely to take their kids to nurseries to help socialise them. People who mostly look after their own kids still benefit from the free care when they do need it, and those who would prefer to look after their children 24/7 regardless are essentially unaffected[1], unless of course they are the sort who upon seeing others enjoying a free lunch, become preoccupied by the thought the food supplier should probably pay them for having a full stomach. [1]I mean, someone's paying a little more tax at the margin, but that's spread over a lot more people and the stay at home mums barely feature... > I don't see at all how a mom taking care of a child "needs" the money less than a daycare worker/company taking care of the child. You don't understand why daycare centre employees would like to earn a living? Or you don't understand that paying some trained professionals to look after your kids in a big building might cost a bit more than staying at home with them and maybe buying an extra meal or two? I mean, if there is some stay at home parent that finds looking after their own children during the daytime such a burden they "need" an extra $1k per child per month to do it... they should probably just use the free childcare. > What you're proposing is just yanking the money away from them in a tax, then lording it over them that they have to take the latter if they want the cash back Nope. Actually, when it comes to yanking money and telling people they can get the cash back if they do something (have an infant kid and quit their job to look after it) that sounds rather more like your proposition of giving indiscriminate cash handouts to parents. I am pointing out that subsidising the amount of third party childcare parents actually want to consume requires considerably less tax money to be yanked away and has a different set of incentives.

hellojesus 1y ago

The act of subsidizing childcare doesn't only help stay-at-home parents work, it forces everyone in the market to work more to maintain their same standard of living. Flooding the market with new labor increases the supply Against a fixed demand, this lowers wages. So everyone not getting the subsidy feels pressure from stagnating wages plus the increased tax burden. Let's assume that all those new laborers get paid and therefore demand also increases, moving the equilibrium so some of the wage stagnation pressure is dampened. It's still not going to offset the effect of new labor and taxes. All this does is modify the equilibrium of supply and demand in the market such that those not receiving the subsidies (or evem those not receiving as much subsidies as others) are negatively impacted through lifestyle discrimination.

notahacker 1y ago
> Let's assume that all those new laborers get paid and therefore demand also increases, moving the equilibrium so some of the wage stagnation pressure is dampened. It's still not going to offset the effect of new labor and taxes Let's not make the absurd assumption that parents continuing their careers and more daycare centres in operation must be net negative for economic growth. Even if that was the case, the alternative proposal to subsidise parents equally large amounts whether they use it to pay for childcare or not would result in a larger tax burden paid for from a smaller economic pie.