3 ms·
That sounds like a good way to keep moms out of the workforce. I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely c
by bsimpson 9mo ago
That sounds like a good way to keep moms out of the workforce.
I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely covers childcare (especially if you also value spending time with your kids).
Free childcare could free those households up to decide which parent(s) work when. Instead, by capping it below a common dual income, it incentivizes the least earning parent to continue to stay out of the workforce.
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- simonw 9mo agoThe subheading says "Officials to offer 50% subsidy up to $310,000" which hopefully addresses your point there.
- jeltz 9mo agoWhile I too disagree with the cap I think you are a bit blinded by working in tech. A lot of double income households do not reach 230k.
- rconti 9mo agoI don't follow. Wouldn't the high cost of childcare make couples less likely to have 2 incomes, because the lower-earning spouse is working for lower marginal pay, just to pay someone ELSE to provide child care?
- jeltz 9mo agoI think he is talking about the threshold effects. E.g if one partner earns 200k then it could make more sense for the other to stay at home than to work and earn say 50k or 70k. The 50% subsidy above 230k reduces that issue but I would rather see no cap.
- exitb 9mo agoYou framed this issue in a certain way, but your position could be described as „lower earning families need to pay for childcare, so higher earning families keep producing two incomes”. Not so attractive anymore.
- fyrn_ 9mo agoI think they framing have the mother not working as a positive, as it tends to lead to better outcomes?
- transcriptase 9mo agoSo basically a return to what was the norm from ~300,000 years ago until 1975? Sound the alarms.
- darkwater 9mo agoWe can all go nomad and berry-picking anytime, then.
- throwaway9e9t 9mo agoWe also had slavery, no advanced medicine, no education for most people, and an average lifespan of about 30. Amazing how selective nostalgia can be. Letting the other 50% of the population make the same life choices is a good idea in my opinion.
- exitb 9mo agoLetting someone make free life choices is good. Disincentivizing not working isn't. It's a reasonable choice for one adult in a family to not work, especially if their earnings don't exceed the costs incurred by having both adults at work. We shouldn't set up our societies in a way to forces people to work even if it makes no financial sense.
- bsimpson 9mo agoThe people who wrote the policy presumably want both parents to be able to work. It's the main reason to make childcare free.
- TMWNN 9mo ago> I know a lot of couples who feel like the wife's job is a hobby, because after taxes it barely covers childcare (especially if you also value spending time with your kids). When described that way ... aren't they right about the wife's job?
- bryanlarsen 9mo agoThat's some convoluted logic. The data shows the opposite. Free/cheap childcare significantly increases the number of parents who work. https://childcarecanada.org/documents/child-care-news/11/06/quebecs-child-care-scheme-pays-itself-economist https://childcarecanada.org/documents/child-care-news/11/06/...
- Jensson 9mo agoThreshold based benefits decreases numbers of parents who work though, why have that threshold when its that high? If a couple can get free childcare by the wife working part time instead of full time they absolutely will, that is the effect the threshold gives you.
- bsimpson 9mo agoI was specifically referring to the cap. It's doing the opposite of what the policy is presumably intended to if both parents are capable of earning 6 figures.