The argument no one has brought up yet: why should society have to pay up even more for breeders' personal choices? People without kids have to pay higher taxes (via rebates for parents), utilize less resources (public schools), effectively subsidizing people who want to have kids. I'm all for protecting what's best for children, but I am not happy with people having children they cannot adequately support, causing o…
Sure let’s do that.
But as part of the deal let’s make sure $0 off of the economic output of the offspring of “breeders” goes to your Medicare or social security.
If this gets us further from a land value tax, it is bad. Simple as. 100% this is disguised handout for home schooling right wing nuts. Property tax is not a significant burden for regular childcare outfits. "Cash poor asset rich" is not a real problem and anyone telling you otherwise it out to swindle you.
property tax is a burden for anyone who owns property in the US.
The weight of my t-shirt upon my shoulders is also technically a burden. Who cares.
Quantitative distinctions matter, binary burden/non-burden thinking is not helpful.
The argument no one has brought up yet: why should society have to pay up even more for breeders' personal choices? People without kids have to pay higher taxes (via rebates for parents), utilize less resources (public schools), effectively subsidizing people who want to have kids. I'm all for protecting what's best for children, but I am not happy with people having children they cannot adequately support, causing o…
Seems if the state is going to mandate 10-year-old rape victims have children, then they should provide some sort of childcare system too.
How long until a "conservative" sees this program and says "Gee, we don't need to waste money in free child-care for workers, they can use their own money for that!"?
This is such a reddit level comment, a knee jerk reaction to a media article that is biased in its own way. Kentucky is voting 80% republican, so you can be sure that the measure was passed by republicans. The article doesn't mention "republican" once, but if it was an article about a good thing done by democrats, you would have seen "democrat led house".
What's wrong with that? if my kid doesn't go to public school, i should be able to take my contribution to that and use it for what i moved him to (charter school or homeschool) etc.
No that's like antithetical to the entire concept of taxes in general and their use for all. Government services are not a market and should not be. We pay for everyone's schooling because educated people make a better democracy. If you decide the public system isn't for you, why should you have any entitlement to not continue to pay for everyone else's children like everyone else?
The US tax provided school system doesn't seem to do a great job at educating. Why should we support a broken system?
What's wrong with that? if my kid doesn't go to public school, i should be able to take my contribution to that and use it for what i moved him to (charter school or homeschool) etc.
No that's like antithetical to the entire concept of taxes in general and their use for all. Government services are not a market and should not be. We pay for everyone's schooling because educated people make a better democracy. If you decide the public system isn't for you, why should you have any entitlement to not continue to pay for everyone else's children like everyone else?
I don't mind paying for "public school" because its pretty much a "prison lite" system for "youths" which keeps them under close eye instead of running around in society untethered.
But for the people that actually want their kids to exist in a learning environment, they should have an option instead of being forced to send their kids to their locally assigned public school.
The argument no one has brought up yet: why should society have to pay up even more for breeders' personal choices? People without kids have to pay higher taxes (via rebates for parents), utilize less resources (public schools), effectively subsidizing people who want to have kids. I'm all for protecting what's best for children, but I am not happy with people having children they cannot adequately support, causing o…
Honestly, parents are doing (or should be doing) the majority of the work in training up the next generation.
Not to be harsh here, but non-parents (which I was for a very long time) are the ones kind of freeloading here.
Setting aside the philosophical free market questions, additional government subsidy childcare seems fine. There’s a positive externality of readily available childcare: one adult to many children is more efficient than home care, and parents being able to work generates economic production, taxes, etc. But couldn’t we come up with a subsidy with less market distortion? A specific subsidy to pay for childcare for chi…
You know you've lost the plot when even child care is looked at through the lense of capitalistic markets. Maybe fuck the markets and lets do what is best for the children and the parents. Or is that a radical idea nowadays?
The best for children and parents would probably be that none of the parents have to work at all until the child is some age when they should go to school. But if we implemented that system, there would be a labor shortage, which would reduce the number of teachers, plumbers, mechanics, accountants, software engineers, etc, so the rest of society would suffer. There is no magic wand we can wave to solve all our problems without any tradeoffs. Money distributes resources in a capitalist system, and there are many problems and distortions. If you built a command economy with no money you would still have to make choices about these tradeoffs.
Setting aside the philosophical free market questions, additional government subsidy childcare seems fine. There’s a positive externality of readily available childcare: one adult to many children is more efficient than home care, and parents being able to work generates economic production, taxes, etc. But couldn’t we come up with a subsidy with less market distortion? A specific subsidy to pay for childcare for chi…
You know you've lost the plot when even child care is looked at through the lense of capitalistic markets. Maybe fuck the markets and lets do what is best for the children and the parents. Or is that a radical idea nowadays?
What does that mean in practice though? That both parents should stay at home until the kids are 10?