New Mexico is first state in US to offer universal child care

> 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.

>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.

The major incentive for providing childcare subsidies to everyone but stay at home parents (who now have net negative in this whole scenario post-tax) is to disincentive stay at home parents. If the idea was just to aid with childcare the aid with go with the child. You're purposefully excluding stay-at-homes from the definition of childcare, which is false and disingenuous.

>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?

No I don't understand why daycare employees would want to "earn a living" any more or less than anyone else. I also don't understand why the fact their expenses are higher means a larger value was provided. If I dig for gold for 10 hours with an expensive machine and you dig for 1 with your bare hands, and we both end up with the same amount of gold I haven't created more value than you.

>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.

All well and good until you have men with guns showing up to tax the cash and force that incentive, the same men magically saying it is childcare when anyone that the parent does it. Goal here is clear, destroy the family unit as equal playing field in consideration of what is considered childcare, and put childcare corporation on a pedestal instead.

>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.

This is essentially the argument against taxation -- I actually 100% agree with you here and it's part of why I'm an ancap who is staunchly against this yanking. It is the argument for eliminating all child subsidies / welfare / public schooling which I think would be the absolute best thing for children we could possibly do. However if we have them, I'd like to see them apply equally rather than just payments to places like your proposed "profit-centers" of childcare corps. I will say you've handily played into the hands of the intertwining of the rich business owners with government to enrich themselves at the expense (via threat of violence of armed revenue collection agents) of stay at home moms.

A core tenant of UBI is the universal part: everyone receives the benefit. High income, low income, rich, poor.

If you remove the cost of regulating a benefit, then there will be more money available for people to get this benefit.

Nah, the article addresses that theory too.

> An internal document about Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, caseloads stated that the drug testing policy, at least from July through September, did not lead to fewer cases. “We saw no dampening effect on the caseload,” the document said.

> I've never understood why women are so eager to go work

You're romanticizing it, that's why. Staying at home and not working makes you incredibly vulnerable. You're entirely reliant on the goodwill of someone else, and you can end up trapped, unable to leave a bad situation because you have no access to money. Or your husband just leaves you with kids to feed and no money to do it with.

It's fine if you choose to do it with a partner who treats you as an equal, but there's a reason why female suicides instantly dropped by 20%[0] when no-fault divorce was adopted by their state.

If you want another data point, ask your older female relatives what their mothers and grandmothers told them about money. Bet you more than a few will have a story where they were told to save money in a secret place and never, ever tell their husbands about it.

[0] https://www.nber.org/papers/w10175