Childcare, an impossible paradox

[Terxpahseyton]

Another thing to consider is that having children can be really fulfilling and with so many parts of our lives already structured to serve the mindless cycle of production and consumption, I personally am happy to see this part of our private lives partially protected from the demands of the economy by subsidizing its realization within our economic frame, even if I never will have children of my own.
In other words: It is also about securing a wider array of choices, for every one of us for that matter.

 

[metatron]

I dunno, subsidies for childcare are essentially taxing childless people [...] to pay for other people's children.

Subsidies for childcare are essentially taxing adults for everybody-when-they-are-young.

 

[Borachio]

Yes.

I suppose, too, that subsidies for children are essentially subsidizing the future care of the childless elderly.

It can sometimes pay to take the long and global view of things.

 

[Zelig]

Another thing to consider is that having children can be really fulfilling and with so many parts of our lives already structured to serve the mindless cycle of production and consumption, I personally am happy to see this part of our private lives partially protected from the demands of the economy by subsidizing its realization within our economic frame, even if I never will have children of my own.
In other words: It is also about securing a wider array of choices, for every one of us for that matter.

I would contend that my hobbies are more fulfilling and far less part of a mindless cycle of production and consumption than babies are.

Subsidies for childcare are essentially taxing adults for everybody-when-they-are-young.

Children aren't autonomous, subsidies go to their parents. If you give me enough subsidies I'll have as many kids as you like.

Yes.

I suppose, too, that subsidies for children are essentially subsidizing the future care of the childless elderly.

It can sometimes pay to take the long and global view of things.

We generally shouldn't be using working people to subsidize the elderly, we should be equipping people to provide for themselves in their old age. I don't think anyone (reasonable) is opposed to welfare for disadvantaged children to ensure they're healthy, well-educated, etc. in the same way welfare for the elderly should be limited to those who aren't able to provide for themselves.

I'm taking the really long and global view and assuming that we'll eventually stomp out aging and won't need babies other than tube-grown ones to replace people killed in accidents.

 

[cardgame]

The USA has plenty of room to grow, Zelig. Not growing is the dangerous option here (Japan).

 

[Zelig]

The USA has plenty of room to grow, Zelig. Not growing is the dangerous option here (Japan).

Individual countries' growth rates don't really matter, countries with low growth should be importing people from countries with high growth to even it out, and overall we have both growth and already too many people.

 

[Farm Boy]

I would contend that my hobbies are more fulfilling and far less part of a mindless cycle of production and consumption than babies are.



Children aren't autonomous, subsidies go to their parents. If you give me enough subsidies I'll have as many kids as you like.

I don't think anyone begrudges meaningful hobbies nor demands you have kids. Well, maybe you get pressure from family or something, but they're neither here nor there.

I really gotta challenge the other parts though. My son is not a mindless consumption based acquisition. He's a lot of hard work along with all the good stuff. And there has to be a lot of good stuff, because do you honestly think the level of subsidization we receives comes anywhere close to defraying the cost of raising a child? I received an adoption tax credit, it covered not quite one third of the cost of the adoption. I receive a tax break on having him as a dependent, it's nowhere close to that much of the day in day out expense. Even of you total up all the things like education taxes for public schools and universities and then try to write off the people that did not themselves use those things earlier in their lives, parents chew an enormous variety of 'investment' costs that they choose to cover. Society, if you want to be mercenary about it, is getting a steal. Thank goodness some(not all) people want to do it.

Really not trying to sound smarmy about it. It's not like having a kid makes you laudable by definition or anything, but portraying it as some sort of mindless entertainment purchase in order to maximize benefits received is really inaccurate.

 

[Zelig]

I'm not trying to portray it that way, my hobbies are just really awesome.

I'm not being facetious about the other part - I don't have kids specifically because the subsidies aren't enough to defray the whole cost of having a child. My point is that we need to be careful of raising subsidies in a way that would motivate me to have children, when we already have too many kids.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not trying to portray it that way, my hobbies are just really awesome.

I'm not being facetious about the other part - I don't have kids specifically because the subsidies aren't enough to defray the whole cost of having a child. My point is that we need to be careful of raising subsidies in a way that would motivate me to have children, when we already have too many kids.

Well, if that's the hang up to you otherwise wanting to be a parent, I don't have any suggestion about the cost, but go find an adoption agency. You add zero to the planet's net breeding pool

 

[peter grimes]

I'm a job creator, Dammittall! I employ someone 40 hours a week at more than rice minimum wage, no benefits. We also employ a backup part time. Where's my corporate welfare and low tax rates to spur more hiring?

 

[civvver]

There's such a thing as the two income trap. The premise is that there are costs involved with having both parents work. These costs aren't limited to childcare costs, but also things like transportation and clothing costs related to work as well as the added cost of eating out when you could be cooking at home much less expensively. It is possible for these costs to be so high that they significantly decrease the net income from a job.

Then there's the personal cost of commuting and the like that can cause work to reduce quality of life.

Added up, it can be a good idea for one parent to stop working.

Or not Having one income might be sensible if you're living in a low-cost area and your spouse's job is secure. Doing it in NYC might be another question altogether.

Sorry for replying to an early post without reading the entire thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned, but the US tax system is also set up to heavily penalize dual income families. You get the same brackets as a single income family but with far less deductions and single income families with a spouse get close to 50% more social security benefits.

My wife used to work a 40k/year teaching job an hour away. Considering the commute costs, the costs of child care and how much of that income went to taxes we probably only sacrifice a a few hundred bucks a month to have her stay home and it's much more beneficial for our child.

 

[Zelig]

Sorry for replying to an early post without reading the entire thread, so apologies if this has been mentioned, but the US tax system is also set up to heavily penalize dual income families. You get the same brackets as a single income family but with far less deductions and single income families with a spouse get close to 50% more social security benefits.

That sounds mostly like a problem in giving explicit tax benefits to couples where only one is working.

 

[Borachio]

We generally shouldn't be using working people to subsidize the elderly, we should be equipping people to provide for themselves in their old age. I don't think anyone (reasonable) is opposed to welfare for disadvantaged children to ensure they're healthy, well-educated, etc. in the same way welfare for the elderly should be limited to those who aren't able to provide for themselves.

I'm taking the really long and global view and assuming that we'll eventually stomp out aging and won't need babies other than tube-grown ones to replace people killed in accidents.

Ah yes, but you're also assuming that the financial system is a real thing.

My position is that it isn't. All there really is is human effort. And by this metric, the elderly can't physically provide for themselves when they become too frail.

So that the childless elderly must rely on the children of other people to provide for them in old age.

Hence, why the childless should not really mind any tax breaks that parents might get.

In addition, the effort that parents put into child-rearing are many times the effort of those without.

My point being that parents really do deserve to be subsidized by the childless. It's not an inquity at all, imo.

 

[Zelig]

Ah yes, but you're also assuming that the financial system is a real thing.

My position is that it isn't. All there really is is human effort. And by this metric, the elderly can't physically provide for themselves when they become too frail.

So that the childless elderly must rely on the children of other people to provide for them in old age.

That's silly, they can pay people to care for them.

And old age frailty is a temporary problem.

 

[Borachio]

That's silly. Who are the people they're going to pay, and with what? Still, I don't see much point arguing along these lines with you.

But yes, I suppose old age frailty is a temporary problem with a terminal solution.

Seems a rather strange thing to point out.

 

[Zelig]

That's silly. Who are the people they're going to pay, and with what? Still, I don't see much point arguing along these lines with you.

I don't understand your point or how it relates to childcare subsidies.

Hand-waving away the financial system as not being a real thing just makes your argument confusing. Dollars are a convenient abstraction of human effort which already cover the case in question - if I build houses for people with kids, that's effort that I expend in the present, which I bank and can trade back for care when I'm frail, there's no need of explicit subsidies happening for either the young or elderly.

But yes, I suppose old age frailty is a temporary problem with a terminal solution.

No, it's something we'll fix with a non-terminal solution.

 

[Borachio]

I don't understand your point or how it relates to childcare subsidies.

Yeah. I can see I'm not going to convince you. So, I'll not try. It's fine.

No, it's something we'll fix with a non-terminal solution.

I admire your optimism.

 

[Birdjaguar]

My wife and I have just suffered a minor calamity compared to what happened to our daughter's "manny". He plays soccer on one of the city league teams - goalie. Last Monday night he took a kick to the face and had to go to the emergency room. Luckily he found out he won't need surgery.

This was Monday night, and we didn't have a clear backup plan for our daughter's care. We managed to get someone to watch her Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday afternoons, but the rest of the time I had to fill in. Don't get me wrong, I *loved* spending all that time with her and seeing the people she knows at the playgroups and such, but we're very busy at work and now I'm going to have to work more weekends and evenings to get the projects done in time.

We've also had to scramble to arrange fill-in care providers for the upcoming week. We can't afford an agency, and we aren't ready to plop her in a home daycare center around here - they are all pretty lousy.

It occurred to me, not very originally, that the cost of daycare is more than our rent, and that it would almost make more sense for me to not work at all.

How do other countries handle the costs and challenges of infant and toddler daycare? Are the costs similarly high? Obviously if we lived closer to family this would be less of an issue, but these days it takes 2 incomes to get by, even for my in-laws and parents.

Do you have a spare bedroom? My wife is from New England (CT), is familiar with NYC, has decades of professional child care experience, has been a nanny, and might well work for cash. How long do you need her for?

 

[timtofly]

That sounds mostly like a problem in giving explicit tax benefits to couples where only one is working.

I think it is because two incomes put the family into a higher tax bracket. It would still be the same if one person was working and bringing in a similar income equal to what two people would bring in on their own. One could also get around it by filling separately on an individual basis, but give up the "other benefits" of filing jointly.

 

[peter grimes]

No way I'm letting the wife of a SuperMod spy on me

I wasn't born yesterday, after all.

We're now looking into a more permanent pre-prescool situation since my wife's wirk load should be less in the new year. But with working less comes less income, so less money left over after Childcare expenses.

It's a tough nut to cracking, for sure.