Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j6epywf wrote

[deleted]

5

Dredly t1_j6f4t9o wrote

Just pointing out, this was done previously to a pretty sizeable extent under the public welfare system, in the 80s/90s. The problem is who gets the money? is it based on income or family size? number of children? location? how much is the right amount?

​

If its done wrong, we end up with a society problem of a heavy incentive to have more children to continue earning income while ensuring low on paper income, which means the parent must live in subsidized housing while ensuring no skill growth, no tax revenue, etc.

​

If its done right, its a huge increase in costs to tax payers as we pay a "living salary" to people who aren't in the work force, and very quickly falls back into the above.

​

The current choice isn't normally "I don't want to stay with my kid" its "I cannot afford it", even while making good money, so how much money would need to be paid out of the gov't budget to parents who want to stay home, and for how long? Do we just let them take an advance on their SS? New "Student Loans" that are gov't backed?....

10

cabinetsnotnow t1_j6f9esy wrote

Another issue I have with this is that using welfare seems to be something that is passed on from generation to generation now. So if we start paying parents to stay home with their kids, what's to stop their kids from becoming adults and having kids and just never actually entering the workforce? Nothing. I think there are better ways to help support parents.

9

Dredly t1_j6fcmgc wrote

That is another society issue that was witnessed pretty heavily, but its part of the larger problem of how do we fully support parents / child care workers without destroying an industry that is essential (pre-k care), punish/lock people into a series of almost servitude to the gov't (reliance on welfare/subsidies), be fair to those who choose not to have kids..

​

in other countries, its generally a "the employer must eat the cost of it". In the US that would just result in a massive reduction in hires of women who may have children as they aren't going to pay 6 months+ of wages to a parent for doing nothing to help their bottom line

6

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6f4d9z wrote

Get the hell out of here. You want money so you can not work?

5

[deleted] t1_j6f4pvs wrote

[deleted]

−1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6fa5fp wrote

No. There is no state sponsored day care. That’s like blackmail. Get a job, or stay home. Have kids or not. But I am not paying you to raise your kids.

1

lilhotdog t1_j6fcjra wrote

Raising kids is a job dingus. I’d rather pay stay at home parents than most of the shit the government spends money on.

5

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6fhlbb wrote

the employer is the spouse who is working. Not me the tax payer.

3

lilhotdog t1_j6fo1ed wrote

God forbid the pittance you pay for income tax in PA goes to something useful instead of cops or some corporate subsidiaries.

0

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6g28q5 wrote

Should go to fixing the potholes

8

Zenith2017 t1_j6i5oco wrote

You want me to pay so you don't have to drive around potholes?

−1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6iky6m wrote

Only gas purchasers pay. It’s the gas tax. Do you ever use the roads? Then you should pay.

3

Zenith2017 t1_j6im9k6 wrote

You're gonna pay for those kids one way or another

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6iq4ov wrote

Hahahahah I guess so but I am not going to make it easy to get handouts. There are lots of ways around it if you want to be a stay at home mommy and can’t afford it. Work weekends, work alternating shifts, baby sit, work from home. Many many people make it work.

0

Zenith2017 t1_j6itwjd wrote

> here's how you be a stay at home parent:

> Work all the time

Ooookay

0

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6j6yug wrote

Being a stay at home parent is a choice . But you don’t do it expecting tax payers to fund it

2

Zenith2017 t1_j6jcos6 wrote

Given the cost of childcare it's certainly an easy choice for many low income parents. It costs tens of thousands per kid per year - frequently more than these people even take home for that years work.

At the end of the day, you and I will pay for these kids, it's just a choice of upstream by subsidizing childcare, or downstream by subsidizing all the issues resulting from absent parents and inadequate support. It's literally cheaper to support daycare than not, similar to how preventative healthcare is cheaper than responsive healthcare.

Edit - and if you're expecting people to stop having kids, that's just completely unrealistic

0

Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6esx01 wrote

That has been mentioned by other parents! Someone just mentioned something similar— I’ll be sure to report back to the group. Our exact demands have not been defined yet, we’re building our base right now so that we represent more people than just a small group. …wanna join? 😉

−4