Yes, Should Be Fixed Price (Quebec)
Yes, Means-Tested (France)
No, It Should Not Be Subsidized
Another good debate topic....great people on DebatePolitics...
Maybe a state by state thing.
State Rights can be a useful tool for determining policy.....what works , what does not.
Should we copy the more advanced nations ?
YES, but copying can be risky.
Better is innovation
NO VOTE , I care not for yes and no ...black and white....there should be a "I do not know" option.
Why can't day care facilities be more mechanized, more efficient ?
That is what can reduce costs, I think.
One individual - 20 children to pay for the 100K $ cost - 5K annually.
I must admit, there is much I do not know, but, even then.....even with three children, the $15K should be affordable....or, the wife can stay at home and pay herself the 15K...
More nanny state garbage... literally.
There is a lot that is being glossed over here. First, there is the description of success. Bringing home more money does not define success, or at least it shouldn't. Deciding between having a career and having children is not absolute, and the very last thing we should be doing is spending tax dollars to allow people to avoid their decision.
When my wife and I were first married we both had jobs and were doing pretty well. Two years after getting married she was pregnant (I know, we did that backwards, I was supposed to knock her up first) and we had to make some important decisions. First, the little house we had bought was not going to work for 3 of us. It was a great little house, an 850 sq/ft 1br 1ba craftsman cottage built in 1951. But the way it was positioned on the lot did not work for expansion, and when we started researching homes we found that in order to afford a bigger one we would both have to work full time and our son would be raised in day care. That's not what we wanted. See, it was our PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY to be parents first, not to pursue our careers.
So we did a lot of homework, found where we are now in Georgia and sold the little house in the Chicago 'burbs. we sold it at a profit with 6 months before we planned to move and had a house built here. It was a 1600 sq/ft 3br 2ba on twice the land we had up there and cost $16000 less than what we sold for, and for the last 6 months we were up there we paid no mortgage or rent as part of the deal.
So then we made our move and she stated home with our son until he started school, then she went back to school and is now in a better career.
See, it is not society's responsibility to cover your inconveniences. It is up to you to handle your life. Some problems I see (as the OP question should not even need to be asked) is that people are now so self centered and irresponsible that they feel it is other people's responsibility to prop them up so they can have it all. News Flash: you are not that important. Society didn't get you pregnant, and as an expecting parent it SHOULD be obvious that you and your wants are no longer your top priority. You are a parent now, there is no more important position to hold, and you put yourself there. So handle it. If you want to have your careers and can afford daycare (and really think that is the best environment for your kids) then go for it. How about other sources of day care? Retired parents? Neighbors? Maybe a career change?
The problem is not that day care is too expensive, it's that individuals are selfish, living beyond their means and expect government to take care of them. It's wrong. It also assumes that your career is more important than your neighbor's tax rates. It's not right. You have kids of your own, it's time to grow up.