• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Daycare Be Subsidized

Should Daycare Be Subsidized?

  • Yes, Should Be Fixed Price (Quebec)

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • Yes, Means-Tested (France)

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • No, It Should Not Be Subsidized

    Votes: 30 75.0%
  • Total voters
    40
0bserver92 said:
How long should they wait? Till it extremely difficult to have children?
Click to expand...

They should wait for a time where they are financially stable. If they don't achieve that, then never.

It's a right for someone to actually conceive and deliver a baby. However, that's as far as the right goes. They can move to some socialist nation if they think it takes a village and their money.
 
I always envied those with many brothers and sisters and I always wanted a huge family, but I could only afford to have two children. So that was it for my family. Yesterday at the grocery, I saw a Hispanic family with six small children. Six. That, to me, is extremely irresponsible and I don't want to pay for them, particularly when I myself only had what I could afford.

I don't understand this sort of irresponsibility. Who did they think was going to support all of those children?

The Zimmerman juror that started whining about her decision had eight children. Who the Hell pays for all those children?
 
Last edited:
longview said:
Why, If the Government is writing the law, why would they leave a blank check on the table.
Click to expand...

They would probably negotiate because in Quebec if your subsidize by the govment it's guaranteed you will be full. The daycare might agree to a lower price because the government ensures customers.
 
Dapper Andy said:
How about until they can afford them?
Click to expand...

When 20,000$+ a year is not a big deal is when couples have very major issues with fertility and there is a fairly good chance they won't. That or spend so much money trying to get pregnant they can't afford daycare anymore.
 
Henrin said:
What will I ever do with myself if everyone else isn't paying my way?!! What in the hell is the point in moving out of your parents house if you just turn around and make the government your mommy? WTF is that about? You effectively didn't do squat.
Click to expand...

I don't live with my parents. I do pay my way. I don't get any special tax breaks. For me it's not about rights and more about how I want things to be. I guess I actually care about others.
 
0bserver92 said:
The couple in the article and many like them are probably engineers, accountants, etc. they make over 100,000$ but 20,000/year is still a lot of money for daycare. Subsidizing daycare is also how we encourage people to get that education to get that well-paying job.
Click to expand...

If the couple thinks the $20,000 expense for somebody else to care for their children is an important expense, they will spend it.

Why would anybody help them make that decision? What is that couple doing with the other $80,000 they are making?

You are saying people that are making $100,000 per year is not enough to live without help from the government.

That sounds crazy to me.
 
Mason66 said:
If the couple thinks the $20,000 expense for somebody else to care for their children is an important expense, they will spend it.

Why would anybody help them make that decision? What is that couple doing with the other $80,000 they are making?

You are saying people that are making $100,000 per year is not enough to live without help from the government.

That sounds crazy to me.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that $100k is pre-tax. Post-tax they probably net like $60K. If they're in an area where daycare is $20K, then housing is probably quite expensive too.
 
Gipper said:
Christ, another socialist. I'm done trying to argue.
Click to expand...

No it actually does that is why there is a waiting list because there are not enough 7$/day daycares. 7$ is much better than what other daycares can offer so there is a lot of people who want it.
 
afr0byte said:
I'd imagine that $100k is pre-tax. Post-tax they probably net like $60K. If they're in an area where daycare is $20K, then housing is probably quite expensive too.
Click to expand...

In the article the couple was married so that brings down the rate but yes they live in Toronto (where most people like them live) which is the second most expensive city in Canada after Vancouver. Quebec is the cheapest place to live, Montreal specifically I believe.
 
afr0byte said:
I'd imagine that $100k is pre-tax. Post-tax they probably net like $60K. If they're in an area where daycare is $20K, then housing is probably quite expensive too.
Click to expand...

That doesn't change my point.

If the expense is important to the couple, they can cut back on something else or move to a different area. The government has no place stepping in in a case like this.
 
Ray410 said:
I always envied those with many brothers and sisters and I always wanted a huge family, but I could only afford to have two children. So that was it for my family. Yesterday at the grocery, I saw a Hispanic family with six small children. Six. That, to me, is extremely irresponsible and I don't want to pay for them, particularly when I myself only had what I could afford.

I don't understand this sort of irresponsibility. Who did they think was going to support all of those children?

The Zimmerman juror that started whining about her decision had eight children. Who the Hell pays for all those children?
Click to expand...


B-29 — A black/Hispanic woman, as described by prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. She moved to Florida from Chicago four months before the trial began. She has been married for 10 years, and has eight children. Her oldest son is 20. Meet the all-women jury in the George Zimmerman trial | News 13
 
Mason66 said:
If the couple thinks the $20,000 expense for somebody else to care for their children is an important expense, they will spend it.

Why would anybody help them make that decision? What is that couple doing with the other $80,000 they are making?

You are saying people that are making $100,000 per year is not enough to live without help from the government.

That sounds crazy to me.
Click to expand...

Housing probably because in Canada where there is jobs housing is very expensive except Quebec where is there is plenty of jobs you just have to speak French. Vancouver, Toronto, and Edmonton/Calgary are the most expensive places to live with rent averaging 1200$/month for 1 bedroom.
 
Gipper said:
Well, there's 2. Hey 0bserver, can you make a poll that asks if we should get subsidized Ferraris? I mean, if you're advocating for the government to dish out for everyone's wants, I consider it valid.
Click to expand...

Be serious: This isn't a want, it allows people to get back into work. The money saved from the reduced welfare bill would be greater than the cost of the subsidy. This benefits the taxpayer.
 
Mason66 said:
That doesn't change my point.

If the expense is important to the couple, they can cut back on something else or move to a different area. The government has no place stepping in in a case like this.
Click to expand...

Moving to a different area probably wouldn't help, I'd imagine. If daycare is cheaper than their earnings are probably less too.
 
0bserver92 said:
No it actually does that is why there is a waiting list because there are not enough 7$/day daycares. 7$ is much better than what other daycares can offer so there is a lot of people who want it.
Click to expand...

You think the problem is a lack of subsidized day care facilities that charge 7 dollars a day. I think the problem is that there are too many people needing day care facilities that cost 7 dollars a day.

I want personal responsibility. You want a taxpayer life raft.
 
0bserver92 said:
When 20,000$+ a year is not a big deal is when couples have very major issues with fertility and there is a fairly good chance they won't. That or spend so much money trying to get pregnant they can't afford daycare anymore.
Click to expand...

So what?

The NYTimes puts the average cost substantially lower but you don't have to have children anymore than you have to put them in daycare. If you can't afford it then you can't afford it. It's not like the average family has to go far to find the $143.00 a week to pay for childcare. Right off the bat, how much do you personally pay for smartphones, cable tv, and internet?

But who says you have to give up anything?

You and your spouse can just as easily work different hours so someone is always home with the kids.
 
Last edited:
Mr X said:
Be serious: This isn't a want, it allows people to get back into work. The money saved from the reduced welfare bill would be greater than the cost of the subsidy. This benefits the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

Children you can't afford IS A WANT. If you want to get back to work, go to work. Don't have kids when you're not fiscally prepared.

The money saved from THAT would be even greater, and wouldn't help us slowly erode to a nanny state.

Seriously, don't you dare preach to me about fiscal responsibility as a) a socialist, and b) someone who wants to subsidize irresponsible behavior.
 
Gipper said:
Children you can't afford IS A WANT. If you want to get back to work, go to work. Don't have kids when you're not fiscally prepared.

The money saved from THAT would be even greater, and wouldn't help us slowly erode to a nanny state.

Seriously, don't you dare preach to me about fiscal responsibility as a) a socialist, and b) someone who wants to subsidize irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...

So only wealthy people are allowed to have children? Do you really think that's a realistic solution?
 
Last edited:
Sherman123 said:
This is one of those things that I'm extremely sympathetic to but very wary of. I have two friends who had mistakes and are now parents at a very young age. It makes it extremely difficult for them to continue with school, hold a job, and build a better future for themselves and their family. In principle I think an extremely targeted program even if its just at a state level would be helpful to people like him and would end up benefiting us all in the long run because of his increased earning power, job prospects, and educational attainment. But these programs are ruined because they never stay narrow. The band of inclusion grows and grows and a multi-million dollar program becomes a multi-billion dollar program which is no longer a limited piece of assistance to those who need it, but a core entitlement which cannot be shorn or reformed.
Click to expand...

I have always seen this as the bullet that kills social programs; ****ty oversight. Some human beings will always find ways to take advantage of the generosity (which I consider social programs to be in part) of others. Seems like the programs don't evolve efficiently like they do not take the realities of human nature into account.
 
Gipper said:
You think the problem is a lack of subsidized day care facilities that charge 7 dollars a day. I think the problem is that there are too many people needing day care facilities that cost 7 dollars a day.

I want personal responsibility. You want a taxpayer life raft.
Click to expand...

No it isn't I thought a Libertarian would understand the daycares are as good as private ones because they are and they are just cheaper. Quebec is not a low-income province they have one of the highest average incomes in Canada mainly due to it's economy.
 
Mr X said:
So only wealthy people are allowed to have children? Do you really think that's a realistic solution?
Click to expand...

Well, first of all there's a little bit of a gap between "unable to have kids" and "wealthy". Middle class families can easily afford children.

Also, as a social Darwinist, I'd love it if procreation was restricted to the wealthy. Crime would go down, IQ would go up, many subsidizes would be unnecessary, Affirmative Action could be lifted, and a number of other positive externalities would come about.
 
At this time I voted no it should not be subsidized.
I might change my mind if the tax laws were changed to where everyone no matter what income paid a tax that went towards the day care.

As it stands now, don't we have about 50% who pay no income tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom