• 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
A tax credit is not the same as a direct subsidy and offsets less of the cost of a subsidy we have a similar thing here but it is still insanely expensive.

Do people know about efficiency ?
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.
 
If you want children, know you can pay for them first.
I dont go down to look at new cars with no money in my bank account.

LOL I love it. People want to make abortion illegal and then complain when the person can't raise the child society wants to force them to have.
 
Do people know about efficiency ?
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...

Mechanized day care, what a wonderful idea. Why not just strap a video game helmet on them and prop them up in the corner for a few years so you can go do what you want? No reason something as inconvenient as children should ruin your good time. It's not like you have a responsibility to your kids or anything...

Then we end up with the current generation. My 21 year old stepson is what I call a vidiot. He's a gamer. Spends most of the day sleeping, most of the night playing League of Legions, has no job, no plans for school, and no life skills. Sounds like a Democrat voter to me. "Hey, I'm playing this game, could someone wipe my ass for me? I have a right to sit here oblivious since I can stay on my parent's insurance until I'm 26." His father, BTW, is also a gamer, and is a 45 year old useless POS. He gets low end retail sales jobs in chain electronics stores that he keeps for about 6 months at a time and exists by taking advances on his parent's wills. Is this what we want? Not me.
 
LOL I love it. People want to make abortion illegal and then complain when the person can't raise the child society wants to force them to have.

Nobody is forcing anybody to have kids. Your enlightened generation should be smart enough to know where babies come from. I somehow managed to get married and not have kids until we were ready. Shocking, isn't it? Quite being a selfish victim and take care of yourself. Accept some responsibility for your actions. And we're not trying to make abortion illegal, we're expecting you and those like you to not get knocked up in the first place if you don't want kids.
 
Nobody is forcing anybody to have kids. You enlightened generation should be smart enough to know where babies come from. I somehow managed to get married and not have kids until we were ready. Shocking, isn't it? Quite being a selfish victim and take care of yourself. Accept some responsibility for your actions.

And what responsibility should they take? Live on the streets?
 
No. If you have kids you should be able to provide for them.

That's nice, but we live in reality. So are you suggesting that people who have kids and can't afford daycare should just live on the streets instead of trying to better themselves?
 
That's nice, but we live in reality. So are you suggesting that people who have kids and can't afford daycare should just live on the streets instead of trying to better themselves?

No, I'm suggesting they find other solutions (one parent stays at home, grandparents, ...) or wait to have kids until they can afford it. Is that such a difficult concept?
 
LOL I love it. People want to make abortion illegal and then complain when the person can't raise the child society wants to force them to have.
No one is making anyone do anything. Go to the root problem, then talk to me about whom is making whom do what.
I am tired of people doing nothing but holding their hand out for their mistakes.
 
And what responsibility should they take? Live on the streets?
Live on the streets, Iam fine with that. Lifes lessons are tough, stupid should hurt. I am not paying for YOUR mistakes and short comings.
 
That's nice, but we live in reality. So are you suggesting that people who have kids and can't afford daycare should just live on the streets instead of trying to better themselves?

Then adopt their children out. Do something responsible for once.
 
No, I'm suggesting they find other solutions (one parent stays at home, grandparents, ...) or wait to have kids until they can afford it. Is that such a difficult concept?

It is if you have bought in to the current narrative that the nuclear family is outdated. There are important reasons for this structure. There is teamwork for the good of the household. One works, one can stay home. I don't even care which does what. Maybe one full time and one part time job in order to juggle childcare responsibilities. It also develops more balanced kids who are raised with a father and a mother seeing them work together for a common cause. It's all about priorities. When you have kids you are no longer the most important person in your life. You may work a job you don't especially like in order to feed your kids. Parents (not sperm donors) care more about the wellbeing of their kids than of their own. If this is a foreign concept to you then you have either bought in to the nanny state mentality, your parents have utterly failed as parents, or both.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1062179325 said:
Well that's an asinine response.

No, it is a truthful one. People are going to be irrepsonsible, so what is your solution to that? My question stands, if you are unable or unwilling to answer it that is your problem not mine.
 
Then adopt their children out. Do something responsible for once.

And who is going to pay for these places where the children are placed? Not everyone gets adopted, then what? There will STILL be subsidies needed unless you are planning on terminated children past birth that don't get adopted.
 
No, it is a truthful one. People are going to be irrepsonsible, so what is your solution to that? My question stands, if you are unable or unwilling to answer it that is your problem not mine.

If people are irresponsible they should bear the consequences.
 
Live on the streets, Iam fine with that. Lifes lessons are tough, stupid should hurt. I am not paying for YOUR mistakes and short comings.

Great, so your solution is to increase the crime rate. Then how are you going to pay for the extra police, prisons, parol officers, etc? You have to remember that YOUR consequences for not allowing subsidies can cause even FURTHER costs later on.
 
If people are irresponsible they should bear the consequences.

And yet again, you end up increasing the crime rate. So you have MORE subsidies involved with building prisons, etc.
 
In today's economic environment it is making more sense to move back toward the multi generational home. I don't mean kids sitting idle in their parent's home, I mean adult couples moving their aging parents back in with them. There are benefits all around. Grandparents make great childcare providers since they genuinely love their grandkids. Unfortunately many will not consider this because it may step on their personal space. Priorities people, PRIORITIES. Your kids are your greatest asset, and your parents hold your greatest debt. Assuming they are not like the OP they put you first so you could be who you are today. Three generations in a home works very nicely. Believe it or not, your parents may still be able to teach you a thing or two.
 
And yet again, you end up increasing the crime rate. So you have MORE subsidies involved with building prisons, etc.

So I guess that a few decades ago, when there was far less daycare, almost every parent was a criminal? Yo really have some fuzzy thinking going on there.
 
So I guess that a few decades ago, when there was far less daycare, almost every parent was a criminal? Yo really have some fuzzy thinking going on there.

No, but there were a lot of single parents on welfare. The right has said that welfare shouldn't be used in this manner. So you either have subsidies for welfare, daycare or a higher crime rate.
 
Back
Top Bottom