Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Azulmariposa99 t1_j6eqawy wrote

I’ve always thought it would get more political traction if a stipend was offered for childcare that either paid for daycare or paid stay-at-home moms to care for their children. Either (or both with part-time work) is a valid choice and it feels like would appease a wider political spectrum. I just wanted to share this idea in case it hadn’t been voiced.

16

pm_your_masterpiece t1_j6fmeo8 wrote

Child free people are already taken advantage of, no need to pile more onto us.

5

TacoNomad t1_j6iaotm wrote

As a child free person, I have no problems contributing to efforts that improve our society. There are many taxes I'm opposed to paying or that dont benefit me. A better society is the least of my worries.

3

bboggio28 t1_j6etp1c wrote

Would this be different from the child care expense credit that’s deducted on your income tax filing? I think they did change it recently to be non refundable but admittedly I just let hr block figure it out when I file.

4

Barnard_Gumble t1_j6fox88 wrote

Don’t confuse a deduction with a credit. Child care is deductible (to a rather low limit). It’s not a tax credit.

3

Azulmariposa99 t1_j6evv4y wrote

I guess I am suggesting that something like that but one that is a more significant amount. For example, the child credit that paid people (it showed up in bank accounts monthly of people with direct deposit tax filings or they got it when they filed for taxes the following year) with children during Covid has expired and even just the small amount that it paid ($1-2000 I believe per child) apparently greatly reduced child poverty rates. Now that is different than a childcare focused one but it shows that just some amount more can clearly have a big impact on families.

1

Dredly t1_j6f2dly wrote

How much would this stipend be?

1

Azulmariposa99 t1_j6f2zmr wrote

Not sure. I’m not a political expert. Just throwing an idea out there.

3

Dredly t1_j6f61u5 wrote

We did this before in the 80's/90's... the "Stipend to stay at home mothers" was called Welfare, they received preferential treatment in public / subsidized housing and vouchers, free food via WIC, monthly payments in cash, free medical coverage etc

​

It basically failed society because instead of empowering women to have skills and gain experiences that could be marketed, they more or less became dependent to remain low income (or lose housing) and have more children to increase income.

​

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a much better program then what we have now... but paying people to have kids and stay home historically has not worked well in the US

−4

Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6esmia wrote

We have heard this before! We haven’t totally defined our demands at this early stage, but this has been mentioned by others and I really appreciate feedback like this. I’ll take it back to the working group.

−3

Jiveturkwy158 t1_j6f7i1e wrote

If this is the approach please avoid the pitfalls of federal student loans. Making funding more available allowed schools to charge more as there was no over site of cost. Highly encourage some kind of cost cap based on COL in that area (or other metric) or the benefits may be squandered to inflated costs.

Truly best of luck!

13

Barnard_Gumble t1_j6fpdyv wrote

To keep from alienating people you might want to avoid using words like “our demands.” Just doesn’t sound very good. Talk to people about what you think the government or society should do for working people. Don’t think you can demand anything of anyone else. Get people on your side with good ideas.

8

Azulmariposa99 t1_j6ew5xs wrote

Great, thank you! I’m interested in potentially getting involved but things in my work and personal life are too hectic to get involved until later (maybe March?). I will definitely join the subreddit to keep up with news. As someone in education with a young child, I am very excited to see this type of effort!

2

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6f4kyq wrote

Demands?

1

big-D-ronnie t1_j6fypid wrote

Lol this is average redditor 101:

-Post something similar to op.

-Have a bunch of random redditors validate simply based on feels, devoid of any logic or facts.

-Redditors make a comment based on fact/without their "feels" involved.....

-Immediately: "yOu'Re AtTaCKinG MeEeEeee!!" Followed by immediate downvotes all because you're not a part of the hive voice mentality, that is endemic in these Reddit subs.

Lol look at all of the downvotes drxdrg08 got, all because he used facts and logic haha.

For the record, I have kids and yeah I don't think it's fair for you to have to subsidize mine or anyone elses.

2

Existing-Papaya-8643 OP t1_j6f6jfh wrote

Demands. You seem to be a troll, so I’ll stop answering you and others like ya for now. Have a good one.

−2

Barnard_Gumble t1_j6fwpeh wrote

So yeah I hope someone a lot more articulate than you takes up this cause. It’s a good one and there is work to be done, but you are definitely going nowhere. Your entitled attitude will turn off people who agree with you….

7

pm_your_masterpiece t1_j6g9ooo wrote

Look, it sounds like a bunch of people who couldn't afford children, had them, and now expect everyone else to pay their way. No.

ETA: I'm child free. I'm willing to have a good faith conversation about this. But you'll have to answer very hard questions about the value of your child to society and their impact on my life and how much of my money you should get.

4

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6fagh9 wrote

Just someone with a job who doesn’t plan on paying for your childcare or for the other person who wants $$$$ to raise her own kids.

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6f4jop wrote

You want my tax dollars to pay a mother to be a mother?

−9

TacoNomad t1_j6iar3b wrote

I guess you don't think fathers have any responsibility in raising their children.

1

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6il8qg wrote

You have some chip on your shoulder. This conversation was about subsidizing a stay at home mom so that she could stay at home. I am assuming baby daddy is paying for mommy to not work.

1

TacoNomad t1_j6im2gd wrote

No chips. You should not call fathers baby daddy. They should be fathers. If the father is subsidizing the mother, that's their familial choice. Why do I care?

Father's have equal responsibility. So it's not subsidizing a mother to be a mother. It's subsidizing parents to be parents because it would help out both "mommy" and "baby daddy" as you say.

2

cuppa_tea_4_me t1_j6ipvuc wrote

If the father is subsidizing the mother why is the mother asking for a handout? Did you even read the post???

0

TacoNomad t1_j6iqubp wrote

I didn't assume that the father was. You did.

Did you read the post? The post doesn't imply any gender roles.

The comment implied gender roles, but the person should have said parent instead of mother. In either case, you're assuming that "baby daddies" are fully supporting their kids and the mothers are just taking a stipend from your wallet. That's why it's weird.

2