Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Dredly t1_j6f4t9o wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Universal Childcare for Pennsylvanians— and everyone in the US by Existing-Papaya-8643

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