Everything we do to encourage people to have more children puts a strain on the environment. Look around and see what having too many humans on this earth has done, it’s doubtful we’ll even survive climate change beyond the next century.
The education system is also pretty fucked, I’m tired of seeing shitty overworked teachers trying to wrangle classrooms overflowing with kids, and it’s always the least privileged kids who suffer, because low income parents who benefit most from programs like the one proposed are always the ones who end up having a pile of kids as a result. And even when these kids grow up they put further strain on healthcare industries and social security.
If you want to increase the population of the nation get used to immigration. If you really want a kid but can’t afford those first few years where they require constant attention then consider adoption. It’s time to make child-free households a default.
This isn't remotely on topic, is pretty blatantly classist (if not racist), and ignores the fact that even on a population decline model people still have to have children and raise them.
Why should I have to go to work if I don't want to?
Why shouldn't I have the option to stay at home?
Why should I commit myself to the corporate world of being a wageslave for corporate masters?
What about people that do Work from home? Or want to start up a small cottage industry in their home while watching their kid?
Why should that be a decision that is made across the board full stop?
I personally went back to work. I do not have the emotional or mental health capabilities of taking care of my child 24/7. Having her in daycare and me working makes me a better parent. But that solution doesn't work for everybody
My government gave me the first 19 weeks paid. My company then added another 14 weeks at half pay on top of that. I also had 2 weeks of annual leave that i took before the kid was born. so I got some income for about half a year. THe kid went into daycare at 14 months old (mom was here for those 2 months between). When she turned 3 the government funds 20 hours of early childhood education.
Most parents that stay home with their kids down here (which tbh is mostly mums) will usually put them into daycare at 3 for the minimum of 20 hours. This usually enables them to do some Work at Home or cottage industry type business (lots of kids clothes, reusable diapers/menstrual pads, knitting commissions, soap making, etc) while having a break from their kid. Or to focus on the newborn that seems to happen.
I dunno, I'm just confused as to what the goal really is. Isn't making a decision about myself, my life, and my family the most feminist thing that I can do?
While I fully agree with the sentiment, the bolded has nothing to do with whether or not you have children or stay at home for them as either parent. Using being a parent as "a way out" is exactly one of the reasons so many people have such a problem with subsidizing stay at home parents.
Even if it's just phrasing and is generally not abused, work avoidance really won't shift opinions on this.
I think everyone should get a year long break for every 10 years they pay taxes if they choose to not have kids. If you have kids, both parents should be given a year off work if they want it to split it up in whatever way works best.
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
+3
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
Enc on
+11
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
Work demanding that sort of mindset and dedication from all their staff is a problem though, and forcing employers to recognise the parents' choice without retribution is a step against that mindset.
You're assuming malice and retribution when it's really just indifference. If you want to move your career forward you need to perform and add value. Forcing parents to put their both of their careers on hold for a year per child prevents them from doing so and harms their family.
Your proposal could also create an incentive for parents to deny paternity to better provide for their families.
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
Why should we incentivize it though? People will probably continue to have lots of children, see all of human history. Biological drive and all that. It's only in the most developed countries where the natural population growth is even beginning to slowly decline, world population is still going up by 200000/day
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
Lots of people want to immigrate. It's already the thing that is keeping our average age down, and we are committing a genocide to prevent it.
Is there some reason to believe we couldn't just improve our immigration policy?
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
Why should we incentivize it though? People will probably continue to have lots of children, see all of human history. Biological drive and all that. It's only in the most developed countries where the natural population growth is even beginning to slowly decline, world population is still going up by 200000/day
We've incentivized having children since pretty much all of our written history. We currently do so now with many policies like free healthcare, tax deductions, etc.
Being child free is kind of a social faux pas, it's more acceptable now in 2019 than ever, but we shouldn't really encourage that either. And having children and having stable communities is a huge benefit to the people who don't have children and the country at large. Which is why we also incentivize buying a house and settling down too.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
+4
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
Ah yes, the old "but one person might abuse the system that systematically helps society therefore no one should benefit" right-wing argument. Isn't really compelling to me, frankly. If a couple of people making bad, selfish decisions are the cost of ending child hunger and homelessness, its a small price to pay.
But we have folks here talking about eugenics now. And not in an ironic sort of way. I'm done in here, continue your Malthusian nihilistic fantasies as you will.
I'm not concerned about people using the system or small scale abuse (which happens in any macro-system). I'm also perfectly happy to subsidise the costs of living for poor people and absolutely childcare is an element of that. But if you don't have a child and you are poor, you also should get your costs of living subsidised, and if you have plenty of money, do you really need your childcare subsidised?
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
Ah yes, the old "but one person might abuse the system that systematically helps society therefore no one should benefit" right-wing argument. Isn't really compelling to me, frankly. If a couple of people making bad, selfish decisions are the cost of ending child hunger and homelessness, its a small price to pay.
But we have folks here talking about eugenics now. And not in an ironic sort of way. I'm done in here, continue your Malthusian nihilistic fantasies as you will.
Nothing to do with anything you are replying to.
Edit:
Here's the context
Lets look at it another way, since we're all so macro focused here.
Subsidizing childcare, but not stay at home parenthood has an effect that isn't being discussed.
It reduces the 'cost' of going to work VS staying home. This allows employers to pay less and keep wages down, because if staying home is not an option and you gotta work then the labor market is expanded, increasing supply and reducing wages.
I'd rather subsidise childcare than pay people to stay at home within the context of bringing in strong worker protection and employer duty of care legislation, which I'd support anyway.
In fact I'd probably rather say "hey, citizen, here's your monthly government payment. Pay for childcare, stay at home, spend it all on video games, go nuts, up to you"
I'm not concerned about people using the system or small scale abuse (which happens in any macro-system). I'm also perfectly happy to subsidise the costs of living for poor people and absolutely childcare is an element of that. But if you don't have a child and you are poor, you also should get your costs of living subsidised, and if you have plenty of money, do you really need your childcare subsidised?
I don't think you really understand how much childcare costs.
I'm sure it's really expensive. But some people earn a lot of money so
So what your point? Means tested daycare for not-millionaires? What is your conception of "people who earn a lot of money" here as compared to what childcare actually costs?
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
Ah yes, the old "but one person might abuse the system that systematically helps society therefore no one should benefit" right-wing argument. Isn't really compelling to me, frankly. If a couple of people making bad, selfish decisions are the cost of ending child hunger and homelessness, its a small price to pay.
But we have folks here talking about eugenics now. And not in an ironic sort of way. I'm done in here, continue your Malthusian nihilistic fantasies as you will.
Nothing to do with anything you are replying to.
Edit:
Here's the context
Why should I have to go to work if I don't want to?
Why shouldn't I have the option to stay at home?
Why should I commit myself to the corporate world of being a wageslave for corporate masters?
(...)
And the context of all that was in terms of having a child and whether or not you have to work or have to not work to afford dealing with that. Which you are actively ignoring.
eg - "Why should I have to go to work if I don't want to?" as in "rather then be a stay at home parent"
I'd rather subsidise childcare than pay people to stay at home within the context of bringing in strong worker protection and employer duty of care legislation, which I'd support anyway.
In fact I'd probably rather say "hey, citizen, here's your monthly government payment. Pay for childcare, stay at home, spend it all on video games, go nuts, up to you"
It is odd that these types of threads almost always end with "Universal income is a great system that solves a lot of issues we have, why aren't we doing it?"
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'd rather subsidise childcare than pay people to stay at home within the context of bringing in strong worker protection and employer duty of care legislation, which I'd support anyway.
In fact I'd probably rather say "hey, citizen, here's your monthly government payment. Pay for childcare, stay at home, spend it all on video games, go nuts, up to you"
So you want a UBI that only gives money per adult and ignores the existence and needs of children?
I'm sure it's really expensive. But some people earn a lot of money so
So what your point? Means tested daycare for not-millionaires? What is your conception of "people who earn a lot of money" here as compared to what childcare actually costs?
I'm pretty sure if you have an income of £80,000 or more, off the top of my head, you don't need the government to pay for your childcare
Incidentally based on the UK average if you want to put your kid in a private nursery every week of the year, for 50 hrs a week, that will cost you £12,584 per annum (which I believe you can claim pre tax and also I am pretty sure you get 21 hrs a week subsidised in the UK too)
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
Ah yes, the old "but one person might abuse the system that systematically helps society therefore no one should benefit" right-wing argument. Isn't really compelling to me, frankly. If a couple of people making bad, selfish decisions are the cost of ending child hunger and homelessness, its a small price to pay.
But we have folks here talking about eugenics now. And not in an ironic sort of way. I'm done in here, continue your Malthusian nihilistic fantasies as you will.
Nothing to do with anything you are replying to.
Edit:
Here's the context
Why should I have to go to work if I don't want to?
Why shouldn't I have the option to stay at home?
Why should I commit myself to the corporate world of being a wageslave for corporate masters?
(...)
And the context of all that was in terms of having a child and whether or not you have to work or have to not work to afford dealing with that. Which you are actively ignoring.
Yes, it's well known that childless people never want to have the option of pursuing things other than work and love being wageslaves.
None of that is relevant for childcare.
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I assume he also wants the child itself to gain a UBI.
I'm sure it's really expensive. But some people earn a lot of money so
So what your point? Means tested daycare for not-millionaires? What is your conception of "people who earn a lot of money" here as compared to what childcare actually costs?
I'm pretty sure if you have an income of £80,000 or more, off the top of my head, you don't need the government to pay did your childcare
Why not? What logic is this based on? Do you actually know how much daycare costs? Cause it really seems like you are just randomly throwing numbers out there.
And that's not even touching on the issue of why we should consider childcare as something we only grudgingly fund cause we absolutely have to.
I am not sure how I'd do a UBI for kids but I'd probably do some sort of sliding scale where you get full UBI from 18 and before that a UBI based on your age paid to your parent/guardian
I'm sure it's really expensive. But some people earn a lot of money so
So what your point? Means tested daycare for not-millionaires? What is your conception of "people who earn a lot of money" here as compared to what childcare actually costs?
I'm pretty sure if you have an income of £80,000 or more, off the top of my head, you don't need the government to pay did your childcare
Why not? What logic is this based on? Do you actually know how much daycare costs? Cause it really seems like you are just randomly throwing numbers out there.
And that's not even touching on the issue of why we should consider childcare as something we only grudgingly fund cause we absolutely have to.
I'm not grudgingly funding it, I'm pro funding it, as I've said. And it costs about 12.5k for 52 weeks of 50hrs private nursery as noted above.
Yeah, one might argue why should I do any of those things, someone who doesn't have and never wants kids. Whether you get to be a wageslave or not shouldn't come down to whether you have kids.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
Ah yes, the old "but one person might abuse the system that systematically helps society therefore no one should benefit" right-wing argument. Isn't really compelling to me, frankly. If a couple of people making bad, selfish decisions are the cost of ending child hunger and homelessness, its a small price to pay.
But we have folks here talking about eugenics now. And not in an ironic sort of way. I'm done in here, continue your Malthusian nihilistic fantasies as you will.
Nothing to do with anything you are replying to.
Edit:
Here's the context
Why should I have to go to work if I don't want to?
Why shouldn't I have the option to stay at home?
Why should I commit myself to the corporate world of being a wageslave for corporate masters?
(...)
And the context of all that was in terms of having a child and whether or not you have to work or have to not work to afford dealing with that. Which you are actively ignoring.
Yes, it's well known that childless people never want to have the option of pursuing things other than work and love being wageslaves.
None of that is relevant for childcare.
Again, you are ignoring the context of the post. It's specifically about the choice of going to work for a salary vs staying at home to raise children (ie - different work, trading salary for a lack of daycare costs). Your whole "what about people who just don't want to work period?" is not at all relevant to the discussion or the post in question. Because this is all within the context of there being a child that needs caring for.
+2
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
I assume he also wants the child itself to gain a UBI.
Seems like a good idea, yes. Instead of having a UBI, but only if you have kids.
The issue here is that UBI isn't a thing in play, while the policy in Norway is. We can add this to another thing in the UBI thread that UBI solves, were it ever implemented, but the framework of the OP is discussing a different topic.
A UBI for kids is the same as giving people money to be parents. Which you were against. So i'm not sure what's going on anymore.
I'm against people get money for being parents because I'm relatively against the idea that you get something others don't just because you decided to have a child, regardless of how much you actually need it. In the same way that I'm against free TV licenses for all old people but pro TV licenses for poor people of any age.
UBI for the child is for the child and their benefit though. It's their money, but being children their guardian obviously spends it. That's in the context of actually having a national UBI though
I assume he also wants the child itself to gain a UBI.
Seems like a good idea, yes. Instead of having a UBI, but only if you have kids.
The issue here is that UBI isn't a thing in play, while the policy in Norway is. We can add this to another thing in the UBI thread that UBI solves, were it ever implemented, but the framework of the OP is discussing a different topic.
So another way to reinforce that I'm a second class citizen. Gotcha.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
edited September 2019
Your posts suggest you view this as "they get a cool free thing because they are parents that I don't get, how unfair!"
How most parents, people who know parents, HR professionals, and policy makers view it: "being a parent is essentially having a 24 hour job and is necessary for the continuation of the state and the species in some capacity, and compensating full time childcare in some capacity lowers the stress of other systems, from food to prisons, by ensuring children and parents have the time and compensation to be able to afford to do it right."
That argument as well be in a lucky ducky cartoon.
Enc on
+12
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
I assume he also wants the child itself to gain a UBI.
Seems like a good idea, yes. Instead of having a UBI, but only if you have kids.
The issue here is that UBI isn't a thing in play, while the policy in Norway is. We can add this to another thing in the UBI thread that UBI solves, were it ever implemented, but the framework of the OP is discussing a different topic.
So another way to reinforce that I'm a second class citizen. Gotcha.
Not benefiting from every public policy hardly makes you a second class citizen.
Your posts suggest you view this as "they get a cool free thing because they are parents that I don't get, how unfair!"
How most parents, people who know parents, HR professionals, and policy makers view it: "being a parent is essentially having a 24 hour job and is necessary for the continuation of the state and the species in some capacity, and compensating full time childcare in some capacity lowers the stress of other systems, from food to prisons, by ensuring children and parents have the time and compensation to be able to afford to do it right."
That argument as well be in a lucky ducky cartoon.
Yeah and I'm pro giving people childcare subsidies for, like, the vast majority of people. As I've said.
I'm sure it's really expensive. But some people earn a lot of money so
So what your point? Means tested daycare for not-millionaires? What is your conception of "people who earn a lot of money" here as compared to what childcare actually costs?
I'm pretty sure if you have an income of £80,000 or more, off the top of my head, you don't need the government to pay did your childcare
Why not? What logic is this based on? Do you actually know how much daycare costs? Cause it really seems like you are just randomly throwing numbers out there.
And that's not even touching on the issue of why we should consider childcare as something we only grudgingly fund cause we absolutely have to.
I'm not grudgingly funding it, I'm pro funding it, as I've said. And it costs about 12.5k for 52 weeks of 50hrs private nursery as noted above.
You are absolutely grudgingly funding it. You are literally saying only some people get it. The entire premise of this means testing idea of yours is that you are only funding childcare because you have to for the people who you deem can't afford it. If you actually just wanted to fund childcare, what's the point in the means testing? Just fund the fucking program.
A quick google on costs in the US (just as an example) suggests that childcare costs as a percentage of income are in the 15-20% range in most states. And numbers can be worse elsewhere. And they are still rising faster then inflation basically everywhere. I again suggest you are not really considering the actual cost of childcare.
Frankly, the easiest way to think of this is that you are paying someone to do the job. So the absolute lowest amount childcare can cost would be a straight percentage of the salary of what you want to pay your childcare worker. So for a 1:4 or 1:5 ratio (fairly standard for toddler care) you are looking at 20-25% of a livable salary, at minimum. A good chunk more then that in reality because you have to add on food, facility fees and all that other shit. The only reason this shit is "cheap" is because we've been underpaying people to do it and offloading a massive amount of the costs in ways that aren't directly tracked.
The entire point is that new people are an absolute necessity to the workforce. The people that are taking care of children deserve to be paid for this vital service to the community.
I assume he also wants the child itself to gain a UBI.
Seems like a good idea, yes. Instead of having a UBI, but only if you have kids.
The issue here is that UBI isn't a thing in play, while the policy in Norway is. We can add this to another thing in the UBI thread that UBI solves, were it ever implemented, but the framework of the OP is discussing a different topic.
So another way to reinforce that I'm a second class citizen. Gotcha.
Not benefiting from every public policy hardly makes you a second class citizen.
It is at least nice we've gotten to the bottom of the objection though. The actual problem is not the anything to do with childcare, it's some sort of resentment at the idea of the government using it's funds to support the raising of children by people who don't want to do that. Basically just another variation on the evergreen "services I don't use don't matter".
Posts
This isn't remotely on topic, is pretty blatantly classist (if not racist), and ignores the fact that even on a population decline model people still have to have children and raise them.
While I fully agree with the sentiment, the bolded has nothing to do with whether or not you have children or stay at home for them as either parent. Using being a parent as "a way out" is exactly one of the reasons so many people have such a problem with subsidizing stay at home parents.
Even if it's just phrasing and is generally not abused, work avoidance really won't shift opinions on this.
I think everyone should get a year long break for every 10 years they pay taxes if they choose to not have kids. If you have kids, both parents should be given a year off work if they want it to split it up in whatever way works best.
I don't mind subsidising the cost of childcare. I do ask what do those of us with no interest in raising children get though.
Continuation of society.
I mean, seriously. I don't have kids and odds are pretty good my family never will unless we adopt, but children are required to continue literally everything you do. Want a working economy? There needs to be new people to fuel every aspect of that. Want to be able to enjoy your retirement? Younger than you people have to still be around in order for you to do so.
Out of all of the "fuck you, got mine" logic things out there, this is the most obvious and simplest to refute.
It absolutely is a problem when you are dictating what my wife and I should be doing with years of our lives, which is exactly what you are proposing.
You're assuming malice and retribution when it's really just indifference. If you want to move your career forward you need to perform and add value. Forcing parents to put their both of their careers on hold for a year per child prevents them from doing so and harms their family.
Your proposal could also create an incentive for parents to deny paternity to better provide for their families.
Why should we incentivize it though? People will probably continue to have lots of children, see all of human history. Biological drive and all that. It's only in the most developed countries where the natural population growth is even beginning to slowly decline, world population is still going up by 200000/day
Lots of people want to immigrate. It's already the thing that is keeping our average age down, and we are committing a genocide to prevent it.
Is there some reason to believe we couldn't just improve our immigration policy?
There's the whole context of someone wanting to gate all the advantages of no longer be forced to work behind having children you seem to be missing.
I wrote a list last page.
Being child free is kind of a social faux pas, it's more acceptable now in 2019 than ever, but we shouldn't really encourage that either. And having children and having stable communities is a huge benefit to the people who don't have children and the country at large. Which is why we also incentivize buying a house and settling down too.
Ah yes, the old "but one person might abuse the system that systematically helps society therefore no one should benefit" right-wing argument. Isn't really compelling to me, frankly. If a couple of people making bad, selfish decisions are the cost of ending child hunger and homelessness, its a small price to pay.
But we have folks here talking about eugenics now. And not in an ironic sort of way. I'm done in here, continue your Malthusian nihilistic fantasies as you will.
Nothing to do with anything you are replying to.
Edit:
Here's the context
Subsidizing childcare, but not stay at home parenthood has an effect that isn't being discussed.
It reduces the 'cost' of going to work VS staying home. This allows employers to pay less and keep wages down, because if staying home is not an option and you gotta work then the labor market is expanded, increasing supply and reducing wages.
In fact I'd probably rather say "hey, citizen, here's your monthly government payment. Pay for childcare, stay at home, spend it all on video games, go nuts, up to you"
I don't think you really understand how much childcare costs.
So what your point? Means tested daycare for not-millionaires? What is your conception of "people who earn a lot of money" here as compared to what childcare actually costs?
And the context of all that was in terms of having a child and whether or not you have to work or have to not work to afford dealing with that. Which you are actively ignoring.
eg - "Why should I have to go to work if I don't want to?" as in "rather then be a stay at home parent"
It is odd that these types of threads almost always end with "Universal income is a great system that solves a lot of issues we have, why aren't we doing it?"
So you want a UBI that only gives money per adult and ignores the existence and needs of children?
I'm pretty sure if you have an income of £80,000 or more, off the top of my head, you don't need the government to pay for your childcare
Incidentally based on the UK average if you want to put your kid in a private nursery every week of the year, for 50 hrs a week, that will cost you £12,584 per annum (which I believe you can claim pre tax and also I am pretty sure you get 21 hrs a week subsidised in the UK too)
Yes, it's well known that childless people never want to have the option of pursuing things other than work and love being wageslaves.
None of that is relevant for childcare.
Seems like a good idea, yes. Instead of having a UBI, but only if you have kids.
Why not? What logic is this based on? Do you actually know how much daycare costs? Cause it really seems like you are just randomly throwing numbers out there.
And that's not even touching on the issue of why we should consider childcare as something we only grudgingly fund cause we absolutely have to.
I'm not grudgingly funding it, I'm pro funding it, as I've said. And it costs about 12.5k for 52 weeks of 50hrs private nursery as noted above.
Again, you are ignoring the context of the post. It's specifically about the choice of going to work for a salary vs staying at home to raise children (ie - different work, trading salary for a lack of daycare costs). Your whole "what about people who just don't want to work period?" is not at all relevant to the discussion or the post in question. Because this is all within the context of there being a child that needs caring for.
The issue here is that UBI isn't a thing in play, while the policy in Norway is. We can add this to another thing in the UBI thread that UBI solves, were it ever implemented, but the framework of the OP is discussing a different topic.
I'm against people get money for being parents because I'm relatively against the idea that you get something others don't just because you decided to have a child, regardless of how much you actually need it. In the same way that I'm against free TV licenses for all old people but pro TV licenses for poor people of any age.
UBI for the child is for the child and their benefit though. It's their money, but being children their guardian obviously spends it. That's in the context of actually having a national UBI though
So another way to reinforce that I'm a second class citizen. Gotcha.
How most parents, people who know parents, HR professionals, and policy makers view it: "being a parent is essentially having a 24 hour job and is necessary for the continuation of the state and the species in some capacity, and compensating full time childcare in some capacity lowers the stress of other systems, from food to prisons, by ensuring children and parents have the time and compensation to be able to afford to do it right."
That argument as well be in a lucky ducky cartoon.
Not benefiting from every public policy hardly makes you a second class citizen.
Yeah and I'm pro giving people childcare subsidies for, like, the vast majority of people. As I've said.
You are absolutely grudgingly funding it. You are literally saying only some people get it. The entire premise of this means testing idea of yours is that you are only funding childcare because you have to for the people who you deem can't afford it. If you actually just wanted to fund childcare, what's the point in the means testing? Just fund the fucking program.
A quick google on costs in the US (just as an example) suggests that childcare costs as a percentage of income are in the 15-20% range in most states. And numbers can be worse elsewhere. And they are still rising faster then inflation basically everywhere. I again suggest you are not really considering the actual cost of childcare.
Frankly, the easiest way to think of this is that you are paying someone to do the job. So the absolute lowest amount childcare can cost would be a straight percentage of the salary of what you want to pay your childcare worker. So for a 1:4 or 1:5 ratio (fairly standard for toddler care) you are looking at 20-25% of a livable salary, at minimum. A good chunk more then that in reality because you have to add on food, facility fees and all that other shit. The only reason this shit is "cheap" is because we've been underpaying people to do it and offloading a massive amount of the costs in ways that aren't directly tracked.
It is at least nice we've gotten to the bottom of the objection though. The actual problem is not the anything to do with childcare, it's some sort of resentment at the idea of the government using it's funds to support the raising of children by people who don't want to do that. Basically just another variation on the evergreen "services I don't use don't matter".