Child Care is a Universal Right

[Ben]

 

Elizabeth Warren is about to unveil a universal child care plan...

• It’s free for families <200% of the poverty line

• Families above that pay 0-7% of income on child care

• Nobody pays >7%, however many kids they have

• Financed by wealth taxhttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-19/warren-to-unveil-universal-child-care-plan-funded-by-wealth-tax …

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2019/02/19/elizabeth-warren-asserts-that-child-care-is-a-fundamental-right-unveils-plan/

[Perd Hapley]

You want free child care? I'll take care of 'em. Pack them a lunch and a first aid kit (and show them how to use it). I will charge you for anything they break while my wife and I are at work.

[WLJ]

Child Care. Isn't that what grandparents used to do?

[Perd Hapley]

Child Care. Isn't that what grandparents used to do?

Check your living and non-substance-abusing grandparent privilege, buddy.

[T.O.M.]

Jokes aside, what I've seen is a lack of available child care during the 2nd and 3rd shift, or on weekends.  That's a gold mine waiting to be tapped, if you could figure out how to work it well...

[sumpnz]

Jokes aside, what I've seen is a lack of available child care during the 2nd and 3rd shift, or on weekends.  That's a gold mine waiting to be tapped, if you could figure out how to work it well...

Seattle intentionally makes it nigh onto impossible to get licensed as a child care center.  That, combined with the absurd costs for real estate means there are entirely too few day care/pre schools.  Parents in some parts of the city get on wait lists as soon as they start thinking about stopping birth control.  10+ years ago I had pay $2500/month for 2 kids so I could also pay tuition for the wife at UW.  Were there cheaper options?  Yes, but were either full, or sucked so bad I wouldn't put Chris's nipple-tat SIL spawned nieces and nephews in there, or both.  Mostly both.  I shudder to think what it would cost now.

Based on Fauxcohontus's plan, I could have made up to $430k before I'd have lost all of the subsidy.

[Ben]

Just for clarity, I don't deny child care can be ridiculously expensive. I just think that with no kids, I shouldn't be responsible for paying for it.

It has become a somewhat selfish POV for me, because all the "free" things enacted (I'm looking at you ACA) or suggested are all directed at people other than me, but they want me to pay for them, even though I get zero benefits. I literally can think of zero "free" things that are "human rights" that the left pushes that benefit me in any way. Pretty much all of them punish me. So much for my "human rights".

[sumpnz]

I don't want to pay for anyone else's kids'day care either.  I'd also love it if I could stop paying for public schools.  I don't use them for my kids, and even if I did I'd rather pay while they were there, and not when they aren't. 

[WLJ]

Just for clarity, I don't deny child care can be ridiculously expensive. I just think that with no kids, I shouldn't be responsible for paying for it.

It has become a somewhat selfish POV for me, because all the "free" things enacted (I'm looking at you ACA) or suggested are all directed at people other than me, but they want me to pay for them, even though I get zero benefits. I literally can think of zero "free" things that are "human rights" that the left pushes that benefit me in any way. Pretty much all of them punish me. So much for my "human rights".

Not sure how they do it where you're at but here (Louisville) the school district gets it's money from real estate taxes so whether or not you have kids you're paying for the schools regardless if you own any sort of real estate. A side benefit, to them, is that this gives them the ability that whenever a real estate tax increase to help pay for X school improvement is voted down they just jacked up everyone's property assessment thus making them pay more every year when their real estate taxes come due.

[Ben]

Not sure how they do it where you're at but here (Louisville) the school district gets it's money from real estate taxes so whether or not you have kids you're paying for the schools regardless if you own any sort of real estate. A side benefit, to them, is that this gives them the ability that whenever a real estate tax increase to help pay for X school improvement is voted down they just jacked up everyone's property assessment thus making them pay more every year when their real estate taxes come due.

Yup, through property taxes here too. To this day, I remember some of my High School teachers losing it back when CA prop13 passed, which limited property taxes to 1%.

[sumpnz]

I think that is how darn near every county pays for their public schools.

[Ron]

The matriarchy demands it.

Women must be empowered to make any choices they want regarding sex and children and men must man up and pay.

Remember, it’s her body and you are the “village”.

Men have no say in these issues.

All men must contribute, it’s their duty.

Now shut up and obey the boss, she’s the boss.

[WLJ]

I think that is how darn near every county pays for their public schools.

Wasn't sure, never looked into it. Was just aware of how they do it here.

[bedlamite]

Aren't public schools turning into glorified day care anyway?

[sumpnz]

Aren't public schools turning into glorified day care anyway?

That's a big part of why we homeschool.  Academic quality is poor, plus too many parents treat school as primarily a means to have someone else watch their kids without directly having to pay for it.

[makattak]

The matriarchy demands it.

Women must be empowered to make any choices they want regarding sex and children and men must man up and pay.

Remember, it’s her body and you are the “village”.

Men have no say in these issues.

All men must contribute, it’s their duty.

Now shut up and obey the boss, she’s the boss.

You're wrong. The "Elites" demand it.

The VAST majority of women don't want to be working full-time while their children are young. The only break down is whether they would prefer to be with the children completely or work only part-time.

This universal child-care is social engineering, purposely undermining families that sacrifice one possible income in order to raise children themselves and creating further incentives to give your children over to other people.

[Ben]

This universal child-care is social engineering, purposely undermining families that sacrifice one possible income in order to raise children themselves and creating further incentives to give your children over to other people.

With my tinfoil on, that's kinda how I read the article. I'm about 99% certain that if her plan went through, parents would only be paid for sending their kids to state sanctioned child care, which I would bet would have all kinds of mandatory SJW requirements for care and "education" of people's kids. I would be interested to see if the child care services many churches, for instance, provide would fall under the reimbursement umbrella.

[Pb]

You're wrong. The "Elites" demand it.

The VAST majority of women don't want to be working full-time while their children are young. The only break down is whether they would prefer to be with the children completely or work only part-time.

This universal child-care is social engineering, purposely undermining families that sacrifice one possible income in order to raise children themselves and creating further incentives to give your children over to other people.

Well, I think it is highly likely that both women and the Elites demand it.  I think Ron is right too.

Women typically want someone to else to pay for their life choices.  Ideally, it is their husband, which is natural and healthy.  Unfortunately today, it is frequently the government or their Ex-husband through divorce settlements, "alimony" and "child support".

Women usually support big gov programs that transfer money from other people to them.  That is just a fact.

[Ron]

You're wrong. The "Elites" demand it.

The VAST majority of women don't want to be working full-time while their children are young. The only break down is whether they would prefer to be with the children completely or work only part-time.

This universal child-care is social engineering, purposely undermining families that sacrifice one possible income in order to raise children themselves and creating further incentives to give your children over to other people.

There is definitely a symbiotic relationship between the feminist movement and our “elites” who run the state.

I’m just not so sure that the vast majority of women even aspire to have any babies. The declining birth rates of the western peoples seem to bear that out. Is there a western nation even at replacement level birth rates, esp if you remove recent immigrants?

Other than that I certainly agree with you about social engineering.

[MillCreek]

^^^The people who are the age of our kids (late 20's to early 30's) that we have contact with do not seem to be in any big hurry to have children. The two primary reasons for that are (a) they have not yet found a partner; and/or (b) they cannot afford to have kids yet.   My son is 32 years old, and when I was his age, I had a six year old son and a two year old daughter.  He has no children yet.

[sumpnz]

An awful lot of the women in the MBA program had no kids and even if married were on a trajectory for never having any.  The men were more of a mixed bag. 

[brimic]

Dropping crotch spawn does not give you a right to another person’s resources.

[Perd Hapley]

With my tinfoil on, that's kinda how I read the article. I'm about 99% certain that if her plan went through, parents would only be paid for sending their kids to state sanctioned child care, which I would bet would have all kinds of mandatory SJW requirements for care and "education" of people's kids. I would be interested to see if the child care services many churches, for instance, provide would fall under the reimbursement umbrella.

Your chosen provider no teach 3-year-olds the glory of transgender special people? No help for you, hater!

[makattak]

^^^The people who are the age of our kids (late 20's to early 30's) that we have contact with do not seem to be in any big hurry to have children. The two primary reasons for that are (a) they have not yet found a partner; and/or (b) they cannot afford to have kids yet.   My son is 32 years old, and when I was his age, I had a six year old son and a two year old daughter.  He has no children yet.

I have elsewhere talked about the genetic consequences of eggs from older women and sperm from older men. These people are making choices they don't even know they are making.

I'm fairly sure I don't have to link the known risks associated with older mothers. What is less well known is the risk from older fathers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk-higher-for-children-of-older-parents-study-finds.html?_r=0

Also note the children of older fathers struggled more academically among (significantly!) greater risks for mental illness.

The "best and brightest" are choosing not to have the "best and brightest" children they could have.

[Perd Hapley]

I have elsewhere talked about the genetic consequences of eggs from older women and sperm from older men. These people are making choices they don't even know they are making.

I'm fairly sure I don't have to link the known risks associated with older mothers. What is less well known is the risk from older fathers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/health/mental-illness-risk-higher-for-children-of-older-parents-study-finds.html?_r=0

Also note the children of older fathers struggled more academically among (significantly!) greater risks for mental illness.

The "best and brightest" are choosing not to have the "best and brightest" children they could have.

I thought MillCreek was talking about people who are either not married, or not financially equipped to procreate. You are talking about "choices they don't know they're making."

What connects the two comments? I am missing something. My parents were in their mid-20s when I was born, so hopefully I can understand it.