Universal, subsidized child Day care - scandinavian style

Damocles said:
My problem is the "universal". There are people that don't need the help and don't want it.

I prefer a system that is more "welfare" than "universal" and that ends when it is no longer a necessity.
Click to expand...

Does that animal even exist on the federal level?
 
LadyT said:
The same reason you fund middle class/rich children's education now. Not to mention that 'rich' and 'middle class' are relative terms. Particularly when they are spoken about on a national level.
Click to expand...


Day care is hella expensive, even for the middle class. That's why I think we should make it universal, for everyone who wants to use it.
 
Damocles said:
My problem is the "universal". There are people that don't need the help and don't want it.

I prefer a system that is more "welfare" than "universal" and that ends when it is no longer a necessity.
Click to expand...

right there for those who need it but charges are scaled based on income. that will let private day cares still operate as well for those who want it.
 
Cypress said:
Day care is hella expensive, even for the middle class. That's why I think we should make it universal, for everyone who wants to use it.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I also agree that the cost in using the infrastructure we currently have would make it a worth while investment.
 
LadyT said:
The same reason you fund middle class/rich children's education now. Not to mention that 'rich' and 'middle class' are relative terms. Particularly when they are spoken about on a national level.
Click to expand...

And that might be an interesting problem to address. Does the middle/rich really need their children's education subsidized? Why not let property taxes fund the education of the needy, while allowing the others to pay their way. More money for those without 'enriched environments' and the savings in taxes for all would decrease. Win/win.
 
Runyon said:
And that might be an interesting problem to address. Does the middle/rich really need their children's education subsidized? Why not let property taxes fund the education of the needy, while allowing the others to pay their way. More money for those without 'enriched environments' and the savings in taxes for all would decrease. Win/win.
Click to expand...

You are promiting effective tax increases ?
 
Runyon said:
And that might be an interesting problem to address. Does the middle/rich really need their children's education subsidized? Why not let property taxes fund the education of the needy, while allowing the others to pay their way. More money for those without 'enriched environments' and the savings in taxes for all would decrease. Win/win.
Click to expand...


Does the middle/rich really need their children's education subsidized?

It already is. Everything from public schools, to school buses, to text books, to the roads you on drive to school on are subsidized. No one is "paying their own way".
 
Runyon said:
And that might be an interesting problem to address. Does the middle/rich really need their children's education subsidized? Why not let property taxes fund the education of the needy, while allowing the others to pay their way. More money for those without 'enriched environments' and the savings in taxes for all would decrease. Win/win.
Click to expand...

You'd drive the middle class and so called rich into the ground - while their wealth would basically be tranfered to the poor. I think an all-in model works better. Even if you're household is earning $140K a year - $12K just for child care during the day is pretty expensive. Everyone paying their collective fair share in order to fund the kids in their communities' future seems just.
 
bet it doesn't seem to just to the single person or the couple with no kids.
Just because it makes it easier on a middle class couple doesn't mean we should do it.
You crank out the kids, pay for them.:clink:
 
Beefy said:
For some reason, those question marks crack me up.
Click to expand...

I like my extra commas and question marks, they keep your lib cohors thinking, about why I used them, which means that they are intellectually crippled at the start, trying to figure me out, what else is new....nothing really, I win as usual?
 
LadyT said:
You'd drive the middle class and so called rich into the ground - while their wealth would basically be tranfered to the poor. I think an all-in model works better. Even if you're household is earning $140K a year - $12K just for child care during the day is pretty expensive. Everyone paying their collective fair share in order to fund the kids in their communities' future seems just.
Click to expand...

At 140k per year, not being able to afford child care would say you are handling your money wrong or it's not a priority for you. Fine, find a 'baby sitter' for $2.50 an hour. Good luck!
 
Runyon said:
At 140k per year, not being able to afford child care would say you are handling your money wrong or it's not a priority for you. Fine, find a 'baby sitter' for $2.50 an hour. Good luck!
Click to expand...

A wide screen and SUV are much more important than our childrens welfare. Gotta keep that economy strong! Lets not forget #25 either.
 
RJS said:
I like my extra commas and question marks, they keep your lib cohors thinking, about why I used them, which means that they are intellectually crippled at the start, trying to figure me out, what else is new....nothing really, I win as usual?
Click to expand...

This guy is cracking me up... he truly thinks very highly of himself, despite the third grade antics and "reasoning" he uses. Somebody fess up... who is using this troll to emulate their perception of a con?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top