The Trump administration has drafted a proposal for a plan that would allow state subsidies to go toward parents who are taking care of their children at home. The administration would not be creating a new program, but rather tapping into the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) that was established during the Clinton administration and changing what is eligible for funds, such that married couples making under a certain income threshold can qualify.
...read more at reason.com
yes38.5%
no53.8%
I’m not sure7.7%
13 votes
Stay-at-Home Subsidies Won’t Produce a Baby Boom
If they want to encourage that kind of lifestyle, they should just tax those households less. There's no need for a separate program and its administrative agency.
I saw that. They should abolish the existing program, fire the parasites who run it, and pass those savings on to the tax payers.
Now I get it. What kind of benefits do you think would actually help encourage people to have more kids?
I don't know. There's not much evidence of anything moving the needle. Although, it's hard to imagine that something like a $1M tax credit per kid wouldn't have an effect.
My hot take is that abolishing the propaganda pipelines that were USAID, the Dept. of Ed, and a few other smaller programs will have noticeable impacts on repairing our culture.
aaah parasites.
what a beauty
Why not? It's already a planned economy. It takes a village, you know.
yea, true... but not the boomers. We don't need the boomers
The Council Of Elders runs the place and calls the shots.
Honestly, I’d rather see lower taxes, but if the government is going to spend the money anyway, helping parents who stay home with their kids doesn’t sound like a bad idea.
I mean, the state should pay nobody.
but given that the state is paying a whole lot of shite around child-rearing (schooling, material blah-blah), it makes decent sense for them to also, level-playing-field style, pay stay-at-home moms
In general, I'd like the government to spend less on all things.
But conditional on the amount of spending, I think paying stay-at-home parents is a better way to use tax dollars than many other purposes.
Need more info, is this an administrative thing that circumvents congress? Reason should rebrand to retarded, article is useless democrat talking points.
Not paying taxes in the first place would be better, so is this a tradeoff assuming that can't get done?
There's probably a lot of fraud already, so a re-work might be cost neutral if it's restructured against that.
My pet issue is homeschoolers getting most of the local school district taxes back, an extra 5-10k to people on the fence about homeschooling will very quickly rug that system and I'm here for it.