It's very convenient that it is greed when the stay at home mom wants an equal voucher, but not greed when a mom joins a capitalist for-profit enterprise for whatever wage she can avail herself of with the childcare bill footed by everyone else. Which is precisely what we are discussing.

▲

pempem 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your argument smacks of insincerity due to its limited scope of viewing SAHMs as moms providing childcare.

1/ You haven't mentioned how that SAHM must get a cooking credit, healthcare, retirement or house management credit or anything else in the litany of jobs required outside of immediate childcare and costs incurred by simply existing as a woman. Just a voucher for the hours, I assume, at which childcare would be open and none of the other hours

2/ A SAHP (thats stay at home parent) should be incentivized by raising wages and allowing life to be more affordable but your argument seems to be very focused on "moms" and "capitalist enterprises" and does not consider the reality that when SAHMs were more economically viable, it was not viable for all families.

▲

omarspira 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Make it a progressive tax then? The point was many people can afford to help others to make society better for all. But you only want to pay taxes for what you're personally interested in? If you think stay at home needs to be prioritized in some way, as another comment mentioned, that's a separate argument. You are also relying on scenarios that don't even sound plausible. If someone can barely afford stay at home and this tax makes it that painful for them, then make it more progressive. Then again I'm not sure they are equivalent. At the end of the day a majority deciding something like this is in the common interest and you having a problem because you won't personally take advantage of it sounds like greed to me. No one should be going broke because of this tax. If you think capitalist mommy is making too much while you foot the bill then wouldn't the remedy be to tax her more? Are you worried about people who can't afford the tax or do you just resent some people for getting societal benefits while also making more than you?

▲

mothballed 2 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not talking about "prioritizing" stay at homes, I'm talking about just giving them the same thing the company/entity that would be taking care of their kid would get paid for doing it. I'm speaking of removing the prioritization for commercial childcare.

▲

omarspira 2 days ago | parent [-]

Semantic games. At the end of the day if x is prioritized more than y and you want x and y to be equal you do want a relative boost in the priority of y. So fine. As I said I'm not sure they are equivalent or how this specific objection can't be applied to any other tax in a way that feels implausible. Should I get a voucher if I pack my kids lunch? Why are we "prioritizing" commerical food preparation?

	▲	varnaud 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		>Should I get a voucher if I pack my kids lunch? Yes. And no. The gov gives the child X$ per week/month/year. The child parents use that money to take care of the child. Society benefit from children that are well taken care of. Mechanisms to ensure that they are well taken care of are needed. Well funded daycare centers are one of the mechanism. A well funded household with a parent/grand parent/uncle is another one. In both case, an agency is in place to ensure the wellness level of the child.