> The major incentive for providing childcare subsidies to everyone but stay at home parents (who now have net negative in this whole scenario post-tax) is to disincentive stay at home parents. If the idea was just to aid with childcare the aid with go with the child. You're purposefully excluding stay-at-homes from the definition of childcare, which is false and disingenuous.

The objective of providing free childcare to anyone that wants it is to enable people to avail themselves of free childcare. Just like free firefighting and police services; it's not "false and disingenuous" that I don't get to define myself as emergency services and invoice the government for my services if I manage to keep my home crime and fire-free without their assistance. Nor is my tax bill and other people getting their fires put out at taxpayer expense a disincentive towards using a fire extinguisher if I think I can handle it myself.

> No I don't understand why daycare employees would want to "earn a living" any more or less than anyone else. I also don't understand why the fact their expenses are higher means a larger value was provided. If I dig for gold for 10 hours with an expensive machine and you dig for 1 with your bare hands, and we both end up with the same amount of gold I haven't created more value than you.

Value is also determined by the fact that stay-at-home mums are willing to look after their own kids for free, and childcare professionals are not. I'm not sure why a self-professed ancap is having such a great difficulty understanding that markets enable people and companies to charge to look after others' kids (with or without government intervention), but do not enable people to charge for looking after their own.

As for parents who want to earn a living as much as childcare staff, now they can go and earn that living without having to pay most of their salary to someone else to look after their kids...

> All well and good until you have men with guns showing up to tax the cash and force that incentive, the same men magically saying it is childcare when anyone that the parent does it. Goal here is clear, destroy the family unit as equal playing field in consideration of what is considered childcare, and put childcare corporation on a pedestal instead.

In between the tedious cliches, you seem to be ignoring the fact that childcare that costs $1k per month isn't on a "level playing field" with childcare that doesn't. It's not putting something on a pedestal to remove the bill.

Makes it easier for parents to decide to work if they want to, but I thought ancaps liked that sort of thing...

> It is the argument for eliminating all child subsidies / welfare / public schooling which I think would be the absolute best thing for children we could possibly do

The absolute best thing we could do for children is to ensure that those of them who have low-earning parents stay at home on their own with no daycare and no education?! Sorry you managed to complete nearly two whole posts of pointless nitpicking in the guise of being pro-family and then you hit me with this!?

I mean, I get the people that think it's so important to incentivise stay-at-home parenting or to avoid any child being even slightly poor that the government should pay every infant's parent at least as much as daycare centres currently cost... that just happens to be very expensive. Don't get self professed ancaps who freely admit they don't care how/if the kids get looked after arguing the system that costs the taxpayer significantly less and doesn't disincentivise participating in labour markets is a worse one than the alternative of handing out max_childcare_costs to every parent...

>The objective of providing free childcare to anyone that wants it is to enable people to avail themselves of free childcare.

The objective of excluding the parent from that has been made pretty clear at this point, which is a deliberate choice to destroy the family unit.

>Value is also determined by the fact that stay-at-home mums are willing to look after their own kids for free, and childcare professionals are not.

The free market value of taking care of 1 child under some arbitrary standard of care is not meaningfully impacted by the fact an arbitrary person might do it for free, anymore than the fact I might be willing to search for gold for free reduces the value of gold. It will have some effect in aggregate, but that effect would impact the whole market so is meaningless in the context of differentiating a universal payment.

>Makes it easier for parents to decide to work if they want to, but I thought ancaps liked that sort of thing...

It indeed does make it easier to decide to work if you're now getting taxed to cover $12K per child of every child in the whole state going to daycare, and you get none of that for your own kid unless you put them into daycare yourself because magically your own childcare doesn't count.

>The absolute best thing we could do for children is to ensure that those of them who have low-earning parents stay at home on their own with no daycare and no education?

I said from the beginning I wanted a waiver. i.e. reduction of taxes. I would put taxes at 0% and free up lots of jobs and returned tax money to low-earning families so they could afford more for their children, which I think is the best thing possible for them. With the added effect they can spend that money freely rather than having a state lord over them what one public school they can spend it on or lording over them with their own stolen money what childcare provider they can use.

The reason why I would argue for equal subsidies if they're provided is I believe either no tax, or equal subsidies is the most liberty minded solution. The solution where the state forcibly taxes and then lords the money over you depending on whom provides the childcare is the lowest-liberty solution of all of them. That is why I'm a temporary ally of the policy alternative I reference.