Ham-fisted reactionary policy versus attacking the root cause, which is 1) cost of living has now increased to require two working parents 2) The government values housewives at about $2k per year in tax credits. Let women stay at home and raise their children as they know best, and pay them for the cost of the service they provide.

▲

__turbobrew__ an hour ago | parent | next [-]

In Canada, you cannot file taxes jointly, so income tax brackets are on an individual basis instead of on a couple basis. It really makes it expensive for a single parent to stay home as one person making 100k pays about 30% more income tax than two people making 50k.

Don’t give me free daycare, just make it so much less punishing to stay at home and take care of my kids.

All of it is kindof dumb, I pay a higher tax because joint filing is not a thing, and my increased tax pays for subsidized daycare…

▲

sib301 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if the husband wants to stay home and raise the kids?

Also no, women (or men) who stay home don’t “know best” by default. That knowledge is earned and requires intent.

▲

russdill 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So, what, pay someone a full time salary for caring for 1 or two children? Pretty sure that doesn't scale

▲

georgeburdell an hour ago | parent [-]

If governments aren’t willing to value women at what their work at home is worth, they’re not serious about tackling the birthrate problem. Show me a country with universal childcare with a TFR above 2.1. It’s a cheap substitute for the love and attention only a mother can provide young children

▲

russdill an hour ago | parent [-]

Outside the home childcare is not 24/7. It's for a portion of the day. Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers.

Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children.

▲

sib301 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The fact he only supports women staying at home should tell you everything you need to know about the caliber person you’re dealing with.

▲

frumplestlatz 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> Outside the home childcare is not 24/7.

No, but it is during our most productive, aware, and valuable daylight hours.

> Also, it's really weird to be making this argument for mothers and not fathers.

In the context of human history, it’s not weird at all.

> Having childcare available gives the opportunity for both parents to spend more quality time with their children.

How?

It reduces the time children spend with a parent, and it creates a world in which both parents have to work just to afford having children.

	▲	russdill 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I suppose in the context of human history, you might argue to enslave a population based on racial characteristics in order to provide childcare. For many families, both parents have to work. Most time spent not working or sleeping is spent doing a task simultaneously with childcare. Cleaning, preparing meals, repairing things, laundry, etc. Even for families where one individual shoulders the bulk of the burden this is largely the case.

▲

mythrwy 18 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You have a point but I live in New Mexico. It's not like many of these moms are suddenly going to become stellar parents with a $2K tax credit. The state has real issues with poverty, education and work ethic and it's often generational.

Giving children some stability, role models and nutrition early in life seems like a pretty good investment from my perspective.

If the state pulls it off without the usual mismanagement and graft remains to be seen but I applaud the effort.