Why not just pay parents to raise kids?

[Prism]

My Good Babushka referenced this in response to Clinton's child care proposals (capping day care costs at 10% of income).

The poster has a point. Why shift money to private business rather than aiding the parents directly? If you gave the parent the actual cash you're spending, they might find it a realistic option to simply stay home and raise the child directly.

It could be in line with what we currently do with In Home Supportive Services. The elderly and disabled often have family members or care providers paid $9-$13/hour to stay home and provide care. It was set up for people like, say, a parent who has a disabled child and needs to be with him around the clock. Social services provides an income so the parent can do that without living in poverty.

Good/bad idea?

And the thing is, if it was a flat wage, you're not incentivizing more children.

I do see a lot of potential problems with this, and there'd have to be a lot of hashing it out. You'd obviously have to throw down an income requirement, for example.

Good/bad idea?

I'm gay with no plans on children (woo, nieces and nephews who go back to their parents at night!), so I've not a dog in this fight. But I do have a lot of experience with IHSS and social services and was thinking, "Well, why not?"

[REP]

1. GB Shaw asked the same question in "Getting Married" over 100 years ago

In a nutshell, it would be a net gain for society though at some point, women (and even today, it's women who are largely doing the nuts and bolts of child care) need relief and the freedom to be someone besides Someone's Mommy. A lot of child care is repetitive, dull and mindless (the cleaning, etc) and a parent who has time to grow their horizons is a better parent. Childcare that is so excellent that anyone would want to use it - and anyone can - and a stipend paid so parents can parent rather than take any crap job and never see their child may benefit us all, even the Childfree like me.

[Prism]

3. Absolutely

My sister-in-law has been a stay at home mom. Now that the youngest is in kindergarten, she's been taking work as a dental hygienist. She was a dentist in Mexico with her own practice, but needs to re-certify to practice in the U.S. Now the kids are in school, she wants her career and is planning to get that certification.

And that was the best choice for them. They could afford her to be home during the kids' toddlerhood, and she wanted to be home, but she also wants her own fulfillment outside of being mom, and now she's doing that.

But they're very fortunate. My brother makes enough so it was truly their choice.

I'm just wondering about systems we could feasibly do so that everyone has that choice.

[scscholar]

2. Exactly. It is pandering to big business

That's what you expect the other party to do.

[cagefreesoylentgreen]

4. Child free here too but

I've often thought about capping child welfare benefits at two children and/or a flat wage as the OP says. But the possible downsides of that come with increased child poverty if the parent decides to have more than two children and increased risks of child abandonment.

Not incentivizing childbirth is a fine idea, but I think it would be far messier and less humane in practice. Free birth control to anyone who wants it would be better.

[Prism]

5. I agree with both

Yeah, it's a tough balance. You want someone to have access to the system without being dependent on the system.

But I completely agree. Birth control should pretty much be at post offices.

[hfojvt]

6. why not just

sell childless people into slavery?

What do you think? Good/bad idea?

That, after all, is the basic principle behind slavery - you work, I eat.

Or in this case, I work, and people with kids get free sh*t.

Oh, yes, I know there are "social benefits" so the free sh*t that they get will trickle down to me, somehow.

You know what else benefits society? Cutting grass. So how about people with kids, who already get cheaper utilities, cheaper trash pick up, cheaper water (all of which is subsidized by the higher rates I pay) and get paid more for doing the same job (for example, my employer will pay $737.76 a month for health insurance for a single person, pay $1,027 a month for a couple, and $1,135.80 for a family, meaning my coworkers with kids basically get paid an extra $400 a month for doing the exact same job) - how about THEY pay ME to cut my own grass? After all, their kids will benefit from the increased property values and having fewer snakes and woodchucks around. Don't be self centered and selfish now, give me my free sh*t.

Or, maybe one of their kids should have to do it - for free, to compensate for all the free sh*t they are getting from me. I should at least get free medical care for my dogs or something.

[Igel]

7. You get workers paying for your retirement.

After all, Social Security has been pay as you go; even in the last 20 years, most of the money went to fund recipients and wasn't stockpiled.

In addition get people who will make stuff for you, prepare food for you, repair your roof, administer medicines.

Meanwhile, your childful peers have far lower retirement savings and standards of living as they raise those who, when you're senile, will wipe your butt.