I can think of worse things our gov't can and usually does spend our money on.

Talk about the NANNY STATE...

I wouldn't want my tax dollars to be used towards child care unless I had kids benefiting from it (which I don't). I don't think its fair to tax people without kids to help pay for daycare.
WG

With that logic, you'd be opposing most government programs since most, outside of defense and the courts system, don't impact you or me. Maybe the opposition should be based on something else other than "what's in it for me". :2 cents: I'd base it on the whole "government knows best" ideology that seems to reek from this proposal.

How did this de-evolve into a woman vs. men flame fest?

Trixie...that's a broad brush you're swingin' - we're not all low-brow, knuckle-scrapin' neanderthals.

It follows the same unfair principle of the 'two bags of garbage per household' rule we currently have around here. Regardless of whether you have a family of four or live single - you can only put out two bags to the curb on garbage day. Otherwise you have to pay a few bucks to put a tag on the extra bags.

Discriminates against family units and favours the single guy.

I'm just drawing the limit at childcare. Schools are already funded by tax payers and a lot of other social services. I just don't think childcare should be one of them.
WG

:thumbsup

I completely agree 100% with WG, and that's my point.

The American tax system already favors, and promotes families. They get additional benefits that singles, or as I refer to us as, the working poor, do not get in deductions. Not to mention, when you own a house you pay for a school system that we do not use because we do not have kids. Among other things.

Sorry, but that whole "the world is a village" cliche is b.s., and I should not, and would not, want to be paying for the 'greater good' because you did not take a finance class in school, or wear a .50 ct condom.

:2 cents:

http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/episodes/FABF03

That's why I said "most", not "all". Just trying to provide some balance and represent an underrepresented perspective (this issue is about gender from the beginning whether anyone acknowledges it as such or not), but even if I were just being a total jackass and talking out of my butthole, I certainly wouldn't be the only one or first in this thread (or anywhere on GFY) to do so.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that public schools offer "finance classes" and unbiased sex education. What planet are you on? Oh yeah, the one where you think people will learn these things without PAYING for them to be taught and being VIGILANT about what is/isn't on the curriculum. :error

I agree that single people, people without kids and the working poor (especially the self-employed working poor) are not favored or rewarded by the IRS or society in general and carry an unfair share of the burden, but you're crazy if you think we wouldn't all benefit from stronger schools and smarter, better-cared-for kids.

It is called school.

THey dont think about that.

Have you ever actually read the history of that time. First there was rich and poor no middle class.Most here would of been in the poor category. Secondly there would of been revolution in this country.

While I agree with you in some posts and points you make on the ole GFY, this is not one of them. However, always nice to see you're not afraid to pull any punches with your style.

I speak the truth about this country and how it works. Not the fairytale on how people think it should work. I stand by my point. I get hammered on taxes as is being single, no kids, self employed. I should not consistently be taxed or asked to support the 'greater good'.

:disgust

Yes since the creation of the federal reserve banking system the middle class has been under attack. The New Deal prolonged the depression. People were to poor to actually revolt, which was the plan.

Im not the only one that thinks that UCLA economists did a study and concluded the New Deal prolonged the depression by several years.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/prin...027150030.aspx

For every person, or study that says that. I am sure there are just many that say otherwise.
:2 cents:

yep i believe a right wing group. read history of the time in books with out a political agenda.

You dont believe history books are bias? :1orglaugh

In a perfect world everything would be custom made to suit each person just right but guess what, its not and majority rules.

True dat nig.

It's a good thing government, tax payer funded, daycare doesn't have a chance in hell of passing in the U.S. in current times.

:)

It could be worse. Ottawa tax dollars go to buying junkies clean needles and crack pipes. There so much of my taxes going to things I'll never use but there isn't much people who are single, self employed with no kids like you or I can do about it. I bet there is someone in your life who benefits from something you'd sooner not pay for though, and probably is better off for it. Its just what we have to put up with living in a "society".

pour billions down the drain in wars and wall street bailouts yet bitch at a few million for raising children. go america.

I actually think child care is one that the government should involve itself in. Getting women into the workplace (if it is a Government priority) is something that benefits us all, and equally not having to rely on immigration to make up the shortfall in birth rates would be far more ideal.

The shame is, they'd completely fuck it up - as they do with everything. Most day care centers (at least in Australia) are so ridiculously priced due to the investment required to buy land and build the initial center, and the subsequent barrier of entry for anyone else to do like wise. The actual operational costs outside the loan repayments are pretty minimal.

Ideally, in my opinion, government should build cheap centers on existing land they own (perhaps inside regular schools) and run them as efficiently as possible and charge the parents the actual costs (thus not relying on tax payers dollars for anything other than initial infrastructure build). My mother actually looked after children for years, and she managed to do it for a few dollars a day, even with employee costs (which is what 1 poorly paid carer per 15 children or something) I can't see the actual costs being much higher than 10-15$ a child per day.

Of course the government would have the additional bonus of being able to indoctrinate them while there... I mean introduce them to positive early childhood development strategies.

It's kind of funny that you talk about wanting more women to get into the workforce and then in the same breath think a woman such as your mom shouldn't ask or expect more than $10-15 a day for spending 8 hours or whatever scraping feces off the ass of someone else's child.

They look after more than 1 child per carer. 10-15 is the general norm and maximum I believe, as decided by current Government legislation here. And no it is not what *I* want it is the reality. Most carers working in private child-care centers are young girls who earn ridiculously low wages. I believe (and I am talking in AUD here not USD) they tend to earn something along the lines of $300-400 for a typical working week - yeah not great.

But at 15*15 that is $225 a day, take out 3-4 dollars a day per child (and yes that is how much they feed them for, and it is possible to do healthy meals at bulk prices for that) it is $50~, plus associated costs at another $50 (which is generous) that is $15 an hour. Potentially even offer tax benefits to the workers, continue to hire young girls (as is the norm) and it is a decent job. Not great, and I wouldn't want to do it, but plenty of people do already for wages similar to that or less.

Government already gives tax rebates, etc for childcare here, so seems like a reasonable solution. Oh and plenty of men work for shitty wages to, so don't get all feminist on me lol. But you are the problem with the government doing this. The minute the government does this a bunch of feminist lobbyists or some union would come in and demand all the same benefits and pay as regular teachers and blow the costs through the roof. If people would let the government run things as a business rather than hold them hostage as a political tool nationalization of some industries would make a hell of a lot of sense for everyone.

its sad but true

Don't get all "feminist" on you? I was just pointing out the contradiction in what YOU said when YOU brought up how you think it's the government's job to get women into the workforce, but as usual guys will blame me as the woman for bringing gender into the equation when it was already there and you boys already brought it up. All I'm saying is that the two things you said don't jive/sound pretty funny uttered in the same breath. I totally agree that a babysitter shouldn't earn as much as a teacher so don't give me that "you wimmin' and yer crazy demands!" baloney. And seriously, don't even try to claim that because some men have low-paying jobs that they are as underpaid and devalued as a group as women are because the facts don't support that.

$15,000 a year sounds like an oddly high amount for daycare. Can someone do the math that would make that make sense?

Who collects your garbage? Who was the laborer who ran bricks up to build your house? Who works in the majority of labor intensive factories? Who works those shitty rent a cop jobs that pay like shit? Usually men. No one under values women, companies just don't value people without skills. Sure there may be a small difference in pay according to official statistics and the "glass ceiling" but look around in any laboratory, in any large tech companies HQ (Google, Yahoo, etc etc), in any law firm, etc and you will see plenty of qualified women who do plenty well. But back on topic my general thoughts on the matter still stand. It's possible.

Um,... where do you live toots?

Daycare around here is $125-180.00 a week for ONE child.
Multiple that by 52 weeks a year.
:2 cents:

if the government has there hands in it, it is no good!

Are you kidding? Garbage men and guys in construction (as long as they aren't illegal immigrants being fucked up the ass by rich contractors) have always made wages that are ENVIED by the blue collar crowd. And how much skill does it take to get into the refuse removal business? Not a fucking lot so there goes your "we don't value people without skills" bullshit. I'm not saying it's an easy job or one that I'd want to do, but that doesn't mean it's a LOW-PAYING job.

An eighteen year old boy who almost flunked out of high school can easily find himself on a roof with a bucket of tar and some shingles for $25 an hour while the same person with a pussy is told that $5 an hour changing fifteen diapers is GREAT, HONEY! Can the girl also try roofing? Sure she can, but because she's just a weak bitch they'll just let her try it out for $11 an hour as a trial, no one will even let her TRY to carry her weight or even climb a ladder without holding her fucking hand or giving her a big boost on her tight little ass with their big calloused hands, and then they all bitch and fire her for not "being able" to do the man's work when they sabotaged her from the start and the owner had her stay late so he could try to shove his cock down her throat and the crew assumed she called in sick to work the next day simply because she's on the rag or something. Then when she presses charges against him for rape they'll say she made it up to retaliate for being fired.

You wanted me to get feminist on your ass? There you go, you clueless dipshit. And do a little research before you claim some bullshit "small difference in pay in official statistics" -- you're full of crap. Have fun living in your deluded world afforded by male privilege.

You guys get the short end of the stick in some ways, no doubt, but not as a group when it comes to how you're paid and the variety of jobs that are available to you. Or maybe garbage men get paid a lot less where you're from. I don't know, but in my white trash neighborhood we were all told we done real good if we hooked up with a garbage man.

why is that?

Depends on the number of kids I guess.
Here it's going to cost me $150/wk for one child. That's $7800 per year....so if I had two, then there's your 15K.

Ok, you have some issues you need to work out.

Turn down the Alanis Morissette music and take a deep breath, it's going to be ok.

Didn't have the stamina to read the whole thread but wanted to post something that would indicate to the boys you're part of their club, eh? Don't worry, honey -- I'm just here to give you one more fantastic way to validate your brotherly circle jerk. I understand how it is.

You're an idiot full stop, an idiot with issues and no sense of reality. You really think any unskilled worker gets $25 an hour? Well I don't know where you are from but it sure as fuck doesn't happen here, unless you are doing absolutely back breaking manual labor. You know the kind of labor where when you get home, have a shower and the second your ass hits the seat your whole body shuts down and the next thing you hear is the alarm going off in the morning for another day of hell? Nah, something tells me you have no fucking idea what that kind of work is like... I worked steel fabrication out of highschool and broke my back for shit pay, I painted navy ships and earned rubbish for massive hours, I spent months in dusty rooms helping dry wall and earned nothing. The whole time I had friends promising me they'd get me this super cool job paying $25 an hour and I have do fuck all!

These jobs are mythical believe me, they don't fucking exist, and the ones that do are absolutely back breaking - and I am sorry a woman couldn't do it, a lot of men can't. Pushing a wheelbarrow up and down ramps full of cement all day is completely beyond your comprehension, and I wouldn't go back to it for $100 an hour. It's a 24 hour job, you only work and sleep.

Put it this way, an apprentice roofer (first year) clears around $300 a week, a fourth year apprentice maybe $550, yet you think someone can walk in off the street and get $25 an hour? You've a completely warped sense of reality. If you walked in a guys shoes you'd realize the pay isn't any better. Need more examples? Who drives the cab you hop into? Who drops the courier packages off? Who throws your bags on the plane? Who drives the bus? Who.... They list goes forever, and don't believe the bullshit about $25 an hour jobs, as I said they don't exist.

Don't crappy dude jobs like garbageman tend to pay better than crappy chick jobs? According to WikiAnswers, here is what a garbageman makes:

"$80,000 in New York City
$48,000 in Milwaukee, Wis.
$35,000 in Pensacola, Fla.

Garbage men make in between 12-20 per hour, but it depends on who you're working for, where you're located, and how well you do it."

I'm coming up with around $8k on that.

Not really no. And the crappy dude jobs that do pay better are unobtainable and backbreaking. Like I said, from a guys perspective who out of highschool chased those $25 an hour jobs for a bit, they don't exist. And the ones that do are backbreaking, and even still usually go to a cousin or brother of the owner, or have a list of strings attached (i.e. cash in hand, but no overtime pay or benefits, 6-7 day weeks and long days). The problem with Trixie is she believes the bullshit some guy told her at the bar about clearing $1300 a week roofing - it doesn't happen.

The amount of guys going to "work in the mines" in Australia for $50 an hour is an endless, the amount that actually do it is next to 0. My brother, with a trade in aeronautical engineering applied for a job working in the mines (and he was open and capable of working in any capacity they required) and was still knocked back. Than the next week you are over a relatives or friends and some clown with no trade or skills carries on about how he is going to be laughing it up in a few months time driving a truck there. Trust me it doesn't happen.

Ah, I guess that makes sense. Most people with kids probably have two, although I'd expect that, with time between pregnancies and all, there would not be a long time to have two in there.

80k is not big money in nyc

Right.

Which was common sense on how the math breaks out. Average household is still like 2.3 kids.
:disgust

I grew up in and still live in Washington state; I am not believing bullshit some guy told me at a bar, these are my brothers, my friends brothers, other relatives, etc. As I already acknowledged, your reality (cost of living, wages, etc.) in Australia is probably different from mine in Washington state. As Amelia pointed out, it's different all around the states, too. And did you not read that I understand those jobs aren't easy and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do them?

We have 7$ daycare here. The gov pays for the rest. Works very well.