well the backbone of the ND was that a lot would pay for the debts and retirement of another. Anyone with a brain could have seen that system would not work. You would have to have each family having a shit load of kids to pay for such a system.

I had two kids. I stayed home to be a mom to them. I'm far from rich, but the fact is, my kids are smarter, healthier and better behaved than any of their friends. Having a parent in the home is way more important than having a big screen tv.

:thumbsup:thumbsup

In Australia being a child care worker is one of the lowest paid jobs you can do - about half the average annual wage - even though many of them have studied for years to earn diplomas.

People complain about the cost of child care, but you have to remember that "expensive" service is still shafting the people who provide it... they deserve better...

I know people at my childcare place that are paying a few dollars a day - the rest subsidised by the govt - while the rest of us "genuinely working" schmucks have to pay the full $60/day rate. Australia has a rebate which was recently increased from 30% to 50%, so you get back half the cash you've paid as a non means tested rebate each quarter. Tax payer funded, of course.

Right on! :thumbsup

:thumbsup:thumbsup

Fact is, its just not fesible for about 80% of parents. It takes two incomes just to get by these days and the majority can not stay home and make porn sites for a living.

Blah blah fucking blah. I'm sure most of you guys have had unsafe sex but because you have a dick and/or got lucky you never had to try to raise a kid yourself. If childcare were paid it would level the playing field for women AND for the kids who shouldn't be punished for adults' stupid mistakes. And before you start whining about child support this and wages garnished that because you're men, if everyone were entitled to free child care and we all paid into it then there'd be a lot less of that crap.

I don't know why some of you fuckers think that the hardest job in the world is one that should be done for free. Get with the first world program. And someone please kick BareFootsies in the head the next time he says "nig".

Looks like not only are you mad that nigs are rigging the system, but you're mad that your trailer dwelling factory working sister likes fucking nigs 6 ways from Sunday.

And as you would say...

:2 cents:

Free here and works great.

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