fbpx
Advertisements

Bill to have State pay for child care costs for working parents

This topic contains 20 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Bainc 4 years, 9 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #175624

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    My first reaction is hell no. While that would be a great thing for the kids, it is not the responsibility of the state (taxpayers) to pay for these costs. Figure it out parents. That’s what parents have done and have been doing for years. Figure it out and make sacrifices.

    http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2015/02/18/california-bill-would-have-state-help-cover-working-parents-child-care-costs/

    SACRAMENTO (CBS13) — Child care advocates and lawmakers held a rally at the state Capitol on Wednesday in an effort to help working parents pay for child care.
    Many of the parents CBS13 spoke to said they would love to go to work, but can’t afford to do it.
    “It’s been many times I’ve been let go from jobs because I couldn’t find child care,” said child care advocate Shavone Brown.
    Now she can afford childcare with a good paying job from the state. But years ago, it was a different story for the single mother of two.
    So now, she and other child care advocates are pushing to ensure all families have access to qualityand stable child care.
    “We work and we talk to thousands of people across California trying to make them aware of the childcare issue,” she said.

    Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon will be introducing the Raising Child Care Quality and Accessibility Act to lawmakers in an effort to make child care affordable.
    A 2014 report by Child Care Aware shows the average cost of child care in the United States can be more than $14,000 a year, and that’s just for an infant. It can cost more than $12,000 for a preschooler.
    Most of the parents struggling are low-income single moms, like Brown. She says many times she was forced to ask family members to watch her children while she worked, but had to leave a job when there was a schedule conflict.
    Moms at Wednesday’s rally are hoping future legislation will keep them on the job.

    “That means that we have women who’s contributing to the coffers of the state of California because they’re working and that’s what its all about,” de Leon said.
    Supporters of the legislation say they have not determined how the child care will be paid for, and they are still working on the details before it is introduced to the legislature.

  • #276247

    newmom
    Participant
    • Topics - 206
    • Replies - 6,205
    • Total Posts - 6,411

    I’m curious the cost to operate in both real numbers and the state’s inflated, union involved, numbers, versus the return the state would get from all these parents who could now find a job. My first instinct is the same as yours, Doc. Your kids, your responsibility. Can’t afford care for your kids? Don’t have them-especially after the first, when you know what the costs are and you are already hurting for money. However, ***IF*** it can actually be done so the state still comes out ahead (which I really, really doubt) then I would change my mind.

  • #276235

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Yes, those are big “if’s” and I don’t think anyone has confidence that the state can do that. That will involve more bureaucracy and more state workers sitting around doing nothing on the taxpayer dime. No thank you.

  • #276243

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    This is a program I’ve wanted to see in some form for a long time, but without details and cost/benefits we don’t know enough about it.

    The reason I support subsidized child care is that it truly is one of the biggest missing links in getting low income people in the work force. You can talk about personal responsibility until you’re blue in the face, but these folks don’t have a lot of it and the kids are here. If you are a single parent with 2-3 kids or more, even in school, you often cannot find the type of work that will let you get to work, get them to school, and get them home while you work an eight hour shift.

    It might be a zero sum game, or it might even be a plus net benefit after a few years in the workforce and a better environment for the kids before and after school. I would want some very strict controls on funding, like no worky no payee.

  • #276252

    gearshark23
    Member
    • Topics - 23
    • Replies - 1,226
    • Total Posts - 1,249

    Hmmm interesting. Especially since daycare centers cost 1k+ a month.

    I agree with LC…

  • #276236

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    People have no confidence in the government to apply these programs. There will be waste and fraud and at the end of the day no tangible benefits.

    How does this get funded? Just raise taxes? Do we deduct it from the government assistance they might be receiving?

  • #276248

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    Or it could be yet another reason to pop out (or not prevent the popping out) of a few more kids… There is no reasonable ROI on this. The people who are not working now are not going to work unless the state pays them to go to work, or stay home, or just breathe. Institutional welfare has created a caste system where those who are in the system are there for life. The creation of “one-size-fits-all” programs just leads to more abuse and greater dependency on the government. We have 50 years of evidence on that.

    I am fine with a program like this that applies to a particular group who are most likely to benefit from it. I will be damned if we create another program to funnel money to a group that is not working, will not work, and gets paid MY freaking money to sit on their a$$e$ and play video games or watch Oprah.

  • #276237

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    It will be a program created and run by liberals, who are not known for being thrifty with the money of other people. They will turn a blind eye towards and encourage waste. We see that in the other government aid programs. The employees tell people how to beat the system that is rife with fraud.

    You can talk about personal responsibility until you’re blue in the face, but these folks don’t have a lot of it and the kids are here.

    That’s why we are in this mess in the first place with entitlements. “what about the poor kids?” Having kids is a business for a lot of these people. More kids, more $$. They figured that out pretty easily. It’s throwing more money at a problem and we know how well that works.

  • #276244

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    @EGL Admin 105732 wrote:

    Do we deduct it from the government assistance they might be receiving?

    Hell yes! That’s the only way I’d support it. And, I agree that if it’s government run it will never work. It can be a subsidy to private providers, like Section 8 vs. gov’t housing.

  • #276238

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Even section 8 is a scam though.

  • #276251

    plasmadrive
    Participant
    • Topics - 88
    • Replies - 885
    • Total Posts - 973

    I am so pissed off about this.. We are becoming more and more a socialistic state. If they can’t feed them they shouldn’t breed them. I get having run into some hard times.. but the tax payers have to stop being milked for everyone else’s problems. I am sorry they can’t care for their kids properly.. but they are responsible for them, not us… I know that sounds harsh, but this tune is getting real old. More entitlements.. just what we need.. NOT.. :stir:

  • #276245

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    @plasmadrive 105742 wrote:

    I am sorry they can’t care for their kids properly.. but they are responsible for them, not us…

    That’s where you’re wrong. Through no choice of our own the taxpayers most certainly have become responsible for caring for, raising, schooling, and housing them. Apparently I’m not being clear, because my support would be contingent on a net fiscal benefit which would come from putting a welfare mom in the workforce, which initially negates a good portion of the welfare check and ultimately could stop the generational welfare dependancy. If we don’t care enough about them and our taxes to attempt to craft a cost effective solution, then we’re defeatists and we cannot expect much more from them. Properly done, this program could pull them away from the trough, not add more slop to the meal.

  • #276239

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    @lc 105743 wrote:

    That’s where you’re wrong. Through no choice of our own the taxpayers most certainly have become responsible for caring for, raising, schooling, and housing them. Apparently I’m not being clear, because my support would be contingent on a net fiscal benefit which would come from putting a welfare mom in the workforce, which initially negates a good portion of the welfare check and ultimately could stop the generational welfare dependancy. If we don’t care enough about them and our taxes to attempt to craft a cost effective solution, then we’re defeatists and we cannot expect much more from them. Properly done, this program could pull them away from the trough, not add more slop to the meal.

    The conditions you are setting forth will not be met. Plus, this isn’t just for people who are on welfare. It’s for people who already have jobs, but want help with the child care costs. In that case there is not going to be a net benefit. The amount of people who are on welfare, who will get off welfare because of this program will be minimal.

  • #276253

    gearshark23
    Member
    • Topics - 23
    • Replies - 1,226
    • Total Posts - 1,249

    Isn’t that what Child Action is for?

    Assistance for folks that have jobs that don’t make a certain amount of money a year.

  • #276246

    LC
    Participant
    • Topics - 640
    • Replies - 7,150
    • Total Posts - 7,790

    Just because people have jobs doesn’t mean they don’t get welfare/assistance. I’m not for additive benefits; I’m for swaps, direct and indirect. If we assume it will never work based on history, then we’ll never find a solution to an ongoing problem that is not going away, seeing as how the growing lower income segment are the most massive breeders.

  • #276255

    Bainc
    Member
    • Topics - 9
    • Replies - 892
    • Total Posts - 901

    There’s already a tax deduction for child care. It’s not dollar for dollar but a percentage. I think it’s 20% if you’re under a certain income.

  • #276250

    Scarlet
    Participant
    • Topics - 268
    • Replies - 1,786
    • Total Posts - 2,054

    Child Action is different from this program – At this time I don’t accept child action and it is much better then the program the state has. The programs the state currently has most providers won’t even accept. Providers are paid in the rears, and the state is months behind in paying for care. When the budget isn’t passed then the provider doesn’t get paid until it is. Providers have to attend orientation class for the program. Paperwork is very detailed (which is fine), parents forget to sign one time or don’t do their part then the providers are not paid and they look for reasons or problems with the parents and then they don’t pay provider – and the provider is out of months of pay. It would put me out of business very quickly

  • #276249

    tomwaltman
    Member
    • Topics - 96
    • Replies - 6,770
    • Total Posts - 6,866

    No, LC, we need to change the dynamic. Loading more money in the dump truck is not any kind of answer, unless the question is how can the politicians buy more votes…

  • #276254

    gearshark23
    Member
    • Topics - 23
    • Replies - 1,226
    • Total Posts - 1,249

    @scarlet 105761 wrote:

    Child Action is different from this program – At this time I don’t accept child action and it is much better then the program the state has. The programs the state currently has most providers won’t even accept. Providers are paid in the rears, and the state is months behind in paying for care. When the budget isn’t passed then the provider doesn’t get paid until it is. Providers have to attend orientation class for the program. Paperwork is very detailed (which is fine), parents forget to sign one time or don’t do their part then the providers are not paid and they look for reasons or problems with the parents and then they don’t pay provider – and the provider is out of months of pay. It would put me out of business very quickly

    Thanks for clearing that up for me.

  • #276241

    adiffer
    Participant
    • Topics - 179
    • Replies - 9,504
    • Total Posts - 9,683

    Set Tom and LC on opposite sides of the table and pass the popcorn.
    The both have valid points.

  • #276242

    lakesidebull
    Member
    • Topics - 23
    • Replies - 784
    • Total Posts - 807

    I’d rather that parents who cannot afford quality child care have access to a taxpayer funded system, just as parents who cannot afford private K-12 fully utilize the taxpayer subsidized education system.

    If childcare were available to all parents regardless of their income level, just like the K-12 system, I doubt there would be much opposition. I don’t have children, but I have never complained about my tax dollars going towards public education and consider it an investment in our future. Just think about what the crime rate might be like if there were no taxpayer subsidized K-12.

  • #276240

    EGL Admin
    Member
    • Topics - 3,082
    • Replies - 21,888
    • Total Posts - 24,970

    Child care is different than school though.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.