Childcare Reform Act (Debating)

[Talleyrand]

I'm not really a fan for having a surplus for the sake of having a surplus, and I think we could probably find some other areas to cut in to account for this if we decided to pursue that route. I think we should be okay on this one.

[Simfan34]

School children have 12 weeks off a year. The whole point of this bill is that parents don't.

Oh, schoolchildren. Gotcha.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It would cost 6.3Billion?
But we have a surplus of 15B right? So we can afford it!

It would cost $6.3b per year and we have a $15b surplus, this year. But that's a pretty tiny surplus for an economy of this size and wouldn't take much to wipe it out.

But I still support the measure.

I thought bore just said it was $75 billion a year.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It would cost 6.3Billion?
But we have a surplus of 15B right? So we can afford it!

It would cost $6.3b per year and we have a $15b surplus, this year. But that's a pretty tiny surplus for an economy of this size and wouldn't take much to wipe it out.

But I still support the measure.

I thought bore just said it was $75 billion a year.

Oh, I just read more clearly what the President said... that's $6.3b per WEEK for 12 weeks... that does put a profoundly different spin on things.

[Cranberry]

6,3 billions per week indeed is much. Maybe we could leave a part of the final sum for the regions?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Sounds like we're in a better position to offer a grant or a tax credit instead.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Sounds like we're in a better position to offer a grant or a tax credit instead.

I would say some kind of means tested tax credit or offset would be the most simple way.

[bore]

It's important to remember that it would only be 6.3 billion a week if every child in the country went along, and even then it would be less because I didn't account for the fact that people earning over 100 000 would pay the full rate.

[Cranberry]

Yes indeed, 75b is not going to be the sum we will have to pay. Giving a rough estimation without any proof to it, I don't expect the sum to be sustainably higher than 40 Billions, maybe 45 Billions.

Tax credits have their merits, sure, but I imagine many families would fall into this scheme that don't even pay taxes in the first place, or such a low number that the percentage that we would designate for this tax cut would nearly not be felt at all and definitely too less to pay for what the supervision of the child in independent child care institutes would cost.

Really, we have the facilities, we have the personnel, we will be able to scrap the means to paying for this. I definitely think we should be going down that road.

[bore]

If we use the figures I suggested in the amendment the ceiling if everyone took advantage of this is 2.25 billion per week, which is a maximum of around 27 billion dollars. And that's not including that we'll make savings with parent's not having to take sick days and people earning over 100 grand paying the full price, a well as the fact not every child will be in this childcare every week.

[Talleyrand]

Yeah, I'm still fine with this assuming the cost estimates from Bore or Cranberry are correct. We shouldn't get obsessive about maintaining the budget surplus and throw aside a great bill like this one in the process. If that really is a top priority, then (once again) I am sure there's some silly appropriation or some older law we can remove from the books.

And I think if we were to pursue an alternative route, subsidizing decent, reasonable-cost childcare providers would be a better route than a tax credit.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, I'm still fine with this assuming the cost estimates from Bore or Cranberry are correct. We shouldn't get obsessive about maintaining the budget surplus and throw aside a great bill like this one in the process. If that really is a top priority, then (once again) I am sure there's some silly appropriation or some older law we can remove from the books.

And I think if we were to pursue an alternative route, subsidizing decent, reasonable-cost childcare providers would be a better route than a tax credit.

But, wouldn't that be how those subsidies would operate?

[Senator Cris]

If I perfectly understand, if every child went every week the cost would be of 75 billion per year. But a more realistic estimate is of 40-45 billion per year.

Now, we have a surplus of 15 billion. I think that this is a sensible reform, but at the same time I think we should have a surplus for emergency cases and so I'm skeptical about the cost of it.

[Cranberry]

This indeed is an issue I care much about, so I would like to see this passed more than any other bill currently in debate.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

If I perfectly understand, if every child went every week the cost would be of 75 billion per year. But a more realistic estimate is of 40-45 billion per year.

Now, we have a surplus of 15 billion. I think that this is a sensible reform, but at the same time I think we should have a surplus for emergency cases and so I'm skeptical about the cost of it.

I completely support the intention and the desired results of this Bill. However, I'm wary of under-appropriating this Bill. Because, it might be that the program is more popular than we think at the moment or less. My natural reaction to these things would be to make the appropriation closer to the higher end of probable costs. Because surely, its better than to have the program be successful and popular, but run out of funds.

[Talleyrand]

$50 billion should be a reasonable first estimate, I'd presume.

[windjammer]

If President Bore has nothing against it, I'd like to present this amendment for him.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A vote is now open on Bore's amendment. Please, vote AYE, Nay or Abstain.

[TNF]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

AYE

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[Senator Cris]

Aye

[Talleyrand]

AYE

[windjammer]

Nay

I'm NOT going to vote for any amendment reducing the progressivism of this bill without any good reason. A good reason can indeed be the costs. The problem is there is no current estimate of the costs of this bill.

I'm not going to participate to debates cutting fundings in order to realize just after it WASN'T NEEDED. Like for the annual budget where we all believe there was a deficit, and finally there was a big excedent.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

ABSTAIN

[Cranberry]

NAY

I think that we should be more cautious. No Atlasian child should grow up in poverty, but we have a basic income for that. As long as social programs are sufficient to guarantee that Atlasian families are materially secure, why should we want all parents to work?

Of course it's easy to characterize the assumptions behind this question as backwards and sexist, but that's not the sense in which I ask  it. Whether it is mothers who fathers who choose to stay at home, that's not the point. What concerns me is the implicit assumption behind this legislation, i.e. the assumption that every functioning adult should hold a job and that failing to commodify one's labor is deviant behavior and somehow less respectable than other forms of work, like caring for one's own children.

I fear that a debate on these issues would to an extent break the mould of debate for such a bill. One could make a point that questions like these are more philosophical in nature than rather just plain political, and I am extremely weary of passing anything dealing with, yes, I dare call them, one of the "big issues" of our time, without a major, public discussion. Such questions deal with us as a society significantly more than just your given bill, and in order for the Senate to reach a reasonable judgement on any of those, the one you mention being just one of quite a few, I hold the opinion that massive and substantive input and argumentation. I don't know if anyone can follow my logic and more my wording and my usage of the English language on this, but, I believe this question you pose is not one to be debated just with one plain bill, but openly and massively in public. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I could arguably support provision on the lines of this, but we must be very careful that subsidies like these are not exploited or wrongly used. Clearly, such benefits should expire once a certain level of income or wealth is reached, and should only be paid if the parent indeed cares for their children on their own and not uses it for hiring nannies or something on the lines of that.