Childcare Reform Act (Debating)

[windjammer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Blair for Bore

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I am supportive of increasing support for childcare... I really would like to get an idea as how much this will cost. Because, 90 and 50% for a good whack of the workforce will be a significant amount.

[bore]

I'm not completely committed to the figures, they're just placeholders at the moment, and in fact, doing the figures they seem a bit optimistic.

In Britain the average cost of local authority childcare is 100 pounds a week which is about 150 dollars a week. There are about 40 million children in the US between 4 and 14, 20 million of which would be 50% of 150 and 20 million who would be 25% of 150. For one week of the holidays, if everyone (which is incredibly implausible) was to take advantage of this, that would cost 2.25 billion. It's also worth pointing out that in the UK, free childcare would save 100 million a year , and the UK's population is about 5 times as small and the school holidays are about half as long, so we would probably be looking at around 1 billion dollars, maybe a bit more. I've also included people earning over 100 as getting the discount because there aren't easy figures available and there aren't that many of them, but that's also something to consider.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cranberry]

Thank you for offering numbers with this, looking swfitly over it, they do make sense and seem at place in my opinion. Regarding the bill as a whole, I believe this to be a sensible reform and am prepared to fully support this.

[Senator Cris]

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.

[Blair]

I object the amendment.

we need free childcare for all children-mainly because it encourages women to get back into work at a much quicker age. Free childcare for toddlers can help a family get back to work. I also feel that the funding is getting cut back too much-50% is simply too low

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I cannot support this unless we are sure of the cost.

Bore you said $2.25 billion for "the holidays" and then later said "$1 billion". Is the "we" in that sentence a reference to Britain and hence the inclusion of "5 billion" in the amendment?

[Senator Cris]

Yes. I noted the same thing of Yankee about the cost, but I presented his amendment because it should be debated and because there are improvements in points 1 and 2.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is why something like this should be regionalized or have a regional component of some sorts. There are parts of the country where subsidizing 50% or even 25% of people making 100,000 is pretty ridiculous, like in the rural areas of the South and Midwest. It does make sense in New York or LA though.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Yes. I noted the same thing of Yankee about the cost, but I presented his amendment because it should be debated and because there are improvements in points 1 and 2.

I agree it should be debated and it is probably an improvement in the sense that it is more realistic.

[Blair]

This is why something like this should be regionalized or have a regional component of some sorts. There are parts of the country where subsidizing 50% or even 25% of people making 100,000 is pretty ridiculous, like in the rural areas of the South and Midwest. It does make sense in New York or LA though.

I disagree, the federal government should act in these circumstances. If the states have taken too long to put in place something than we should act-this is a good piece of legislation that will help people get back to work whilst supporting the poorest in our society

[bore]

This bill is specifically designed to deal with children who are at school, yet have to stay at home in the holidays, so as much as I sympathise with Blair's argument, I think that should be addressed by another bill.

I'll run through the figures again. The median cost of childcare per child in the UK as provided by Local Authorities is 100 pounds per week. With the exchange rate this is roughly 150 dollars per child per week. The median household income in the US is 50 000 dollars a year, so with the subsidy in this amended bill, if every child between 4 and 14 (roughly 40 million) were to take advantage of this it would cost 2.25 billion per week. However, for ease of calculation I did not include the fact that households earning over 100 grand would pay the full rate, so even this figure is less.

In the UK, roughly 100 million pounds is lost by the government in taxes because parents have to take the day off to look after their kids, so if we apply the exchange rate the population difference and the fact atlasia has more school holidays, we "get back" about 1 billion dollars.

Obviously not all or even most children will take advantage of this scheme due to going on holiday, other arrangements grandparents, friends etc, so I think 5 billion would be enough to cover this.

[windjammer]

I have a question. In the US, when children go to school for the first time?

[Talleyrand]

I have a question. In the US, when children go to school for the first time?

They're mandated to start Kindergarten at age five, but many parents place their children in daycare and later pre-kindergarten programs before then.

I also oppose the amendment; this isn't a really big sum in the large scheme of things, and more importantly, it's being used for a very worthy cause... I don't think we need to cut down on percentages or total funds allocated just for the heck of it.

[bore]

The reason I cut down on the percentages was because a quick look at the figures meant they didn't stack up. It would be 150 dollars per week per child, with 60 million children at the initial discount rates would be 6.3 billion dollars per week, if everyone took up this offer. I am obviously open to debate on the exact figures though.

Regarding Yankee's points, firstly that's the reason it's in percentages, because as childcare is cheaper in the rural south that means the discount is less in cash terms. Secondly though, means testing often makes sense on paper but not in practice, because the additional bureaucracy costs more than the savings, and I think some sort of cost of living matrix would just ramp up costs. It's also really not the type of thing which can just be applied to regions, because the northeast has lots of cheap rural areas as well, while the south has large cities.

[Cranberry]

Well, gut feeling and a look on your calculations make them seem plausible for me, but if anyone else ha any further input here, I would gladly welcome it.

I'm also thinking whether we could just not keep the percentage numbers as proposed originally, 90% and 50% instead of 50/25. This service would greatly help many low income families in quite an easy way (say, for example single mums), and the costs would I guess rise not that much, I doubt we would have to spend more than 8/9 billion...

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah, if the numbers work out, then I've got no issue with the original percentages.

[windjammer]

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

[bore]

I probably haven't worded this clearly enough.

Under the 90/50 discount if every child in atlasia went to one of these childcare places the weekly cost would be 6.3 billion. Now the total number of holidays is about 12 weeks per year, so if every child went every week the cost would be about 75 billion per year.

Now obviously not all or even most children would use this, and those that did probably wouldn't use it for the entire holiday, but it's not clear exactly what numbers would.

[windjammer]

Kalwejt, where are you?

[Simfan34]

I probably haven't worded this clearly enough.

Under the 90/50 discount if every child in atlasia went to one of these childcare places the weekly cost would be 6.3 billion. Now the total number of holidays is about 12 weeks per year, so if every child went every week the cost would be about 75 billion per year.

Now obviously not all or even most children would use this, and those that did probably wouldn't use it for the entire holiday, but it's not clear exactly what numbers would.

When did we do this?!

[bore]

I probably haven't worded this clearly enough.

Under the 90/50 discount if every child in atlasia went to one of these childcare places the weekly cost would be 6.3 billion. Now the total number of holidays is about 12 weeks per year, so if every child went every week the cost would be about 75 billion per year.

Now obviously not all or even most children would use this, and those that did probably wouldn't use it for the entire holiday, but it's not clear exactly what numbers would.

When did we do this?!

That's the average amount of holiday in the US. I suppose it might be different here but I can't find anything to suggest otherwise.

[Simfan34]

People take 12 weeks per year off on holiday? What US is this?

[bore]

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

[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.