Child Care in 2025...

[dmallord]

Hey, on a more serious note here, forget about the sun and Trumpian silliness for a while.

Childcare is a pressing issue, and solving the childcare crisis has become a major issue in recent political and social discussions, with growing calls from parents, economists, child advocates, and policymakers for government intervention. It is not a topic to be brushed off as Trump has done, and JD Vance’s word salad is equally rudderless.

Who is calling for action?

Parents and Working Families: Many families struggle with the high cost and lack of availability of quality childcare. They argue that government support is necessary to ease the financial burden and provide better access to services.

Child Advocacy Groups: Organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and Child Care Aware are pushing for more federal and state funding to ensure all children have access to quality early childhood education.

Economists: Many economists argue that the lack of affordable childcare is a major obstacle to labor force participation, especially for women. Economists advocating for more government support often argue that subsidizing childcare would have long-term economic benefits by increasing productivity and reducing the gender gap in employment.

Progressive Lawmakers and Policymakers: Progressive political figures like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have called for universal childcare or significant subsidies, arguing that it's a necessary investment in both the economy and the well-being of children.

Businesses and Employers: Some businesses are advocating for better childcare support, recognizing that the childcare crisis is affecting productivity, employee retention, and workplace stability.

How Can the Government Address the Need?

These have been some suggestions. How do you feel about them?

Increased Funding and Subsidies: The government could increase direct funding for childcare programs, offering subsidies to lower-income families or tax credits for working parents. For example, expanding programs like the Child and Dependent Care Credit could alleviate some of the financial strain.

Universal Childcare Programs: Similar to public education, the government could establish a universal childcare system, ensuring that every family has access to affordable childcare regardless of income. This has been proposed in several bills, aiming to mirror successful models in countries like Denmark or Sweden. It is a shame that the most powerful country in the world can’t support the family units anywhere near these two countries.

Public-Private Partnerships: The government could incentivize businesses to provide on-site childcare or partner with local childcare providers by offering tax breaks or grants. This could help expand access and affordability for working parents.

Regulatory Reform: Simplifying licensing and certification for childcare centers could help increase the number of childcare providers, boosting capacity and reducing costs. However, this needs to be balanced with maintaining safety and quality standards.

Direct Payments to Families: Expanding direct payments like the child tax credit or establishing a guaranteed minimum income for families could help parents afford childcare without directly subsidizing the industry itself. This would provide families with more flexibility in choosing care that works best for them.

Put aside your pissing on one another and take this seriously. Help out here. Make this your place to put forth a positive means of resolving this serious issue in an election year.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The left wants the govt (me) to pay to have their unwanted children aborted, and, they want the govt (me) to pay for their IVF, and, they want the govt (me) to pay to raise their children, and, they want the govt (me) to pay for their childrens' education.

According to the left, it takes a village (me) to raise a child.

But you voted to do all those things.

It’s almost as if you don’t understand what you’re saying.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Everybody dies it. If you ever left your mom's basement, you could too. Just a quick peek, ya know.

He leaves the basement on occasion. He’s a part time Uber driver.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Claiming that proposed tariffs will "more than pay for" childcare is easily one of the top five idiotic things to spew from Trump's mouth this year.

 

[RobDownSouth]

He is indirectly and partly right. We can resume making our own products or we can stop having an economy as the white collar jobs mostly disappear. An unemployed broke nation won't be spending much on childcare. There is much more to do than just tariffs, but that is a necessary first step.

I still can't see how tariffs will positively affect child care. If Trump puts tariffs on imports, other countries will retaliate in kind. Trump won't care, it won't affect his government. American businesses will pay more for imported goods, and will pass along the cost of higher-cost tariffed imports to consumers. Consumers will pay more out of pocket for purchases...and this is supposed to help defer day care costs?

I just don't see how this will happen.

 

[dmallord]

The trade imbalance is severe. The USA doesn't export enough of anything that we need to worry about other nations' tariffs. Rising energy costs will eventually stop most global trade. Rebuilding the domestic economy of making our own products is much easier to start now than later when there the energy crunch is much more severe. And parents need jobs with living wages to afford anything in raising kids. They need careers, not shit jobs at Walmart, the current leader in wrecking the US economy by selling cheap imported crap and killing small businesses.

Trump's first term focused on tariffs with mixed results. So, we should be concerned if he relies on them as the lynchpin in his economic policy approach. Do you recall what happened then?

Farmers were hit hard because of tariffs. Under Trump, the government wound up giving farmers subsidies to make up for losses. High tech was hit hard as well. Remember, Trump said he would build chip factories in America. It took Biden to get that approved and off the ground, as Trump dropped the ball. Other industries were hurt as well. So tariffs are a mixed bag to deal with again if that happens.

Parents who work at Walmart deserve a living wage, as do all Americans, and I would say those who come in as farm laborers to harvest crops. No American should have a 'shit job' to work at with an income that doesn't at least provide for the basic necessities, education, medical, and retirement. That's the American dream. It's not rocket science; we can work that out if the politicians would get off their duffs and think about promoting the general welfare rather than their collective re-elections.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Trump's first term focused on tariffs with mixed results. So, we should be concerned if he relies on them as the lynchpin in his economic policy approach. Do you recall what happened then?

Farmers were hit hard because of tariffs. Under Trump, the government wound up giving farmers subsidies to make up for losses. High tech was hit hard as well. Remember, Trump said he would build chip factories in America. It took Biden to get that approved and off the ground, as Trump dropped the ball. Other industries were hurt as well. So tariffs are a mixed bag to deal with again if that happens.

Oh boy do I disagree with you here! Trump's ill-advised ham-fisted attempt at tariffs misfired spectacularly.

The Foxconn deal was the epitome of "Optics over Reality". Foxconn got a juicy subsidy from Trump, Trump got his photo op, then Foxconn engaged in a "death by 1000 cuts" downsizing until in the end they did the barest of minimum to retain the subsidy while basically creating something like one percent of promised jobs.

Meanwhile, China retaliated against Trump's idiotic tariffs with a "surgical strike" that targeted Trump voters in redstate America. Realizing that soybean farmers in particular supported Trump, China created enormous tariffs on imported soybeans from America, which should have crippled soybean production in the USA. Instead, Trump got Congress to "protect our family farms" and give cash directly to soybean farmers to make up for the income lost. Billy Bob Farmer didn't even have to go out into the fields no more, which gave him and the missus more time to enjoy Fox daytime programming. Trump essentially turned an entire industry from capitalist to socialist in four years.

Fun Vettefact: Trump's payment to farmers was $28 billion-with-a-B dollars. The entire Navy shipbuilding expenditure during this time was $22 billion dollars. Yet the RWCJ blames Democrats for not having enough money to "fund a Navy".

And the soybean drama is a gift that keeps on giving. China used their tariff to push other countries to create their own soybean export programs....and boy howdy did they ever. China did not buy a single imported soybean until earlier this year (2024), meaning other countries had a unique seven year window to develop an entirely new export base at the expense of the United States of America's Trump folly.

Here is a link to that commie rag Forbes detailing Trump's incompetence (which certain MAGA assets here....possibly subsidized by Russia...will disagree because it conflicts with their preconceived biases)

 

[dmallord]

They won't get that there. It will eventually die, like all corporate megastore chains, but Trump openly attacking Walmart would be a positive sign. Proprietors in the small businesses that Walmart destroyed had livable incomes, and will have them again after Walmart dies.

What's the likelihood of that happening? Trump is for mega-stuff, as in big corporations and big pharma manufacturing. As long as they give him campaign money, he is as happy as a pig wallowing in mud. His trickle-down mentality dovetails with Walmarts business model.

Amazon-style online businesses, which forgo brick-and-mortar structuring, seem to be making the possibility of closure to such entities possible.

 

[dmallord]

Oh boy do I disagree with you here! Trump's ill-advised ham-fisted attempt at tariffs misfired spectacularly.

The Foxconn deal was the epitome of "Optics over Reality". Foxconn got a juicy subsidy from Trump, Trump got his photo op, then Foxconn engaged in a "death by 1000 cuts" downsizing until in the end they did the barest of minimum to retain the subsidy while basically creating something like one percent of promised jobs.

Meanwhile, China retaliated against Trump's idiotic tariffs with a "surgical strike" that targeted Trump voters in redstate America. Realizing that soybean farmers in particular supported Trump, China created enormous tariffs on imported soybeans from America, which should have crippled soybean production in the USA. Instead, Trump got Congress to "protect our family farms" and give cash directly to soybean farmers to make up for the income lost. Billy Bob Farmer didn't even have to go out into the fields no more, which gave him and the missus more time to enjoy Fox daytime programming. Trump essentially turned an entire industry from capitalist to socialist in four years.

Fun Vettefact: Trump's payment to farmers was $28 billion-with-a-B dollars. The entire Navy shipbuilding expenditure during this time was $22 billion dollars. Yet the RWCJ blames Democrats for not having enough money to "fund a Navy".

And the soybean drama is a gift that keeps on giving. China used their tariff to push other countries to create their own soybean export programs....and boy howdy did they ever. China did not buy a single imported soybean until earlier this year (2024), meaning other countries had a unique seven year window to develop an entirely new export base at the expense of the United States of America's Trump folly.

Here is a link to that commie rag Forbes detailing Trump's incompetence (which certain MAGA assets here....possibly subsidized by Russia...will disagree because it conflicts with their preconceived biases)

Thank you! The farmers were hit hard and the Forbes article lays out how much the ill-fated Trump tariff policy impacted all the other government agencies as well. I hadn't see that article. It is an excellent read.

I doubt the MAGA crowd flocks there to read it; as you noted, it doesn't put Trump in a good light. However, it does share the impact of his thoughtlessness and simpleton planning abilities. Even his own staff were 'uncomfortable' with how the outcome damaged worldwide relationships.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I don’t like Trump’s tariff plan or Biden’s current policy which imposes 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, 50% on semiconductors, 100% on EVs, and many similar tariffs on other goods.

 

[dmallord]

I don’t like Trump’s tariff plan or Biden’s current policy which imposes 25% tariff on steel and aluminum, 50% on semiconductors, 100% on EVs, and many similar tariffs on other goods.

What do you favor as alternatives?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

What do you favor as alternatives?

For child care, a tax credit that phases out around the median income for married couples. Probably somewhere around $75K and $100K. Keep it targeted to lower income couples. I don’t agree with Harris and Vance that it should be available regardless of income.

 

[dmallord]

For child care, a tax credit that phases out around the median income for married couples. Probably somewhere around $75K and $100K. Keep it targeted to lower income couples. I don’t agree with Harris and Vance that it should be available regardless of income.

I ran some spreadsheet scenarios with your figures and used Labor stats along with good ol’ David Ramsey, a famous money guy who helps people get out of debt, and the numbers on budgets for a middle-class family income. What I found was that your income ranges were too stringent and not useful in helping many middle-income families still outside your upper limit. It seems that a higher level of income cutoff is needed. I would offer this as a counter-proposal to benefit a higher wage group and introduce a Child and Dependent Care Credit that gradually phases out based on household income that might meet your original idea.

Proposed Adjustments to the Child and Dependent Care Credit:

Increase the Maximum Credit:

• Current policy: The credit is capped at $3,000 per child, with a maximum of $6,000 for two or more children.
• Proposed increase: Raise the credit to $5,000 per child, with a maximum of $10,000 for two or more children. This would provide a more substantial benefit to families facing high childcare costs, especially those in urban areas where costs are higher.

Income-Based Phase-Out:

• To ensure that benefits are targeted at lower- and middle-income families, the credit could begin phasing out at $150,000 in household income and completely phase out at $250,000.
• Phase-out structure: For every $5,000 of household income above $150,000, the credit would be reduced by 5%. By the time a household reaches $250,000, the credit would be fully phased out.

Index the Credit to Inflation:

• Adjust the maximum credit annually based on inflation or changes in the average cost of childcare. This would prevent the credit from becoming less valuable over time as costs rise.

Offer a Tiered Credit System:

• For families with lower incomes, allow a higher percentage of eligible childcare expenses to be credited. For instance:
  • Families earning under $75,000 could receive up to 50% of their eligible expenses credited.
  • Families earning between $75,000 and $150,000 could receive 35%.
  • Families earning between $150,000 and $250,000 could receive 20%, with the credit phasing out above $250,000.

Example of How This Works:​

For a Household Earning $100,000 Annually:​

• With two children, they could receive 35% of up to $10,000 in eligible childcare expenses.
• This would give them a tax credit of $3,500 (rather than $2,400 under the current system).

For a Household Earning $200,000 Annually:​

• This family would be in the higher tier, receiving 20% of up to $10,000 in eligible childcare expenses.
• They would receive a tax credit of $2,000.

For a Household Earning $275,000 Annually:​

• This family would no longer be eligible for the childcare credit as it would phase out fully at $250,000.

Benefits of This Adjustment:​

More Effective Relief for Lower-Income Families: By targeting more substantial benefits to households under $150,000, the policy helps the families who most need financial relief from the rising cost of childcare.

Reduced Benefit for High-Income Earners: Households earning over $150,000 would still receive some relief but in a way that gradually decreases as their incomes rise, ensuring that resources are concentrated where they are most impactful.

Long-Term Sustainability: By indexing the credit to inflation, the government can ensure that the credit keeps pace with real-world childcare costs, preventing it from being eroded by inflation over time.

Encourages Workforce Participation: More generous childcare credits help to reduce the financial strain on working parents, especially mothers, which could lead to higher workforce participation and economic productivity.

Income Threshold for Stopping the Credit:​

• The credit should stop at $250,000 of household income. Families earning above this threshold generally have higher disposable incomes and more options for handling childcare costs, whether through private care, flexible work arrangements, or other means.

This approach offers a balance between supporting families that are struggling with childcare costs while ensuring that those with higher incomes receive proportionately less assistance.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The big stores and Amazon will will fail because they need cheap energy for global freight.

I forgot Amazon is worse than Walmart as an employer.

Interesting comparison here about Walmart employees vs Amazon employees

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

I ran some spreadsheet scenarios with your figures and used Labor stats along with good ol’ David Ramsey, a famous money guy who helps people get out of debt, and the numbers on budgets for a middle-class family income. What I found was that your income ranges were too stringent and not useful in helping many middle-income families still outside your upper limit. It seems that a higher level of income cutoff is needed. I would offer this as a counter-proposal to benefit a higher wage group and introduce a Child and Dependent Care Credit that gradually phases out based on household income that might meet your original idea.

Proposed Adjustments to the Child and Dependent Care Credit:

Increase the Maximum Credit:

• Current policy: The credit is capped at $3,000 per child, with a maximum of $6,000 for two or more children.
• Proposed increase: Raise the credit to $5,000 per child, with a maximum of $10,000 for two or more children. This would provide a more substantial benefit to families facing high childcare costs, especially those in urban areas where costs are higher.

Income-Based Phase-Out:

• To ensure that benefits are targeted at lower- and middle-income families, the credit could begin phasing out at $150,000 in household income and completely phase out at $250,000.
• Phase-out structure: For every $5,000 of household income above $150,000, the credit would be reduced by 5%. By the time a household reaches $250,000, the credit would be fully phased out.

Index the Credit to Inflation:

• Adjust the maximum credit annually based on inflation or changes in the average cost of childcare. This would prevent the credit from becoming less valuable over time as costs rise.

Offer a Tiered Credit System:

• For families with lower incomes, allow a higher percentage of eligible childcare expensesto be credited. For instance:
  • Families earning under $75,000 could receive up to 50% of their eligible expenses credited.
  • Families earning between $75,000 and $150,000 could receive 35%.
  • Families earning between $150,000 and $250,000 could receive 20%, with the credit phasing out above $250,000.

Example of How This Works:​

For a Household Earning $100,000 Annually:​

• With two children, they could receive 35% of up to $10,000 in eligible childcare expenses.
• This would give them a tax credit of $3,500 (rather than $2,400 under the current system).

For a Household Earning $200,000 Annually:​

• This family would be in the higher tier, receiving 20% of up to $10,000 in eligible childcare expenses.
• They would receive a tax credit of $2,000.

For a Household Earning $275,000 Annually:​

• This family would no longer be eligible for the childcare credit as it would phase out fully at $250,000.

Benefits of This Adjustment:​

More Effective Relief for Lower-Income Families: By targeting more substantial benefits to households under $150,000, the policy helps the families who most need financial relief from the rising cost of childcare.

Reduced Benefit for High-Income Earners: Households earning over $150,000 would still receive some relief but in a way that gradually decreases as their incomes rise, ensuring that resources are concentrated where they are most impactful.

Long-Term Sustainability: By indexing the credit to inflation, the government can ensure that the credit keeps pace with real-world childcare costs, preventing it from being eroded by inflation over time.

Encourages Workforce Participation: More generous childcare credits help to reduce the financial strain on working parents, especially mothers, which could lead to higher workforce participation and economic productivity.

Income Threshold for Stopping the Credit:​

• The credit should stop at $250,000 of household income. Families earning above this threshold generally have higher disposable incomes and more options for handling childcare costs, whether through private care, flexible work arrangements, or other means.

This approach offers a balance between supporting families that are struggling with childcare costs while ensuring that those with higher incomes receive proportionately less assistance.

I don’t have any issue with the structure but the credit amounts are phase our thresholds are high. Would have to see how much it costs and how it would be paid for. With regards to indexing the credit to inflation, I’d go along with that if it was coupled with indexing capital gains and the capital gains tax exemption to inflation.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Speaking of Child Care: Only YOU can prevent a new generation of Wat Tylers.
https://i.imgur.com/o2TB8QO.png

 

[Lazaran]

Would have to see how much it costs and how it would be paid for.

Translation:

If it negatively affects BabyBoobs wealthy white privilege in any way, then BabyBoobs would be against a it.

The same goes for climate change mitigation efforts, health care, education, housing, wages, social justice, etc, etc, etc.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Translation:

If it negatively affects BabyBoobs wealthy white privilege in any way, then BabyBoobs would be against a it.

The same goes for climate change mitigation efforts, health care, education, housing, wages, social justice, etc, etc, etc.



BabyBoobs

In other words, you’re saying “we can just print more money!”

 

[Lazaran]

In other words, you’re saying “we can just print more money!”

BabyBoobs continue to lie and gaslight.



50 YEARS of REPUBLICAN tax cuts for the rich and corporations -even in times of war and pandemics (disease, drugs, gun violence , climate change related disasters, etc) - coupled with wage stagnation and lack of investment in housing and other infrastructure, has put America in the exact position WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICANS wanted: A broke / broken government that can plausibly plead poverty as justification for cutting social programs / benefits, and broke / broken middle and lower class Americans who "MUST" accept cuts to social programs / benefits.



And NOW it’s going to take 50 YEARS of clawing back the wealth that was funneled to WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICAN DONORS by WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICANS IN GOVERNMENT through a variety of wealth taxes to get America back on track to fiscal solvency, and to governmental and societal stability / equilibrium.



Ironically, the natural attrition of WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICAN BABYBOOMERS dying off (coupled with adjusted inheritance taxes, etc, and the influx of immigrant labor) will facilitate the recovery to governmental and societal stability / equilibrium.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

BabyBoobs continue to lie and gaslight.



50 YEARS of REPUBLICAN tax cuts for the rich and corporations -even in times of war and pandemics (disease, drugs, gun violence , climate change related disasters, etc) - coupled with wage stagnation and lack of investment in housing and other infrastructure, has put America in the exact position WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICANS wanted: A broke / broken government that can plausibly plead poverty as justification for cutting social programs / benefits, and broke / broken middle and lower class Americans who "MUST" accept cuts to social programs / benefits.



And NOW it’s going to take 50 YEARS of clawing back the wealth that was funneled to WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICAN DONORS by WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICANS IN GOVERNMENT through a variety of wealth taxes to get America back on track to fiscal solvency, and to governmental and societal stability / equilibrium.



Ironically, the natural attrition of WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICAN BABYBOOMERS dying off (coupled with adjusted inheritance taxes, etc, and the influx of immigrant labor) will facilitate the recovery to governmental and societal stability / equilibrium.



BabyBoobs

There you go again. Complaining that tax receipts are too low instead of acknowledging the growth in federal spending.

 

[Lazaran]

There you go again. Correctly pointing out that tax receipts HAVE BEEN too low for 50 YEARS due to WEALTHY WHITE REPUBLICANS’ efforts to bankrupt the federal government so they can plead governmental poverty as a justifiable excuse for cutting social programs and benefits.

Fixed BabyBoobs’ post.

BabyBoobs is welcome.



BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Fixed BabyBoobs’ post.

BabyBoobs is welcome.



BabyBoobs

Put that on your cardboard sign. Maybe you’ll get more handouts.