h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I was watching this on the news last night and getting infuriated.

They were saying how child care is too expensive and parents can't afford to go back to work, and how other countries subsidise the cost of child care.

Why should my taxes go towards looking after someone elses child?

Why do parents/mothers think they have a right to go back to work after having kids?

Oh for the good old days where the children actually got looked after by the parents.......

A better question is why don't women get paid to have children?

As I understand it the problem isn't that parents think they have the right to go back to work after having children, rather that the companies and co-workers think they have no right to take a "baby vacation".

<>



Why should my taxes go towards:
- schools and universities (I have no children)
- roads (I don't drive)
- wars (I'm against them)
- etc.

And the obvious answer is that I live within a society and derive benefits from that society working properly. So even though some things my taxes go towards do not directly affect me (schools, roads) we all benefit from children being well-educated and roads being properly maintained, etc.

And where do wars fit in? Well, I don't think they do. Though I accept that taxes must also go towards national defense.


az

>>Why should my taxes go towards looking after someone elses child?<<

Because that child will pay for your retirement.


>>Why do parents/mothers think they have a right to go back to work after having kids<<

Alot of women go back to work from necessity. There's something like 20 - 25% of children in NZ living below the poverty line. The parent's of those families aren't working to fund their overseas holiday or buy ballet lessons.


I think the idea that both parents should be in paid jobs out of the home is a temporary phase. Having other people raise your children while you work doesn't appear to be sustainable for societies. The situation is in part a result of women gaining enough social power to have more choices (although in reality it's a Hobson's choice). But even more it's about the capitalist system not valuing childrearing as a contribution to GDP. Plus the nuclear family model is really cr*p.

I think eventually society is going to have to acknowledge that children need to be raised by people that know and love them, and will have to find ways of enabling adults to have children so they don't end up going mad in the suburbs (which is what most of the feminist reaction to staying at home has been). The nuclear family is definitely going to have to go as it's patently ridiculous to expect one or two people to raise children on their own especially if society also expects both parents to do paid work.

I really don't think childcare subsidies are a problem. They're more an indication of deeper failings in society. Until those deeper problems get sorted, I think that childcare subsidies need to be in place to protect poor families.

> Why should my taxes go towards:
> - schools and universities (I have no children)

You went to school (presumably). The working people paid tax at that time that paid for your education. Now you are doing the same for the new generation.

>
> - roads (I don't drive)
>

In theory, they're not. Roads are maintained from car tax, which you don't pay since you have no car. In theory.

>
>- wars (I'm against them)
>

Can't argue there.

>
> Because that child will pay for your retirement.
>

Yes, but why should I pay for them to be looked after whilst the parents go to work? I have no problem with my taxes being used to education etc.

> Alot of women go back to work from necessity. There's something
> like 20 - 25% of children in NZ living below the poverty line.

So I should pay to look after their kids whilst they go to work, just because they couldn't afford to have kids in the first place yet went ahead and had them anyway?

>>
You went to school (presumably). The working people paid tax at that time that paid for your education. Now you are doing the same for the new generation.
>>

Things like education and healthcare also get funded from historical taxes. The buildings I went to school in were paid for by my parent's generation as was the training of many of my teachers.

But who pays their wages now, after their training is finished?

>>Yes, but why should I pay for them to be looked after whilst the parents go to work?<<

I do have some sympathy for your argument although probably for different reasons. Personally I have reservations about this idea that people have a 'right' to have children and that they can have kids and do whatever else they want with their lives i.e. they can have it all. I think having children requires sacrifice of certain things (as I'm sure most parents have experienced), and as I said I think it's a temporary cultural phase we are going through because I can't see how it's sustainable.

But I also think that the freedoms we have are important and that it will take both attitudinal changes AND some kind of social equity before we find a better way of doing things. If you don't give women access to childcare how is that fair on the women who have to work? How is that fair on the children? Yes ideally we might want everyone to make sensible, concious choices about having children, but the reality is that many don't. If as a society we withhold support from those families we are not only unfairly disavantaging the children (who had no say in the matter) but we are also creating unstable societies by promoting poverty.


>>
So I should pay to look after their kids whilst they go to work, just because they couldn't afford to have kids in the first place yet went ahead and had them anyway?<<

Part of the big social changes in NZ has been the shift from full employment. If someone has a steady job and has kids based on that, then the govt changes and that person is laid off at the same time as many jobs are lost and there is a country-wide shift to high unemployment, how exactly is that their fault?

But in any case that's not what bothers me.

What bothers me is why parents should get cheap child care rather than staying at home and looking after their own kids. Once the child has reached an age where s/he goes to school, *then* you can look at getting a job whilst they are in education.

>>But who pays their wages now, after their training is finished?<<

er, taxpayers. What's your point? All I'm saying is that it's not as simple as my or your taxes pay for current infrastructure. Alot of the benefits we experience come from people who have nothing to do with us currently eg earlier generations.

Like az said, we pay taxes for the good of the whole, and that's not a direct my taxes pay her childcare. Personally I think childcare is a worthwhile investment for the reasons I've outlined, even though I agree that the things that have created the need for the childcare are not ideal.

> Personally I have reservations about this idea that people have a
> 'right' to have children and that they can have kids and do whatever
> else they want with their lives i.e. they can have it all. I think
> having children requires sacrifice of certain things

I think that is the heart of the matter.

The majority of new parents these days seem to think that they have a right to go back to their life exactly as it was before they had a child. To have children you have to make a sacrifice, such as giving up work to care for them. If you can't afford to live with only one income to the family, then don't have the kids until you can!!!

Although I agree there is the problem of what to do with the current situation of kids on the poverty line. I don't know what the solution is, but it certainly isn't giving them money or subsidising care since that just encourages people to abuse the system and deliberately have more kids to get more money for drinks and cigarettes...... as we know only too well in this country.

> Like az said, we pay taxes for the good of the whole, and that's
> not a direct my taxes pay her childcare.

No, but it does take away funding from other things rather than just benefitting those who selfishly have children they can't afford.

>
>Because that child will pay for your retirement.
>

Going back to one of your earlier comments..... that child *will not* pay for my retirement. In the UK at least, I doubt there will be a state pension when I come to retire and the only thing that will be paying for my retirement is the money I save personally right now.

>>
What bothers me is why parents should get cheap child care rather than staying at home and looking after their own kids. Once the child has reached an age where s/he goes to school, *then* you can look at getting a job whilst they are in education.
<<

It's not as straightforward as that. Like I said, some women have to work to feed their families. What the childcare subsidy means is that they don't end up working for $2 an hour (which is what they take home without the subsidy).


Some women, eg those who have professional careers, can't afford to take 5 or 10 years out of their career if they want to return to it. Society is structured around the work needs of men not women. When that changes you might see women making different kinds of decisions. In the meantime I'd prefer that your taxes did pay for childcare subsidies because I don't want to return to a situation where there are few women in positions of professional and managerial power.

You seem to see it in individual terms. I'm talking about the wider social issues as well, which can't be separated from the problem you raise.

I think it's worth remembering that working parents might still need to pay for childcare even after their child has started school. Many jobs aren't flexible enough to allow part-time work which maps precisely onto school hours and avoids school holidays.

Many single parents face a difficult decision about whether to go back to work or to stay on benefits. For working to be a sensible economic choice, it would have to bring in at least as much money as not working and also play for extra expenses (childcare, travel to work, perhaps different clothes for work etc). Seen solely from a 'cost to the state' point of view, subsidising childcare to someone who is working costs less than paying benefits to someone who isn't.

Of course, not all working mothers are single and/or undertaking low paid jobs. I think some employers provide subsidised childcare, but this is an employment perk rather than funded by the state. Some employers provide it in order to attract good staff, others through a sense of commitment to equal opportunities.

I agree that no-one has a "right" to have a child, but I also think that a decent society should allow even the least well off to have children and give them a decent standard of living at the same time.

> Some women, eg those who have professional careers, can't afford to
> take 5 or 10 years out of their career if they want to return to it.

But that is my very point. Having children is a sacrifice.

And it's not just women. There's nothing stopping a woman having maternity leave then going back to work, and the *father* giving up work to look after the child.

You either have a career or have kids. You can't have both.

> Many single parents face a difficult decision about whether to go back
> to work or to stay on benefits.

Don't get me started on single parents..........

"You either have a career or have kids. You can't have both."

Why?

>>In the UK at least, I doubt there will be a state pension when I come to retire and the only thing that will be paying for my retirement is the money I save personally right now.<<

People say similar things here, but really I can't see any government that's halfway socialist not having some kind of pension. Old people starving is not a good look. There's no way I can afford private retirement savings, although it is being pushed here strongly too. But I own a house which most likely will be mortgage free by the time I'm 65, which is more than many I know who simply will have no option but to rely on the state once they retire.


>>
> Like az said, we pay taxes for the good of the whole, and that's
> not a direct my taxes pay her childcare.

No, but it does take away funding from other things rather than just benefitting those who selfishly have children they can't afford.
<<

So do you see all children as private decisions of individual people or couples? You don't see them as valuable to society as a whole?


>>
Although I agree there is the problem of what to do with the current situation of kids on the poverty line. I don't know what the solution is, but it certainly isn't giving them money or subsidising care since that just encourages people to abuse the system and deliberately have more kids to get more money for drinks and cigarettes...... as we know only too well in this country.
<<

It's far more complex than that. One situation I'm aware of here is the push to get solo parents (usually women) off the benefit and into work. We don't have full employment here so presumably they want those women to take someone else's job. Those women then have to pay for childcare, which is partly subsidised for a time I think, but usually they have to take part time work which pays badly. But why not just let those women stay on the benefit and raise their children??? Better yet pay them properly to raise their kids above the poverty line.

Then there are the women on the benefit who desparately want to work because they want to give their kids a better life. They're in a no win situation because the benefit isn't enough to live on, and they can't get fulltime work because of the kids. The abatement on wages if you receive a benefit means that you can in effect end up working for nothing or for a very low hourly rate. Add childcare into that and it's hopeless.


We also have a govt here that seems to want more women in the workforce (the PM got herself into trouble earlier in the year saying this). The whole economic structure now seems more and more geared towards making all adults be in paid work outside the home (this is meant to be good for the economy ). It's a really stupid policy, and it means that there are *structural things that make people go to work not just their own personal financial and career choices.