How can we improve the childcare crisis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

If you actually know such people, they are running a scam. Either their parents bought their homes or they are lying about how much they received in CTC or they are purposefully making their lives a living hell. Here's the math:

800k house means down payment of 80-160k, plus annual mortgage payments of about 45k. In order to qualify for $1200 in CTC, they would need to have four kids under age 6 (logistically challenging) AND they need to have an HHI of under 150k. Daycare for four kids in that age group is going to cost 60k at least (or maybe you find a nanny willing to take all four kids, but I don't see there being any savings because a nanny of 1-2 kids in DC easily costs 40k so good luck)

Let's say they make $149k to slide under the CTC cap, and assume some favorable taxes due to mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings, and having kids. Their take home is around $115k.

Minus 45k in mortgage payments = $70kk
Minus 60k in childcare = $10k

So you know multiple families who have 10k a year to pay for food, clothes, and other necessities, and their main concern is the CTC, which by the way they still qualify for, just a little less money and it is paid as a refund instead of monthly?

Let me save you the time of answering. No. You don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

+1 My DH and I qualify as low-income so childcare is free. My sister makes too much money so pays the full amount. During COVID, our preschool was required to *only* accept low-income (subsidized) children, so anyone making too much money was not even allowed to pay for a spot. The perverse economic incentive is obvious: my DH and I have to make just enough to cover our expenses but not too much to lose a spot in childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:subsidize women who want to care for their own children. There are a lot of women who work full time just to end up bringing home a few hundred bucks a month to get them by. If just paid them to care for their kids it would be better for everyone.

No, it would not. As someone who watched the dumpster fire of a government who paid people just because they had kids. We're at 8.5% inflation now. Would you like to see 10%?

You want more than 'a few hundred bucks a month' post-childcare payments? Get a better job.

The Child Tax Credit did not cause inflation. It might have had some upward influence, but no, you cannot lay inflation at the feet of that program. Most of the money people got was simply shifted into a monthly payment instead of paid out via a refund. And the additional funds only helped families under a relatively low income cap. The idea that this program, and not the war in Ukraine, Covid, multiple stimulus packages, extended and expanded unemployment programs, and long term supply chain issues, is to blame is so naive as to be impossible to take seriously.

We are a family with an HHI under 150 and we received 10x as much money from Trump stimulus packages as from the Child Tax Credit program. Granted, 90% of what we received went to pay for childcare we needed because of school closures, but that's another conversation.

The Federal Reserve and Larry Summers - Treasury Secretary for the Obama Administration - says I can. In fact, 50% of the inflation we are all enduring now can be tied directly to the unfettered cash deposited into parental bank accounts beginning summer 2021. Its funny you're trying to argue $500 billion in unearned income deposits to 98% of family households had no impact on inflation.

Of course it had an impact! We saw the household cash balances, and therefore the spending across all levels, rise and no most people did not use it for childcare. There are plenty of studies showing it was used to pay rent/mortgage payments, car payments, utilities, extracurricular costs like karate and ballet.

If you're going to be sending money out like candy - wouldn't everyone like free government payments to take care of their car notes and hobbies?

It was stupid.

https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2022/march/why-is-us-inflation-higher-than-in-other-countries/

[Anonymous]

Low income cap? The CTC went out to households making up to $400,000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Stop making having children so expensive.

We've structured our entire economy around the idea that childcare will be provided for free. Every other developed country in the world has overhauled their childcare system to deal with the facts that (1) slavery, indentured servitude, and exploitation of cheap immigrant labor are, correctly, no longer seen as acceptable ways to raise children, and (2) women are allowed to work and have rights now.

The US is the only country that was like "ok, ok, we won't just force WOC to care for children for free/close to free anymore, and fine, women can have jobs and be people, but you're just going to have to figure out for yourselves whose going to take care of children then, we give up." Like all the other countries were able to recognize that without the free labor of women, you were going to have to subsidize childcare in some way or the whole economic system falls apart. We are so, so dumb.

This is not even considered a left-right issue in most countries. Europe, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, many of the more developed countries in Africa -- they have plenty of political debates, but the question of whether a free country can survive without subsidizing childcare in some capacity is viewed as non-controversial. They have arguments about whether immigrants should have access to subsidized childcare, but not whether it should exist. Of course it should, because otherwise how would children be cared for?

Childcare is an issue everywhere. Most developed countries offer lowly paid parental leave so that women are encouraged to stay home and watch kids up to 1-2 years. Yes, it’s low pay. Almost all western countries have caps on the amount of weekly pay under the parental leave. In the UK it’s around $250 a week. Canada it’s $25k to stay home for a year. Then in these countries you’re expected to put your kid in institutionalized childcare (daycare) after your year to 2 years are up. The COL is so much higher in these countries that your average MC/UMC mom can’t stay home with kids.

So not sure what the solution is. But I don’t think these countries really have it figured out either. Have friends in a few European countries and I think they struggle just as much as we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

If you actually know such people, they are running a scam. Either their parents bought their homes or they are lying about how much they received in CTC or they are purposefully making their lives a living hell. Here's the math:

800k house means down payment of 80-160k, plus annual mortgage payments of about 45k. In order to qualify for $1200 in CTC, they would need to have four kids under age 6 (logistically challenging) AND they need to have an HHI of under 150k. Daycare for four kids in that age group is going to cost 60k at least (or maybe you find a nanny willing to take all four kids, but I don't see there being any savings because a nanny of 1-2 kids in DC easily costs 40k so good luck)

Let's say they make $149k to slide under the CTC cap, and assume some favorable taxes due to mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings, and having kids. Their take home is around $115k.

Minus 45k in mortgage payments = $70kk
Minus 60k in childcare = $10k

So you know multiple families who have 10k a year to pay for food, clothes, and other necessities, and their main concern is the CTC, which by the way they still qualify for, just a little less money and it is paid as a refund instead of monthly?

Let me save you the time of answering. No. You don't.

The expanded CTC was actually an additional $1,000 a year per a child and there were plenty of people authorized for the program who did not in fact have the annual income necessary to have $12,000 per child in tax deductions per year.

Second, your assumption that each family is paying 20% - 30% as a down payment and/or in closing costs of their housing expenses is also faulty. I know plenty of people who just scrapped up 5% and got in with what they had.

Third, the family I referenced has 2 kids over the age of 12 and 2 kids under 5. The difference is or was $1,100/month in cash deposits. If you want to discount the extra $100/month have at it. But their childcare costs are roughly $3,200/month plus benefits - the nanny watches the two kids on a schedule which is $38K a year not $45K.

Based on your calculations, their housing is paid for, their childcare is paid for, and they an extra $1,000/month for incidentals. Plus the childcare costs are temporary until pre-K enrollment. I don't see the problem or why the government needs to subsidize them or anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

Real middle class don't make over $100K. Why are you even worried about people who earn that much or make poor housing choices? You will not get a subsidy on that kind of income so its really a non-issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

Real middle class don't make over $100K. Why are you even worried about people who earn that much or make poor housing choices? You will not get a subsidy on that kind of income so its really a non-issue.

According to DCUM, everyone under $250K is middle class. Make up your mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Low income cap? The CTC went out to households making up to $400,000.

You did not get the full payment if your income was over 150k, or you may have received the full amount based on your prior income but then would have had your refund reduced by the difference based on 2021 income.

No one making 400k got 1200/mo in CTC payments, or if they did, this money was recovered from them when they filed their taxes.

The only way to get that amount of money in a monthly payment and keep it would be make under 150k and have 4 kids under 6 (the subsidy for kids over 6 was lower).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pay teachers and childcare workers more. They can make almost as much working in fast food but are responsible for the health, safety, and education of your children.

Agree this is a core problem- but where would the money come from?

The parents.

Parents can afford to give up more of their money from their two sets of income...it is not a societal problem that two income households with kids have to use a good portion of their money for care for their kids. Single person households do not have two incomes to leverage and they do just fine.

But then we’ll have to listen to “waaaah waaah nobody wants to work anymore; why can’t I hire anyone.” The labor market needs working parents. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. Think about your teachers, your school staff, your medical providers, your retail and restaurant workers you encounter, your office cleaning staff, your vet, etc etc etc. Now remove just the working moms. Good luck having that functioning society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Low income cap? The CTC went out to households making up to $400,000.

You did not get the full payment if your income was over 150k, or you may have received the full amount based on your prior income but then would have had your refund reduced by the difference based on 2021 income.

No one making 400k got 1200/mo in CTC payments, or if they did, this money was recovered from them when they filed their taxes.

The only way to get that amount of money in a monthly payment and keep it would be make under 150k and have 4 kids under 6 (the subsidy for kids over 6 was lower).

The point is someone making $375,000 a year shouldn't have been subsidized in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

If you actually know such people, they are running a scam. Either their parents bought their homes or they are lying about how much they received in CTC or they are purposefully making their lives a living hell. Here's the math:

800k house means down payment of 80-160k, plus annual mortgage payments of about 45k. In order to qualify for $1200 in CTC, they would need to have four kids under age 6 (logistically challenging) AND they need to have an HHI of under 150k. Daycare for four kids in that age group is going to cost 60k at least (or maybe you find a nanny willing to take all four kids, but I don't see there being any savings because a nanny of 1-2 kids in DC easily costs 40k so good luck)

Let's say they make $149k to slide under the CTC cap, and assume some favorable taxes due to mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings, and having kids. Their take home is around $115k.

Minus 45k in mortgage payments = $70kk
Minus 60k in childcare = $10k

So you know multiple families who have 10k a year to pay for food, clothes, and other necessities, and their main concern is the CTC, which by the way they still qualify for, just a little less money and it is paid as a refund instead of monthly?

Let me save you the time of answering. No. You don't.

The expanded CTC was actually an additional $1,000 a year per a child and there were plenty of people authorized for the program who did not in fact have the annual income necessary to have $12,000 per child in tax deductions per year.

Second, your assumption that each family is paying 20% - 30% as a down payment and/or in closing costs of their housing expenses is also faulty. I know plenty of people who just scrapped up 5% and got in with what they had.

Third, the family I referenced has 2 kids over the age of 12 and 2 kids under 5. The difference is or was $1,100/month in cash deposits. If you want to discount the extra $100/month have at it. But their childcare costs are roughly $3,200/month plus benefits - the nanny watches the two kids on a schedule which is $38K a year not $45K.

Based on your calculations, their housing is paid for, their childcare is paid for, and they an extra $1,000/month for incidentals. Plus the childcare costs are temporary until pre-K enrollment. I don't see the problem or why the government needs to subsidize them or anyone else.

If you put down 5% on an 800k home, you are now paying 5k+ per month on your mortgage (plus you are paying PMI). This actually makes the math worse than what I offered because you could argue that their parents gave them the down payment, but very few people have family willing to help them pay their mortgage. Which means now their annual mortgage costs more like 60k.

Good job looking up the actual rules on the advanced CTC payments for your imaginary family so that your math on that technically makes sense, but now that their imaginary mortgage payment is higher, they still only have $17k a year for food and incidentals. Since feeding a family of six that includes 2 teenagers is going to cost you around 1k, and doctors co-pays suck up the rest, I guess their kids do no activities and have no friends. And no money for any of their four kids to go college either. I'd feel really sad for this family if you hadn't invented them for the sole purpose of making a point that, by the way, you have still failed to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

If you actually know such people, they are running a scam. Either their parents bought their homes or they are lying about how much they received in CTC or they are purposefully making their lives a living hell. Here's the math:

800k house means down payment of 80-160k, plus annual mortgage payments of about 45k. In order to qualify for $1200 in CTC, they would need to have four kids under age 6 (logistically challenging) AND they need to have an HHI of under 150k. Daycare for four kids in that age group is going to cost 60k at least (or maybe you find a nanny willing to take all four kids, but I don't see there being any savings because a nanny of 1-2 kids in DC easily costs 40k so good luck)

Let's say they make $149k to slide under the CTC cap, and assume some favorable taxes due to mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings, and having kids. Their take home is around $115k.

Minus 45k in mortgage payments = $70kk
Minus 60k in childcare = $10k

So you know multiple families who have 10k a year to pay for food, clothes, and other necessities, and their main concern is the CTC, which by the way they still qualify for, just a little less money and it is paid as a refund instead of monthly?

Let me save you the time of answering. No. You don't.

The expanded CTC was actually an additional $1,000 a year per a child and there were plenty of people authorized for the program who did not in fact have the annual income necessary to have $12,000 per child in tax deductions per year.

Second, your assumption that each family is paying 20% - 30% as a down payment and/or in closing costs of their housing expenses is also faulty. I know plenty of people who just scrapped up 5% and got in with what they had.

Third, the family I referenced has 2 kids over the age of 12 and 2 kids under 5. The difference is or was $1,100/month in cash deposits. If you want to discount the extra $100/month have at it. But their childcare costs are roughly $3,200/month plus benefits - the nanny watches the two kids on a schedule which is $38K a year not $45K.

Based on your calculations, their housing is paid for, their childcare is paid for, and they an extra $1,000/month for incidentals. Plus the childcare costs are temporary until pre-K enrollment. I don't see the problem or why the government needs to subsidize them or anyone else.

If you put down 5% on an 800k home, you are now paying 5k+ per month on your mortgage (plus you are paying PMI). This actually makes the math worse than what I offered because you could argue that their parents gave them the down payment, but very few people have family willing to help them pay their mortgage. Which means now their annual mortgage costs more like 60k.

Good job looking up the actual rules on the advanced CTC payments for your imaginary family so that your math on that technically makes sense, but now that their imaginary mortgage payment is higher, they still only have $17k a year for food and incidentals. Since feeding a family of six that includes 2 teenagers is going to cost you around 1k, and doctors co-pays suck up the rest, I guess their kids do no activities and have no friends. And no money for any of their four kids to go college either. I'd feel really sad for this family if you hadn't invented them for the sole purpose of making a point that, by the way, you have still failed to make.

Not 'my' imaginary family but there is a reason that program was nixed and you don't hear a word about it anymore. The Biden team lied about its cost, lied about its impact, and now that 'transitory' inflation is permanent is basically stuck with the after-effects.

I'm glad you enjoyed the free cash deposits, the rest of us are concerned about the control as a whole. You want more money? Get a better job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

If you actually know such people, they are running a scam. Either their parents bought their homes or they are lying about how much they received in CTC or they are purposefully making their lives a living hell. Here's the math:

800k house means down payment of 80-160k, plus annual mortgage payments of about 45k. In order to qualify for $1200 in CTC, they would need to have four kids under age 6 (logistically challenging) AND they need to have an HHI of under 150k. Daycare for four kids in that age group is going to cost 60k at least (or maybe you find a nanny willing to take all four kids, but I don't see there being any savings because a nanny of 1-2 kids in DC easily costs 40k so good luck)

Let's say they make $149k to slide under the CTC cap, and assume some favorable taxes due to mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings, and having kids. Their take home is around $115k.

Minus 45k in mortgage payments = $70kk
Minus 60k in childcare = $10k

So you know multiple families who have 10k a year to pay for food, clothes, and other necessities, and their main concern is the CTC, which by the way they still qualify for, just a little less money and it is paid as a refund instead of monthly?

Let me save you the time of answering. No. You don't.

This is a lifestyle issue, not a child care issue.

They choose to live in an expensive house with a too high mortgage. We made less than that income and were fine. But, our mortgage was 1/2 that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The insane waitlists for daycare.

The nanny shortage.

The lack of parental leave.

What can reasonably be done to even take a step in the right direction?

Stay home and you take care of your children. I did. Why can't you?

So, your answer is to keep women out of the workforce?

Not women. There are SAHD and will be more and more of them. For the first year, a baby needs a parent. A grandparent can step in but a parent is best.

Ok, so how about a year of parental leave? Some of us can't afford to just leave our jobs and/or would have a lot of trouble getting a new one without moving cross-country. Other countries do this. It's possible.

Stop having children you can't afford.

Okay, so only the rich will have children. Who do you think will do almost every working and middle class job in America then?

Real middle class and lower income can get day care vouchers in this area. Its those of us who make too much to qualify but day care costs are the same as our take home pay that it makes it impossible to work.

For the poster who says a grandparent can step in. Mine live 10 minutes away, healthy and have never babysat even once in an emergency in 13 years. Can and will are two different things. I could be dying and my mom would still make up an excuse not to help.

Here's my thoughts - I know 'MC' people who bought $800K - $900K homes - which in this area you know is not some palatial estate but still acceptable - that were whining after they were stripped of a $1,200/month CTC.

Why should you get a daycare subsidy when you can afford and willingly bought a $1 million property? Why shouldn't you be expected to use your HHI, usually $150K - $400K, again seems high enough to me - to provide for your own children?

If you actually know such people, they are running a scam. Either their parents bought their homes or they are lying about how much they received in CTC or they are purposefully making their lives a living hell. Here's the math:

800k house means down payment of 80-160k, plus annual mortgage payments of about 45k. In order to qualify for $1200 in CTC, they would need to have four kids under age 6 (logistically challenging) AND they need to have an HHI of under 150k. Daycare for four kids in that age group is going to cost 60k at least (or maybe you find a nanny willing to take all four kids, but I don't see there being any savings because a nanny of 1-2 kids in DC easily costs 40k so good luck)

Let's say they make $149k to slide under the CTC cap, and assume some favorable taxes due to mortgage interest deduction, retirement savings, and having kids. Their take home is around $115k.

Minus 45k in mortgage payments = $70kk
Minus 60k in childcare = $10k

So you know multiple families who have 10k a year to pay for food, clothes, and other necessities, and their main concern is the CTC, which by the way they still qualify for, just a little less money and it is paid as a refund instead of monthly?

Let me save you the time of answering. No. You don't.

The expanded CTC was actually an additional $1,000 a year per a child and there were plenty of people authorized for the program who did not in fact have the annual income necessary to have $12,000 per child in tax deductions per year.

Second, your assumption that each family is paying 20% - 30% as a down payment and/or in closing costs of their housing expenses is also faulty. I know plenty of people who just scrapped up 5% and got in with what they had.

Third, the family I referenced has 2 kids over the age of 12 and 2 kids under 5. The difference is or was $1,100/month in cash deposits. If you want to discount the extra $100/month have at it. But their childcare costs are roughly $3,200/month plus benefits - the nanny watches the two kids on a schedule which is $38K a year not $45K.

Based on your calculations, their housing is paid for, their childcare is paid for, and they an extra $1,000/month for incidentals. Plus the childcare costs are temporary until pre-K enrollment. I don't see the problem or why the government needs to subsidize them or anyone else.

If you put down 5% on an 800k home, you are now paying 5k+ per month on your mortgage (plus you are paying PMI). This actually makes the math worse than what I offered because you could argue that their parents gave them the down payment, but very few people have family willing to help them pay their mortgage. Which means now their annual mortgage costs more like 60k.

Good job looking up the actual rules on the advanced CTC payments for your imaginary family so that your math on that technically makes sense, but now that their imaginary mortgage payment is higher, they still only have $17k a year for food and incidentals. Since feeding a family of six that includes 2 teenagers is going to cost you around 1k, and doctors co-pays suck up the rest, I guess their kids do no activities and have no friends. And no money for any of their four kids to go college either. I'd feel really sad for this family if you hadn't invented them for the sole purpose of making a point that, by the way, you have still failed to make.

Zero empathy for a family who makes those choices.