Forum Index
»
Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
Parents who can't afford child care
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
lianekay
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
I can see that it's very difficult for parents who don't receive a child care subsidy who really need one to be supportive of those parents who are receiving a subsidy. Here's an article that might make you feel more sympathetic. On the other hand it might not. But I think it's worth reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/09/AR2010120906380.html
What would really be great is an expansion of subsidized child care so that the many, many folks who fall into that donut hole of making just a little too much money to get the subsidy (I was one of those folks by the way. My daughter is older now, but it did suck at the time.) would also be covered. Do we get there by not funding the program that already exists? I don't think so. |
Anonymous
|
Those of us who have the middle incomes are paying the taxes to pay for those subsidy's. We have tons of empathy and our tax dollars are the ones supporting those programs. That is a bad arguement. You only care about what is important to you - be realistic. You don't care about the middle class who is struggling to pay those taxes to pay for those vouchers for others who then have to pay for their own child care, food, housing and medical care because they are not eligible for any programs that your "working poor" are eligible for. And, on top of it, your working poor, barely if they pay at all, any taxes with all of the tax breaks & deductions while many of us not only get slammed big time with taxes but also are not eligible for any benefits such as the day care voucher, food stamps, wic (our formula costs $300-400 a month and my son at 14 months cannot be transitioned off due to medical reasons - no wic for us), medical assistance, etc.
Its not that people are unsympathetic, but we are in a tight economic climate or our children are going to be paying for our bad financial choices for many years to come. Of course you can say, hey, I'm not worried about anyone who doesn't fall into a category I deem worthy as child care no longer impacts you as your child is older. You try paying $450 a month in child care when by the time you pay taxes, gas to/from work, and basic expenses to go to work, you actually are paying more than what your take home is (and for some of us its on what some would consider a professional salary). Oh, and that's assuming you can even find a slot at $450 a month for an infant/newborn - I had a horrible time and lost my job because of it. |
Anonymous
|
I'll repeat my last paragraph -
What would really be great is an expansion of subsidized child care so that the many, many folks who fall into that donut hole of making just a little too much money to get the subsidy (I was one of those folks by the way. My daughter is older now, but it did suck at the time.) would also be covered. Do we get there by not funding the program that already exists? I don't think so. Maybe I'm wrong. If you can come up with a plan for how the District helps out only "middle-class" families who need child care, I'd honestly be interested to hear it. As I say, it would have worked for me when I was in the donut hole. Or maybe the answer you're suggesting is that we'd all be better off if the District provided subsidies for no one. Kinda harsh if you ask me, but we're all entitled to our opinion, I guess. -lianekay |
Anonymous
|
This is a new DCUM low, to me. Here you have a woman advocating on behalf of the poorest in our area, and you all are sniping at her about how much childcare costs YOU!?!
Get a grip. Get a LIFE. And most of all, get some compassion. No matter how bad you *think* you have it, so many have it worse than you. |
Anonymous
I actually support these programs--if funded *regionally*. Let's open a fund, have DC, MD, and VA fund it, and allow regional programs to draw from it. Until then, I'm done with DC taxpayers providing the safety-net for every other jurisdiction in the region. It's a race to the bottom. |
Anonymous
I agree. Former anonymous SW, I think I'm glad you're no longer working. Sorry, but you do not sound like such a great advocate for the poor. Gaps in social services (meaning, people who "make too much" for the services) are in a bind. Please recognize that there is a difference between being disadvantaged, having to live paycheck to paycheck, and being pinched and being flat-out and destitute. You have a computer, right? You get food on your table? Do you know for sure that you'll be housed safely next month? When the answer to all of those questions are "no," you will probably be eligible for the subsidies you so begrudge others. Maybe you could let the screenamed advocate here know if you would like to trade places with any of her clients. |
Anonymous
|
15:32 here. Sent that off without coming back to finish the first paragraph. Anyway, it is not that i don't sympathize with those who make too much for these subsidies and still need help. This is what I mean about gaps in services and I agree they should be addressed.
But I'm also okay with prioritizing and think your situation as you described it is probably pretty different from the very poorest of the poor. I don't get those subsidies either and I don't make much money at all. My husband stays home because of child care costs. So it's not like I don't sympathize with you. But, your lack of sympathy for others is not likely to get you far. |
Anonymous
|
lianekay
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
that is pretty sad we live in a culture that someone with one child by the time they take out taxes (no insurance as we have that via other means) and all the other stuff cannot afford to work.
-- I couldn't agree more. I'd actually be living better on gov't assistance and in far nicer housing if as "destitute" given I know all the programs very well, how to access them and what is available. -- You seem to be suggesting here that those who know how to work the system take unfair advantage. I'm sure that's true. Do you have any suggestions on how to fix that? It is very singleminded to just focus on one program when most people aren't just benefiting from one program -- That's true enough. But I tend to think we try to make changes where we can in whatever fashion is available to us. I think advocating for a fully funded subsidized child care program is a positive action. As with everything there are unintended consequences, i.e. people who take advantage of the system, but as that's not everybody, probably a relatively small percentage, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. Its ashame when you look at other countries/cultures who actually provide affordable child care for everyone, preschool programs for everyone, drop-in first time parenting programs for everyone, etc. But, in our culture, we pick and choose who is worthy of help and who isn't and those who aren't deemed worthy, just get to pick up the tab for paying. -- I couldn't possibly agree with you more. You realize however that you are describing socialism, which is a dirty word in this country. I have a computer and savings as I worked for many years - that is how we get by. We put food on our table and pay for my son's formula via my unemployment. And, no, I don't know if I will be housed safely next month or the month as no one's jobs are truly secure. Gratefully, we have savings that we saved for many years prior to our child but once that runs out, people like us are pretty much up a creek. -- And so if things do get just a bit worse for you then you may also qualify for these programs. What will your position be then? Will you be thankful that they are funded well enough to help you make ends meet? Let's hope they are, but I wouldn't count on it. The DC Budget was just revised last Tuesday to make up for a $188 million budget gap. Mayor Fenty proposed cutting subsidized child care by $1 million, but the council didn't agree to that. They did agree to cut TANF by $4.6 million, rental assistance to people with intellectual disabilities by $2 million, the grandparent care-giver program lost 1.2 million. In all the city council cut $34 million from social services. (I got this information from a really great blog, the District's Dime, look it up.) This during the worst recession in the nation's history. What they didn't do, although it was proposed, was raise the income tax rate on people making more than $200,000 a year, or on people making more than $750,000 a year, or on people making more than a million dollars a year. The proposals that were rejected asked the council to raise the rate of wealthy dc residents (and I'm talking truly wealthy DC residents) by as little as 1%. For someone making $300,000 a year, that comes to $85 a month. Do you think they're gonna miss it? Instead the council decide to cut TANF benefits by that same amount, $85 month. Do you think TANF recipients are gonna miss that $85? The highest income tax bracket in the District of Columbia is 8.5% and that starts at $40,001 per year. So, anybody out there making more than $40,000 a year pays 8.5% of their income in taxes no matter how much more than $40,000 they make. And in reality, the more you make over that $40,000 the lower your actual percentage is likely to be because there are all manner of tax breaks out there for rich folks. So, yeah, I'm kinda pissed that it seems like hard working folks are paying for the social services that really poor people need to survive, but I don't blame poor people for that. And whichever anonymous poster came to my defense, thank you. |