Anonymous wrote:Because different day cares charge different prices. What is to stop them all from charging nosebleed prices? I'm curious. I do agree there is a daycare problem in the US, but I would have thought the way to go would be for the city to work directly with daycares so the price could be lowered for families, not a subsidy to families. What would stop the price of daycare rising astronomically everywhere, like college did when loans were introduced? That's a lot of taxes.

The city would need to set minimum requirements for daycare to qualify to receive the subsidy for it not to be a boondoggle

Because different day cares charge different prices. What is to stop them all from charging nosebleed prices? I'm curious. I do agree there is a daycare problem in the US, but I would have thought the way to go would be for the city to work directly with daycares so the price could be lowered for families, not a subsidy to families. What would stop the price of daycare rising astronomically everywhere, like college did when loans were introduced? That's a lot of taxes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is the money coming from? Will the poorest families now apply to the most expensive daycares?

Increases in tax revenues from people being more attracted to DC because of this bill. At least that is what happened when they rolled out universal preK. As to your second question, hopefully!

So it is not a 'cap', it is a subsidy. Will the city make up the difference up to any price? Please explain the details-thanks.

Anonymous wrote:Where is the money coming from? Will the poorest families now apply to the most expensive daycares?

Increases in tax revenues from people being more attracted to DC because of this bill. At least that is what happened when they rolled out universal preK. As to your second question, hopefully!

Where is the money coming from? Will the poorest families now apply to the most expensive daycares?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

I'd think the opposite would be true. A lot of families now use unregulated at home providers because they can't afford more formal care. Having easier to access subsidies will help those families access licensed care. Why do you think otherwise?

Are there a lot of licensed care providers with openings? My impression was that most providers had more than enough demand even without the subsidy. Obviously the high cost of care is a huge issue for a lot of families, but there is also a lack of providers that isn't going to be addressed by this subsidy.

If there is a demand, more will open

There is already a huge demand. More providers are not opening because it is extremely expensive to care for infants and toddlers, where the ratio is 1:4. The cost used to be made up by caring for preschoolers, but now those children go to the public schools. The subsidy rate paid to providers does not cover the cost of child care. Or I should say it does not cover the cost of quality child care. I am a provider and several providers I know are considering closing because it is so difficult to make a profit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

I'd think the opposite would be true. A lot of families now use unregulated at home providers because they can't afford more formal care. Having easier to access subsidies will help those families access licensed care. Why do you think otherwise?

Are there a lot of licensed care providers with openings? My impression was that most providers had more than enough demand even without the subsidy. Obviously the high cost of care is a huge issue for a lot of families, but there is also a lack of providers that isn't going to be addressed by this subsidy.

If there is a demand, more will open

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

I'd think the opposite would be true. A lot of families now use unregulated at home providers because they can't afford more formal care. Having easier to access subsidies will help those families access licensed care. Why do you think otherwise?

Are there a lot of licensed care providers with openings? My impression was that most providers had more than enough demand even without the subsidy. Obviously the high cost of care is a huge issue for a lot of families, but there is also a lack of providers that isn't going to be addressed by this subsidy.

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

Really? I think will make people more likely to go with higher end more regulated daycare that they can now afford.

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

I'd think the opposite would be true. A lot of families now use unregulated at home providers because they can't afford more formal care. Having easier to access subsidies will help those families access licensed care. Why do you think otherwise?

Say goodbye to decent, safe, professional daycare.

This will be a big boon to dangerous, unregulated at-home providers.

I predict nannies will getting a LOT more popular

This is a step in the right direction but the out of pocket costs are still astronomical and discourage either having more children or parents entering the workforce (both things our country needs desperately)!

This is assuming, of course, they can even find a spot somewhere.

Does anyone have a link to the language in the bill?

For a family of four making $85,000 a year, their out-of-pocket expenses for child care would be capped at 8 percent of their income, with anything above that being covered by the city’s subsidy. Families making less would have a lower cap, and families making more would have a higher cap — up to 10 percent of their income.

The price is estimated at $466 million over 10 years. Mayor Bowser has yet to sign it.

Does it do enough to address the insane cost of child care in this city?