This freaking guy just keeps on writing this crap.
At some point you’d think he’d give it up.
So child care really should be an important part of the progressive agenda. Hillary Clinton had a serious plan back in 2016, but the news media were too busy obsessing over emails to pay attention. And if you ask me, Elizabeth Warren’s new proposal isn’t getting as much attention as it should.
For the Warren proposal is the kind of initiative that, if enacted, would change millions of lives for the better, yet could actually happen in the near future.
Among other things, unlike purist visions of replacing private health insurance with “Medicare for all,” providing child care wouldn’t require imposing big new taxes on the middle class. The sums of money involved are small enough that new taxes on great wealth and high incomes, which are desirable on other grounds, could easily raise sufficient revenue.
Keep in mind this is a guy with an estimated net worth worth of $2.5 million. Just enough to be able to afford to live in a trendy neighborhood in New Jersey, but perhaps not enough to be “great wealth” or “high income.” But do continue, darling.
The logic of the Warren plan is fairly simple (although some commentators are trying to make it sound complex).
Logic? Well grab a spoon and eat my ass.
Child care would be regulated to ensure that basic quality was maintained and subsidized to make it affordable. The size of the subsidy would depend on parents’ incomes: lower-income parents would get free care, higher-income parents would have to pay something, but nobody would have to pay more than 7 percent of income
There is already a tax credit for child care. The details are here but we’re talking $2000/year for qualifying families. Incidentally, the child care provider is already aware of this tax credit and price their services accordingly. They currently have no incentive to price their services below this $2000 per year, so they’ll make sure it stays above $2000 or about $38 per week so their customers max out this tax credit. Need proof of this lack of incentive? The average cost of infant care in the US last year was — $211 per week.
But sure…maybe charging $38 per week is unrealistically low.
Warren’s advisers put the budget cost at $70 billion a year, or around one-third of one percent of GDP. That’s not chicken feed, but it’s not that much for something that could transform so many lives.
It is, for example, well under half the revenue lost due to the Trump tax cut, which seems to have been used mainly for share buybacks. And it’s a tiny fraction of what it would cost to replace all private health insurance with a public program.
Again with the stock buybacks…. the sake of all that is fuck! Let people control more of their money they might just do what they want with it. Some might get their finances in order, other might buy my personal favorite, hookers and blow. More hookers. More blow.
Meanwhile, on the right there are the usual cries of “socialism,” which these days means anything to the left of eating poor people’s babies.
Cut that out. You’re too much a fucking pussy to beat off, let alone beat a straw-man.
More interestingly, I’m seeing at least some commentary on the right that doesn’t just push back against the whole idea of making it easier for mothers to work, it wants us to go back to the days when families could “live on one income.”
Darling, there’s no link here. That means you just made this up.
Going back to this $70 billion number lets say this does go in effect. Is this number go higher or lower as individuals try to fogure out how many kids they have? Had I known I can send Winston to daycare for free, there might be more than one Winston. Think about that. Two Winstons!
And it would be for free, I work how I get paid—under the table. I haven’t paid taxes since 1967.
With this increased demand, will the cost of the subsidy go up or down? How will supply be determnied to adjust to demand? Now that I think about it, it might work out okay for me, as I’ll get more business greasing the wheels of that governing body.
Still, Krugman provides no evidence as to how this will substantively reduce the cost of child care. While I can point to subsidies like, I dunno, college tuition assistance, or rent control…neither of which actually reduced the cost of tuition or housing.
But do continue providing cover for Lizzy. Lizzy is busy laying low and hoping we all forget the whole white squaw thing.