• webadict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    That doesn’t make any sense.

    Paying workers more is fine, but you’re saying that the costs for reproduction should come from parents, and then you’re saying they should come from the rich. People without children should contribute to childcare costs, and they are incentivized to do so, too, because children are important to pretty much everything. By having the government fund childcare, the rich do contribute more.

    Whatever you said is inconsistent.

    • pachrist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I don’t know, it makes a lot of sense, in an asinine way. Many people are self-centered and incredibly selfish. Of course we all benefit from living in a world where children are happy, fed, cared for, and well adjusted. But for folks without kids, it’s usually indirect, rather than direct benefits, making it harder to quantify.

      But, their property taxes that fund schools are easy to quantify, so the selfish get grumpy about it.

      It’s like not wanting your tax dollars to fund cancer research, because you don’t have cancer. It makes no sense, until you remember the person talking is a selfish dunce.