I pay a low $1300/mo on a nanny for my two toddlers. Imagining I’d save that if I put them in public school is a great idea. But my main focus is that, generally speaking, public schools are not a good place for children if you want them to be nurtured and freely allowed to be creative, confident, bright children that we know they can be.

Edited to add: As someone who has no kids and never wants them, I don’t begrudge my tax dollars going to pay for education, which I think is a need for the kids. It’s a little much to ask that I also subsidize your childcare, which is a want in your case.

I believe the much-quoted figure is 47%, and it’s not true to say that they “pay no taxes”. That number refers to federal income tax. People who fall into that bracket all pay sales taxes, and may also pay some combination of state taxes and local taxes. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

Your 90% figure also seems inflated. Even what I’ve read from those making the same argument that you do suggests that it’s closer to 70%. See: http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/do-the-rich-pay-their-fair-share-in-taxes/claim-that-rich-dont-pay-enough-based-on-perception-not-fact and http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/top10-percent-income-earners

Since the top 10% own around 75% of the wealth (see: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/06/13/top-10-percent-is-hurting-less-after-recession-and-should-pay-more) I think it’s fair to say that they are paying less than their fair share, even as a percentage of the wealth they control.

It’s also worth pointing out that wealthy people, particularly in classes such as business owners, get more use out of the facilities they pay for than many ordinary people. For example, should someone whose company vehicles use our roads thousands of times per day pay the same amount as the average family? They’re certainly responsible for more wear and tear on them. Should a company like WalMart, which pays its employees so little that many of them are also on public assistance, effectively have its payrolls subsidised by teachers and firemen? Does the average family spend thousands of hours of taxpayer-funded court time each year fighting with its neighbors over, say, who “owns” the idea of a rectangle with rounded corners?

And don’t even get me started on capital gains tax, tax loopholes for the rich, and the way that they are able to have laws written to benefit them by the politicians they are able to buy. As far as I’m concerned, the rich get more – FAR more – out of this country than they pay in taxes.

A single person can live very cheaply. Your sister doesn’t require a house with multiple rooms, multiple cars, many gadgets, etc. She may want them and can afford them, but she really doesn’t need them. She may contribute greatly to society, but her contribution has an end date. A family, which involves non-income producing but future necessary children, costs more and takes and requires more space and use of resources. They provide a varied venue for capitalistic sales and activity by bringing in the need for new purchases, new demand, etc. and provide for ongoing contibutions to society beyond the parents demise.

So honestly, looking at the country as a whole, where should the tax breaks and incentives go? To the asset that ends, or to the asset that provides for continuation not only of the primary organization but for the bulk of the structures upon which that organization is built?

On a personal level it may not seem fair and right (and I too dislike the AMT and some tax policies), but looking long term, it makes a fair amount of sense that people with kids get the greater benefits.

Also, I’ve never seen the word gift used as a figure of speech in this context. Just own up to poor word choice.

If you make 10K, paying 10% in taxes, thus taking home 9K, hurts a lot more than if you make 100K and would be taking home 90K. It’s almost as easy to live on 90K as on 100K. Going from 10K to 9K… that’s really tough.

Adding to that, raising taxes on poverty level people– even if you take ALL their money, isn’t going to bring in much income. The Daily Show had a good clip with the numbers. But the bottom line is, you can’t get blood from a stone.

Now, if everyone in the economy had a shot at the American dream, I dunno, perhaps by having access to high quality education and childcare, then those people in poverty would be better employees and thus would be making more money, the economy would be more productive, and we could get more tax money from those folks because they’d be earning more. Of course, the pie might be more evenly distributed at that point, which would hurt the 1% somehow.

Edited to add: U.S. elementary schools typically begin later than high schools, but usually before 8:30. At my daughters’ elementary school, the tardy bell rings at 7:55. The school year varies among regions. I’ve always lived in the Midwest, where the school calendar is mid- to late August to late May; school only runs into June if there were a lot of snow days during the winter. On the East Coast, schools tend to start after Labor Day and end in late June.

A lot of people in the US want to rob Peter to pay Paul for these services, instead of everyone paying their fair share of both fees AND taxes.
I know I’m opening a huge can of political worms, but the Libertarian in me won’t keep quiet!
Right now, 40% of our population pays no taxes, and the top 10% pay nearly 90% of the taxes. The 40% is the same population that gets most of these services for free, and wants the top 10% to pay even more. Of course, they’re the same group of people who are going to continue to vote for politicians who promise to keep it this way.

The school day is usually 8:30 – 3:45 (around 7 hours), and extended day goes until 6:00, but parents can pick up any time after 5:15. The extra 45 minutes is in case of traffic since many families work downtown, and the school is every bit of 35 minutes away, on a “good” day.

My kids were not “raised by strangers”. The ladies who took care of them as infants & toddlers (in a dreaded “center”) were wonderful. Personally, I think they benefited from having been “raised” by women with decades of experience, and who have changed the diapers of literally 100s of kids. Not only that, but they both had instant siblings their own age to play with every single day.

And, I agree that these caregivers had tons of great advice to share, and loved our kids to pieces. They still do! It’s been several years since my kids attended the center, and we still exchange cards & pictures with one of the ladies who cared for them.

They would not have had that experience staying with me all day and playing by themselves.

I agree, the notion that we working parents who have our kids attend daycare are “letting strangers raise our kids” is very offensive. I am away from my kids from 8:30-5:30pm M-F but spend every other minute with them (with exception to the “date night” we try to do every other month).

And don’t be afraid to change careers if yours no longer provides the same benefits. Many people change and go through careers.

Not to say some people don’t like their jobs, and they might be very good at it, I say good for them. But thinking outside of the beige box is rarely a bad thing.

My point was that it will certainly seem like a financial windfall for us when my son is school aged, regardless of whether we are paying for private tuition because the costs of daycare (even part-time) are staggering.

I have read that there are studies that show that children who are in school for more days per year and longer school days do better. As a French Studies major in college I know that in France children go to school longer per day and for more days, depending on the age of the child. For example, if kids are currently leaving school to go home and do 3-4 hours of homework each night, I do not see why some of that cannot be done on school grounds.

I understand that we would need to change how teachers are compensated. Has anyone else here seen “Waiting for Superman?” I was horrified to see that teachers in unions cannot be fired from their jobs even if they refuse to teach. There are some bad apples in our education system, dragging down the whole field. If you do a poor job, you should be fired. Additionally, if one teacher is better than another, they should be compensated as such, not based on the number of years they have filled a seat.

We work more because we want and consume and “need” more. Yeah, we’re competing, with the Jones’. No longer do we work for what we need, and few pleasures; add to the fact that we are a turnover society that is accustomed to replacing expensive items like cars and homes and electronics well before their time in our attempts to “keep up”.

We also never had to compete with billions of people on the other side of the planet, willing to work for peanuts.

I wonder if there’s a connection …

Having children is a choice. You know employers want reliable employees who can put in a full day of work. So you choose which you value more. But don’t complain when life won’t hand you both with a smile.

I just want to point out, it’s not a “gift from the government,” it’s a gift from those taxpaying citizens without children. If the cost of educating children were spread across only those with children, then there would be no savings, and it would be just as costly as if everyone were expected to educate their own children, which as you pointed out, would be a crippling expense to struggling families.

By spreading the cost over everyone including those without children, it becomes affordable for you. You get to educate your child for less than “market cost,” and we (child-free families) pay as though we had children to educate, even though we do not.

The government cannot redistribute money it has not already taken from someone else. It does not make money up out of thin air – it collects it from citizens via taxation. Thus, the money that subsidizes your child’s education, making it affordable, was taken from someone else who chose not to have children.

I just want to make sure your gratitude is not misplaced. If you wish to be thankful for affordable education for those with children, then your thanks should be to those paying into a system they will never use.

I am one of the lucky ones as I work for a company that lets me work from home when needed and offers flexible hours. But, what of the people stuck in very strict work environments?

Anyway, in order for me to work full time, I have to pay the following:

Public school elementary child: $340/mo for after care to cover his care from 2:30-5:30pm. This is in addition to $250 2x/year for “February and April vacation week camps.” Summer it is a YMCA camp that costs $400/week for 8 weeks.

Pre-school daycare child: $1575/mo all year round.

I have no family to help. This is just the cost of letting me work full time and be a mom.

I live in the Boston area and these prices are pretty standard here.