@DO, would you advocate for the neo-liberal model of pushing carers (be they mothers or fathers) into the workforce, and then having them pay for career child-care specialists raise children; thus generating two wages (and presumably income-tax on both?)

Which is revenue positive.

Or would you prefer to see the state pay for stay-at-home parents to raise their own children.

Which is revenue negative.

?

I don't see why it has to be one or the other. The first one continues to be a massive burden on women specifically as they're expected to just do most of the baby raising work when they're off the clock.

What is revenue for if not to deliver value. A basic income for kids and their caregivers would allow all parents to provide security and opportunities for their kids. Such investment pays off in terms of outcomes as adults both in productivity and lower crime and health costs. So, in the long term it is certainly value positive and a huge amount more than a lot of our other "expenditures" like subsidies for rich people or the military.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, but there tends to be people with adgendas pushing for more revenue, or more societal well-being, and in this case these seem to be opposite directions.

You can a healthy compromise position? Please describe one to me.

I mean my actual view is that they state should just provide all child care services.

Sounds expensive

It's cheaper than paying out the wazoo for private prisons and the costs of a disadvantaged population

Countries that are smart, work together and invest in their people will be countries that chase delusions, are too individualistic to cooperate, and waste and ignore their human potential. Be smart or lose

That's called a strawman argument. Address the cost.

Especially in context of persistent budget defecits, a national debt in excess of GDP, and entitlement spending that's going to go bankrupt in the next two decades.

Cut cost from stupid shit like military and use it on improving the lives of the population. Win/win

are you preaching the horrors of entitlement spending to Ogion?

Military spending is not what I'd call "stupid shit". But regardless, how is what you're looking for different from the Head Start program that's been around since the 60s.

I agree with DO if improving the lives of the population means lower taxes.

It's a reality based argument, unilike these others.

Yes, cut stupid shit like the military and corporate subsidies.
If you want to deal with social security and medicare, that's a separate issue, but raising the income tax cap is all that's needed. No reason that's a problem. Similarly, make capital gains rates in line with income and stop with the tax breaks for zillionaires. We have deficits because of 1) too many giant tax cuts for rich people and 2) too much deregulation leading to financial collapse. It's not rocket science. Just stop being idiots.

That's not what was implied at all

Yes, spending 3% of GDP on the military when your military is already bigger than all others combined is the definition of stupid.

@Ogion, it could be argued that it's how it became so big in the first place.

So, if lower taxes means people being worse off and society and the economy being less equipped to deal with the world, then lower taxes is a bad idea.

Which was stupid in the first place

But lower taxes means people being better off, surely. After all, people pay taxes.

No surely about it. Society needs a certain amount of public investment and services that the private sector is never going to provide efficiently. So, yes, lower taxes is often not optimal when you have societies losing potential because of public underinvestment. If you think lower taxes is always better, I'd recommend a trip to Somalia.

Steve Forbes. 17% flat tax No deductions. Under 42,000 on family of 4 pays no tax.

Socialism sucks balls

Someone does. Not sure its socialists....

@Ogion, do you sincerely believe that the state is more efficient than the private sector?

Brainbomb, I was positive you would come out

? homophobic remark or your politically callous remark was intended to trigger me?

Either way--- either answer really; truly, social democracy is making Europe insanely lucrative for the citizen who wants clean air/healthcare/affordable public transit. Contrary to what money hoarder republicans proclaim-- no social democracies are not debt ridden hell holes. To find those : see flint michigan

Go live in Europe then. They are falling apart. Bye

Does Flint Michigan strike you as a shining example of capitalism succeeding in place of socialism?