Should US taxes pay for nannies?

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Should US taxes pay for nannies?
12
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 9:16am

I don't know where to start.  But a nanny has been caught on a nanny cam hitting and shaking infant.  It's upsetting video but I'm really really glad mom shared this publicly:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/mamura-nasirova-arrested-baby-smacking-camera_n_2639567.html

The comments are what concern me.  From, mom should've taken matters into her own hands.  And US taxpayers pay for public schools, social security, welfare, so why not for daycare?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 9:21am

My concerns: Using tax dollars doesn't necessarily prevent nanny abuse.  Or even abuse in a daycare setting with extra eyes on other daycare providers.  The comments suggest if nannies were paid more (like a subsidy on top of what moms and dads pay) then more American women would become nannies.  It's a cultural bias, that mothers in other countries don't raise children like we do in the US.

I also don't think many educated women even want to be nannies (in the US or elsewhere).  It's not a question of pay.  It's just hard to trust your child is completely safe in daycare or with a nanny.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-30-2011
Wed, 02-13-2013 - 4:51pm
I read some of the comments, talk about ignorance. I can't believe how many were blaming the mother for not staying at home. That's not a choice every woman has the privilege to make. I don't think that it's feasible for tax dollars to pay for daycare at this time, there is no way we can take on more taxes. There is so many changes that need to be made, just not the money to do it.

Chelsea

"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open."

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Fri, 02-15-2013 - 10:44am

If daycare was regulated to provide a good minimum standard and subsidized so people could afford it, then it would presumably mean better care for more kids.

What do you mean by this:

"It's a cultural bias, that mothers in other countries don't raise children like we do in the US."

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-27-2005
Sat, 02-16-2013 - 3:57pm
Nope. While I feel daycare teachers don't make enough, tax payers can not afford one more tax.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 10:35am

New moms in other countries have time-off paid for by their government or employer.  In the US, new moms don't.  So it's hard for taxpayers to easily accept a new tax to pay for nannies or daycare.

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sun, 02-17-2013 - 12:23pm

OK, I see what you mean. But can't you see that this is a rather self-defeating argument? It is like saying that US family policies are so terrible that we can't ever hope to improve them. You could, of course do it without raising taxes, if people were willing to, say, cut defense spending, for example, which is completely out of control in the US. It is a matter of priorities.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-01-2002
Mon, 02-18-2013 - 9:11am

It would be self-defeating in the US to force employers or taxpayers to pay for others' maternity leaves + a full year or 2 off after the birth of 1, 2 or 3 etc babies.  Plus, there's the loss of a year, 2 years, 3 years (?) etc. of work experience, training and education each time mom has a child.  Mom has 3 kids - that's 3 years where she has not worked, multiply that by the # of moms in the US and the US would fall behind in the advances we've made in various fields.  Small countries may be able to fall behind, tho too many were not able to come thru this recession unscathed.  The US was better able.

And there's no popular support in the US for taxpayers to pay for able-bodied moms and/or dads to take off a full year at others' expense.

A US citizen has only to look at 9/11 to understand US spending for defense.  Obama's doing a good job of it. 

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Mon, 02-18-2013 - 11:17am

OK, Denmark is not behind and it has one of the best family leave policies in the world, pretty much. The pay you get during family leave is usually funded through a scheme similar to disability or unemployment insurance. It doesn't actually need to cost all that much. I am also pretty sure that employment percentages for women tend ot be better in Scandinavia than in the US, because women are not forced by high daycare costs to leave the work force.

Why 9/11 would make excessive military spending necessary is a bit beyond me.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-04-2009
Mon, 02-18-2013 - 11:37am
Because TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!! That's why. It's similar to why men should get paid more for doing less or the same as women. Because PENIS!!!!!

************

Kitty

"If you can't annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing."-- Kingsley Amis, British novelist, 1971 t .

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Mon, 02-18-2013 - 11:39am

Puss, LOL! But seriously, the US military spending is so far out of proportion to other major powers. Russia spends way less, relative to GNP, and they have terrorists too (Chechnya).

Pages