Didn’t you dismiss our “socialist” neighbors and their “nanny states” in other threads? And now you want more tax-payer handouts? You can’t have it both ways.
And it’s not that bad. I could think of
215 monthly and 9k tax deductions
subsidized child-care for lower or even above average incomes
16 weeks paid parental leave, paid nursing breaks a year after, more often than not paid sick leave before birth. Fully paid pregnancy related health expenses, no franchise involved.
Orphans’ pension from AHV and pension funds, IV coverage if needed with no extra cost to parents. Over 750k fictional income for AHV calculation for 1 child, linked to general AHV increase
Decent and free Kindergarten and school, with a legal right for (paid) after-school care
and so on.
There’s probably more subsidies elsewhere, but they pay for that in lower salaries, higher taxes and/or lower quality, accessibility or less stable public finances.
I’d bet in most cases, subsidies are not the main reason, if any, to have or not have kids.
Sure, one can do that - or one just does it how it has been done for millenia., And raise the kid yourself.
Offers like Spielgruppe for example can also be used - that together with just playing outside (our neigbourhood has a lot of kids) has done the job just as well for my sister and me - and I’d say we’re quite successful in our own ways.
I’m not in the income/wealth category where this is a real choice - I can’t home school, my wife can’t and so I’ll have to send my kid to a public school. I personally think school is a hugely inefficient system that did more harm than good to me, luckily I got the message before it was to late.
If you are suggesting that subsidizing families in order to have a sustainable birth rate of ones own people / populous is the reason Germany or France have high taxes, then this is just simply not true. The extra costs this would carry in Switzerland are almost irrelevantly small.
We in fact get about the same child benefits a state employee in Germany gets - and even for them this isn’t a big spending portion of their total GDP.
This is true - and I don’t think my decision for or against kids would depend on this.
For millenia it has always been by “the village”, never by “yourself”.
Today most don’t have that luxury (e.g. extended family living with or close by), so I see the childcare as a “modern” version of that concept.
If early childcare from 1-4 years is worse or better to staying at home - I think both routes can have good development, if the home environment is warm, stimulating, and stable, or if childcare is reasonably high‑quality. If parents provide rich language, play, and emotional support at home, exclusive home care can be as good as or even better than low‑quality childcare; if such stimulation or stability is limited (e.g., due to stress, depression or just limited time and attention from parent side, due to poor sleep, households & child tasks, etc), childcare can add meaningful benefits, like cognitive and language development. Considering the known genetical factor, where 60% of the differences between people for specific traits are statistically attributable to genetic differences, the stay at home scenario is not a straight forward better solution and the ultimate goal is ensuring good care quality, whether that is in a childcare or at home (and doing it while staying at home is not that easy and straight forward to do).
Mit dem Lesen und der Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du die Forum-Richtlinien gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist sowie den Haftungsausschluss auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ akzeptierst.
