If you want to get family-friendly, we in Australia could use some relief such as sharing income across the number of dependants. Don’t do it bureaucratically; a simple division in calculating the tax rate will be fine.

We have a structure here where losing ‘welfare’ entitlements as your income rises create strong political backlashes as a parent takes a job, and as a single-income family rises past the median income.

There is a tax concession for dependent spouse with NO children, but not for one with children; that was converted into a direct payment to the child carer spouse. Since I already give my entire income into my family’s hands, I experience this as offensive political interference in my life.

Hmmm. That’s funny—I know a lot of well-paid, successful professional women (physicians, lawyers, professors, teachers) with school-aged children who took time off time when their children were very young. Some men, too (myself and my wife included as a matter of fact). This is, in fact, probably a good bit easier for professionals in the U.S. than those earning less ‘decent’ salaries.

It is true that it is hard to reach the very top ranks of many professions while doing that—but most of the professional women AND men I know (myself and my wife included) don’t care—it’s not worth years of obsessive, single-minded drugery to get from a well-paid interesting career to an all-consuming CEO level position that pays more money…that you don’t have time to enjoy.

Um, who exactly do you think everyone else is?

You want to live in a society with other people? Great, don’t expect people not to have kids and need the community’s support to do so. Otherwise, go live in a damn cave and quit sponging off the rest of society.

One possibility is that solving the problems of parents isn’t the intention, or, at least, it isn’t the only thing intended.

That’s a good question—why is nobody proposing raising the dependent credit for preschool aged children? There is already a child-care tax credit, but that does nothing for stay-at-home parents.

Replacing the child-care tax credit with a more generous dependent deduction for young children seems like it could be a great idea for Democrats to pursue—a progressive idea that would win them points for tax-cutting, for proposing child-friendly policies, AND for pushing a policy that religious types committed to stay-at-home parenting would love.

Who wouldn’t love it? Maybe the childcare ‘industry’ wouldn’t since the benefit would be for all families with preschool children, not just those spending money at approved centers. But other than that, it ought to be very popular.

Egad, what’s the point of even having a society if it isn’t in the business of supporting parents and childrearing?

Which, again, leaves us with the question: Given that there are other approaches that are politically feasible and which solve the problems of parents, why aren’t those the means suggested?

One possibility is that solving the problems of parents isn’t the intention, or, at least, it isn’t the only thing intended.

1) It is an established fact that the difference in percentage of GDP spent on healthcare between the US and Europe is enormous—amounting to something like 3-5 percent of US GDP in the gap. That’s a lot of money…hundreds of billions.

2) Our “competitive” system of health care not only a) rations (according to who can afford) but b) restricts market and c) relies too-heavily on sales/marketing as a function of profit (not to mention creating, frequently, social disvalue).

3) On a macroeconomic level, sharing risk most-widely is always advantageous (economists: correct me if I’m wrong); on a micro-economic level, lowering the individual exposure to risk allows them to maximize their risk-taking behavior—one function of which would be, say, to allow them to attempt innovation with less burden of failure.

Which leads me to point that I didn’t get across clearly enough earlier:

4) A sensible national healthcare policy could find plenty of room for innovation coming out of major research universities—all of whom, btw, have provosts/VPs in tech transfer who are on first-name basis with major venture capitalists/corporate development teams: more or less giving away tech on the capital side, and that only after it’s been paid for by multiple channels of state funding for said institutions—where that innovation is much more likely to be undertaken for its own sake and much more likely to be sensibly peer-reviewed and with the increase in market penetration, lowered development costs, and less reliance on direct sales/marketing, still create a healthy P&L for pharma/med/biotech corporations… all this, while spreading costs/risks across businesses (I don’t think it’s appreciated how stifling a wide variety of the US’s “corporate welfare” policies are to our economy), allowing them to move more freely on personnel levels/giving them more bottom-line relief from labor costs while also satisfying requirements for a fluid labor market and humane moral code: that no one should worry about access to health care.

To come back to Kimberly’s excellent post, it really is astonishing how little attention is paid, politically, to strategies regarding education, child care, health care, workplace mobility, and discrimination that on the face of it seem “free market” but which actually create a lot of unnecessary turbulence/risk, not to mention CYA inefficiencies, social disorder, and moral rot from greed and envy: all of which restrain, not encourage, human development and a flourishing society.

There is no consensus in the U.S. about childcare, whether best provided by stay-at-home mother or by a stay-at-home parent (either one), or by some combination of parents working part time, or by relatives, or in a small, home-based daycare or in a larger, formal pre-school style daycare, or perhaps in a church-based center. If the government tried to enact policies favoring particular approaches (say, mandatory paid maternity leave and subsidized state-run childcare centers), there would be a political revolt—and for good reason. Which is why it won’t happen.

Those comitted to stay-at-home parenting for pre-schoolers are not going to want to subsidize those who opt for full-time child-care. And those who prefer informal arrangments for childcare (e.g. grandparents) again, won’t want to (and currently don’t have to) subsidize those who want formal, full-time daycare.

Similarly, the relations between the sexes are not cast in law in the U.S. Currently, there is no difference between maternal and paternal leave policies—it’s parental leave and either parent can take it. And this is not a moot point—although obviously less common, it is not at all unheard of for families where the dad earns less to have him stay home and care for young children. It’s not clear how far this cultural change will go, but it seems that it would be much less likely to happen with a Euro-style ‘progressive’ policy that codified sex role differences in law.

That said, I think there’s a good case to be made for, say, increasing the tax deductions for preschool aged children, enabling families to use this they choose (to help pay for childcard at a center OR to help defray the cost of a parent staying home).

I have to say that it won’t shock me if, as the cultural homogeneity of European countries fades with increased immigration of minorities with very different cultural values, Europe may find itself adopting more laissez faire policies to accomodate the range of values in increasingly diverse populations. As ‘Mohammed’ inexorably climbs the ranks of popular baby names, a one-size-fits-all policy for leave and child care may no longer work.

Ok javier, I like it too. All countries should pay for research. Meaning any advanced country that doesn’t should be ashamed,

But if the public is paying for pharma research, it’s only possible to invoke “profit motive for research” to a proportionate extent.

Can I give you an alternative translation for your Jean-Francois Dehecq quote:

“We’re pissed off, because we don’t make double-digit profit increases any more, and our bonuses suffer. We’re deliberately saying we rip off innocent Americans in the hope they will “educate” the Europeans.”

No, I wouldn’t expect America to behave any differently. So what’s the point?

javier, I have a question for you: how much of that US research is subsidised? It’s qute a lot, isn’t it.

Sure alot of research is subsidised. That’s all to the good—I’m in favor of greater government spending on R&D. But a great deal of research is also privately generated. More government run health care would mean less privately generated innovation.

Joel—I’m not sure what alternative you’re suggesting. Perhaps I could comment if I knew more about what you meant.

Walt—so because an argument has been used before, it can’t be used again? Huh. Well whatever. I’ll argue what I want to argue, so there. I hope that’s grown up enough for you.

My point is quality of life is not a quantative thing. It’s a goofing off with yer kids, gone fishing with mates, slipping away for a dirty weekend kinda thing. I think we’d all (that’s all of us with work that pays well but is constantly squeezed by deadlines and extended by overtime to get things done) take a 10% cut in income for 10% more time with loved and lusted after ones.

And all first world countries are rich enough to afford this. I mean heated towel rails, gourmet pet food, and 12 brands of toilet paper?

And Xaxier…

“Europe is currently a big free-rider on the innovations of American pharmecutical companies. ”

Sounds great to me. Why bust a gut when someone else is doing it for you? You think America would behave any differently if the situation was reversed? After all the US’s chemical industry cruised off the hard work of the IG Farben cartel for a good couple of decades after the whole post-WWII Operation Paperclip thang.

I’m always suprised at how unworldy the so-called economic rationalists really are.