Federal budget has $1.7 billion support for child care in the next five years. The federal government also plans to set aside a hefty amount of $1.6 billion for preschool services. This is because childcare and education centers have been falling short in terms of providing education services. Lockdown has not helped, but the government says that hope is on its way.
Childcare centres have always been under debate by numerous previous governments. It continues to influence the family budget as well. Say you are related to an above-average earning household. When the government payments hit a particular ceiling, the household is personally responsible for paying for childcare services for the remainder of the year.
Since only the above-average national household will reach this ceiling, they are more likely to reap advantage from this policy. The families whose annual income is between $189,390 and $353,680 will receive $10,560 from the government. This is a life-changing amount, while others strive to provide essential childcare services and still fall short.
The amount mentioned above is quickly earned in the posh urban areas of the city. The ceiling needs to be higher to generate equality in education care and childcare services across all social classes. The set roof may result in a disincentive to work or generate supplementary income. The households will rely heavily on public spending to come to their aid.
You may be wondering who else benefits from this amendment. Sadly, no one else meets the criteria other than mentioned above. The amendment does not apply to different income groups as this would cost the Government Mountains above mountains. The education centers and childcares already cost $10 billion presently.
It is evident that the families outside the earning block will not receive any subsidy or help from the government. Don’t be fooled! Government is well-aware of the politics and influence involved in determining the income block. They know too well that the direct taxes from lower-income groups are paying for these subsidies.
In a way, the “inferior” social classes are responsible for providing services to the wealthy as well as providing for their household. This is a dual-ended sword. A tax system needs to be progressive where every class household pays taxes proportionately to their income. Wealthy pay more, and less fortunate pay their taxes accordingly to their income.
Defenders have turned a blind eye to this policy. They blatantly mention that this will benefit the people who most need it. Knowing full well of the economics behind it and the financial burden it will cause the lower-earning groups. The critics point to the public schools which are available to class from every child. This house of cards is a universal debate with no definite conclusion.
According to the amount allotted to the education centre, it has become contingent. The funds are dependent on the results brought forward under the leadership of education ministers of the states. The money must ensure 15 hours of hours in education centres across all states.
Previous deals regarding education funds and their usage have expired. This policy will help save $2,000 from childcare and childcare centres for every household. The system can be confusing with many different perspectives. Many say the opportunity cost to bring a reformed universal policy that benefits each social class without compromising their financial independence. The present governance aims at a reduction of the expenses with this investment. However, the Center still needs to collect support from the states before presenting this amendment at a national public forum. Hopefully, this policy is fruitful and shows the results it is expected. Politics aside, government policies are aimed at bringing uniformity. It is not a battle or a debate but a service.