If you will pay workers to care for other people's children, then you should also pay for one parent to stay home and take care of the children. Otherwise we are playing a game of musical children--I get paid to take care of your kid while you get paid to take care of mine. It would also be cheaper to pay a parent to stay home and care for a kid--no infrastructure, no payroll taxes, no overhead costs, no commuting costs, no training costs.
32
@tanstaafl
What a great idea! Let's go back to the 50's where happy housewives sang all day mopping floors, washing clothes, cooking, and taking care of their children. And later when their happy husbands dumped them for newer models, these happy housewives slunk off to impoverishment. Great solution...
18
@tanstaafl
Unfortunately, you're not taking lost wages into account. Children are born during prime wage earning years, and staying at home means years of lost wages, productivity, and promotions (assuming you ever manage to get a foothold back into the workforce, which is a nearly impossible feat). That also adds up to less social security and retirement income.
Women are already punished enough for the little time they DO take off (or even for the time they don't take off but MIGHT take off). Staying home is wonderful with guarantees, but women need to be given that choice knowing the long-term consequences.
13
@Nancy
Thanks, Nancy.
I remember the 50's and the fact is, We have NOT come a long way, Baby!
We're still working on an ERA for this society and getting kicked in the head.
I'm curious about this program but I learned long ago: If they don't start the first sentence with "After our country has finally made all citizens legally equal within the Constitution, then we must move on to considering other concepts of economics..." then they are simply slapping a new coat of paint on the same old wheel.
4
So few people have responded to this terrific idea. It is kind of like the family whose kids are out of school and into college, and they question their taxes that pay for good schools. A small majority of families at any given time have young children. As a society we could decide that they need this universal care. NOT because we might ever avail ourselves of this benefit, but because as a society we have chosen to provide protections for the most needy and most significant resource for a successful society going forward generation and generation. It is a practical choice that we all can afford. It is a moral choice we could choose to make. It is an act of kindness on a large scale. It is who we say we are. Unless we do these things, we cannot pretend we believe our pledge of allegiance, God Bless America or the Star Spangled Banner, or our Constitution. With liberty and justice for all. So corny, and yet so significant. We are not who we think we are unless we as a society choose to do these big important things. We should. It will feel good. It will be the right thing. We can afford it. It will help millions who need our help. What is preventing us? We are preventing us - and why? Why? Time for a reset.
21
Bernie's Medicare for All includes long term care including in home care and support.
This plan seems like a "catch all" safety net and would be subject to much criticism when trying to explain it.
Long term care for elderly and in home care whether for disabled or elderly ,these are part of our health care system , we should keep it under " health care and aging " .
Child care is different , Warren has a plan for that . We are suffering from " too many cooks " syndrome ( which I suspect is a ploy to confuse us ) .
We have zero chance of getting another " entitlement " through the Senate ...lets build on what we have now.
2
Here is one way not to penalize workers who are also caregivers: don't deprive them of unemployment insurance benefits when the part-time jobs that they depend on to cobble together their family's care ends through no fault of their own. Many states continue to require unemployment insurance claimants to look for full-time work, even if they have otherwise qualified for benefits through their part-time work history and cannot realistically work full-time. That is wrong. All workers wages are subject to the unemployment insurance payroll tax that employers pay on their workers behalf. Therefore all workers, both part-time and full-time alike, should be able to claim benefits on their work history as long as they have met the quarterly wage base periods. Only about 1/2 of the states have modernized their UI programs to allow those seeking part-time work to qualify for benefits. It should be mandatory for all states to do so. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/modernizing-unemployment-insurance/
10
I think the first place to start is for Congress to make full-time care-giving count as a Social Security contribution that caregivers can then collect at retirement age. This should apply to people who are full-time care-givers for family members who are children, who are disabled, or who are elderly. Women (and men) who leave the workforce to provide that type of care are not just sacrificing present income, but also future Social Security income, which often leaves them impoverished when they are old, and their children are grown and their parents are dead. I have seen this first-hand over and over again, and the care-giving burden and its financial penalties fall disproportionately upon women.
10
This plan could work. At the same time, traditionally conservative states will be far behind states like Washington in enacting such legislation and funding it. If such a program is not federal in scope, we will widen the gap between the two Americas, one with progressive states and one where states let people fend for themselves.
“....small amounts out of every paycheck....”. this phrase is used in Connecticut every time there is an increase in property taxes, sewer bills, water bills, electric bills, gasoline tax, sales taxes - the reason everyone of average means is finding it difficult to make ends meet is these “...small aa,lungs out of every paycheck....” which culminates in NOT such a small amount!
3
I wish the writers addressed the concern of many conservatives: they don't want the state raising our children, they want families to be able to afford to have a parent stay home. They'll see this as yet another tax that makes that harder, and that penalizes fathers and mothers who want to stay home--penalizes in the sense that people who use an outside caregiver are subsidized, while people who take care of their own families are taxed but don't get the benefit.
Maybe a stay-at-home parent should be paid just like a worker would be? I don't know. But these concerns should be addressed.
26
@Tom I understand your concern, but if you read the article more closely, this plan does not address only the need for day care for working families. It addresses the needs for elder care, the disabled, etc. In short, it's called Universal Family Care, not universal child care, and addresses all the times in the lives of Americans when we might need help. Let's not pit the stay at home parents against the working parents. We should be supporting families in making the best decisions for themselves, whatever that might be.
29
@A. Cleary I certainly did not mean to imply that child care is the only thing this plan provides. But as to child care, my point stands.
4
@Tom
I share your concern (and I'm a working mom).
For those caregivers who "choose" to stay at home with their kids (or their ailing parents), we need to do something.
(And, I use the term, "choose," loosely because most women do not freely "choose" to stay at home with the kids, but, instead, are pushed there by the insane demands of "full-time" work in the United States, which make it extraordinarily challenging and stressful to try to meet the child's needs and be a good parent (let alone have room in one's life for the rest of the human experience, such as housekeeping, cooking, sleeping sufficiently, socializing, and recreating) when both parents work full-time. But, that's another topic.)
My suggestion is to make one's years of full-time care-giving count as a Social Security contribution so that people (ahem, moms and daughters) are not further penalized and impoverished in their old age for leaving the workforce to do this important work for their children and parents. As it is, it is not a short-term financial sacrifice, but one that has life-long negative consequences. We can and should do something about that.
11
Glad to hear still more policy wonks weighing in with social programs the US can’t remotely afford.
I believe the Democrats are doomed if the platform for the 2020 election includes free everything for everyone, including non-citizens: free college, free health care, school loan forgiveness, free day care, and on and on.
As Margaret Thatcher so aptly put it, the only problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
16
@Mon Ray
Oh, good grief! Repeal of the last tax cut would likely cover this program several times over.
71
Well, I skimmed through this group's 300-page report and did not find a single cost estimate. The Federal government is borrowing $900 billion/year, an amount that will rise as cost of the existing programs such as Social Security and Medicare continue to rise. The Trump tax cut cost at most $200 billion/year in lost revenue--probably less than that. I'm not sure it will be enough.
The other issue is that this group wants each individual state to design its own universal care program. I think that's a mistake because states have trouble imposing progressive taxes (due to the fact that rich people can move out of the state).
6
@Mon Ray
Remove the ridiculous and unconstitutional tax exemption of every religious business, Elmer Gantry blowhard, and megachurch. That annually would fund not just U.S. health care programs.
27
I would stand up tomorrow to vote for these policies, for this faith in the common good, for this far-sighted and pragmatic approach, for this future.
52
So when do we Americans get to join the civilized world? I have waited all of my life for National Health, my parents missed it, my husband missed it, and I need my kids to have it and grandkids too.I don't want to be a burden on them or for them to have to make hard sacrifices like I did. More Boomers are approaching retirement their senior years, how will we deal with those social & medial demands? We need to change this asap. This is not just harsh and cruel it is flat out bad economics.
78
@Sandra Garratt - Sadly, this country stopped pretending to be civilized in the 1980s.
3
Another handout for those who fail to make something of their lives and yet another deduction from meager wages? Bad plan! And further, you are calling for yet another giant colossus to manage the program(s). I call this budget-busting!
3
The article doesn't explain how this will work with Medicare, Medicaid and about 129 other federal welfare programs. Would they be combined?
1
Thanks so much for publishing this. Universal family care is coming, no matter what, because it is just and necessary. The question is, how many generations will continue to suffer before we have the courage to enact it?
13
another band aid to put on a mortal wound. If we really want to help families, why not support an economy and economic policies that makes it possible to live on one income?
4
@Cantaloupe First: How is this a band-aid? What we currently have are band-aids; this is something else. This is a huge, systemic change that would allow all families to care for (and/or, receive care for) the children, sick people, or elderly people they love. That's no band-aid.
Secondly: By "one income," do you mean that women should stay home? We know how this plays out: Men earn more, so under a one-income plan, it's men who would be working while women are kept powerless at home. Women who don't work are unable to divorce abusive spouses. Women who don't work are unable to make choices for themselves. What about unmarried people with no children -- would they earn less because they haven't married or popped out a baby?
The last time we had families surviving on one income, women were the property of their fathers and then their spouses, unable to even have a credit card to their name.
Maybe you should watch Hulu's adaptation of the Handmaid's Tale, if you think returning to one income is such a great idea!
14
@Cantaloupe
If "economic policies that make it possible to live on one income" were in place -- along with "economic policies" that support all-day preschool and the reintegration of family leave-takers into the work force -- then no one would end up sacrificing their family's earning power in order to take care of other family needs. No one can predict how badly that income might needed later. Nowadays, sadly, it's all too easy to step off the career ladder but nearly impossible to step back onto the same rung. Would you advise an adult son to leave his job to take care of his family because his wife earned enough? I doubt it.
PS: Many workers wouldn't even consider taking family leave if there were "economic policies" around a 40-hour work week. Some New Yorkers need a day nanny, a night nanny, and a weekend nanny.
3
@Lastly
Maybe you are looking at this from the wrong angle. A plan that allows a family to survive on one income is a luxury, not a submission to power. If a couple has multiple children, a child with special needs, or a parent or two that need care, being able to have one person able to not work and accomplish this without financial ruin is a great thing. No one is saying that the woman would have to not work. I would think both members of a couple are welcome to go on working and hire people to do the care taking if that’s what they want to do...now if the government dictated women HAD to quit work when having children or parents they were somehow responsible for that would be a different story.
"... a payroll tax on all earnings and a higher rate paid on earnings above $200,000 for an individual ($250,000 for a couple)..."
Looks like a single person would be paying more to cover one person's needs than a married person would pay to cover two persons' needs.
2
@kathy Maybe, but single people who reside alone tend to have higher costs than couples living together who can share care and housing. But that's not really why we have this tax policy, it's really because of ingrained social beliefs that one spouse doesn't work for substantial pay, and so working spouse should not be penalized relative to single people when he (or she) is supporting an extra individual.
one more idea that will give insurance companies more profits. we need a system of Not-for-Profit insurance or minimum profit medical services or both.
8
These are wonderful ideas, but I don't expect to see them in my lifetime. When Republicans are in charge none of these things will happen at all, and with the so-called moderate Democrats it will happen so incrementally that these policies won't come into fruition until generation Z gets to old age.
16
@Carole A. Dunn - I agree. But today's Washington Post has a lengthy discussion of the need for the elderly or ill to be able to exit this world on their own terms when they perceive they have no quality of life remaining. The comments were almost all in favor of it, and many mentioned the financial liabilities associated with aging and ill health. Perhaps there are enough of us boomers now who are contemplating what may be a dismal future that we can get the ball rolling on all the various ways we can respond to the need of this huge generation that's going to be facing these issues almost immediately.
2
What a novel idea, Universal Family Care, a dream come true really if you had the power to implement it, knowing full well the reluctance of those that could pay their fair taxes..accepting their social due. Trouble is, from proposing it to doing it there is usally a long stretch of politicking, screwing things up, however unethical it may be.
5
Why should people without children and parents subsidize those that do? Life is difficult for them in different ways. If we want a fair system, maybe people should pay only if they have children
3
@Paquito the children of our friends and families are our future doctors, lawyers, politicians, educators and neighbors. We all benefit from them having a good life.
17
@Paquito because that's to cost of living in a society. We all contribute for the overall good. And we all benefit from having kids in our society who are well cared for and educated. And if you have no children or parents, the aging benefit is likely to help you as much as anyone, as those with children are more likely to get some level of free assistance.
1
@Paquito
People without children will need care when they are older or become disabled. With no family to help they will benefit from the security of this program.
4
We've experienced universal family care via my wife's mother, who lived in Germany. Bring it on!
14
Why is universal family care a "big feminist policy idea"? It just seems like common sense to me.
29
@Hazlit
I think it is considered a feminist policy because childcare and elder care are traditionally provided by unpaid female labor.
11
@Hazlit
Because Republican men never consider that other men must also provide care to family members.
So, here's a shout-out to my long-dead Dad: Thank you for taking care of the 5 of us when Mum was in the hospitals getting her hips tended.
I still remember that you came home from work on the railroad and fixed our supper and made sure we had clean clothes for school. I remember the day you sewed up my finger with your upholstery needle. You fought with Patton at the Battle of the Bulge to rid this world of Nazis and you were union.
I'm glad I remember you, Dad, because otherwise I would think that all men were supposed to be like Mitch McConnell or Donald Trump.
Thanks, Dad, for freeing people from concentration camps instead of making new ones.
My father believed in a fairer world.
And so do I.
7
We don't use whale oil for lighting our homes now. When electrification came to America, people were happy to be done with smelly smoke, fire hazards, and lack of easy portability. Only the whaling companies were unhappy.
We don't use coal for heating our homes now. When cleaner methods became available, citizens were happy to be done with soot, black dust and asthma.
We don't operate on people without anesthetic, but we used to. We now have a highway system. We have an free internet now. We didn't used to be able to travel any further in a day than we could walk.
trump supporters, why is the same not true of health care? Are we so stuck in the past that we can't even stand to LOOK at the examples of other nations? You are willing to put up with a lot of hassle, just to keep pharma and insurance companies happy. Why? They have to move along with the times, just like every other industry! Please tell me that you are not so tribally motivated that 'progress' is a bad word now?
24
@deb
Exactly. I would like to see "medical billing professional" and all those working at insurance companies whose job it is to deny claims and raise rates to go the way of elevator operators and coachmen.
@deb
As always, the answer to your questions is: FOLLOW THE MONEY.
1
This article reminds me of an argument I had with a trump supporter. He was waving the flag (literally) and going on and on about how America was the greatest, best country in the world. How it was #1! I pointed out that, no, America was not #1 in education, or income, or life expediency or..... He got angry/dismissive and so I asked him why he had such bad teeth (crooked, broken, yellow, and some missing). They were so bad they had to be effecting his health. Why, I asked him, in the greatest, richest country in the world, why does he have such bad teeth? Why didn't his parents take care of it? It was like I slapped him. He start saying about being poor, but I said, OK, but why did the greatest, richest country in the world leave a kid with bad teeth? When the parents couldn't provide. He walk away.
Don't misunderstand. I love my country, but I see the faults and failure and we can do better. The question I asked him is one we should be asking everyone.
(I also feel bad about making him feel bad)
32
What in the world does "feminist Policy" have to do with a universal, national, quality health plan?
I completely lost interest in reading it when you started to play identity politics in your headline.
Hillary tried it and was cast off into the dust heap of history while Obama did not and served two terms.
He ran as an American and not a black man while she ran as an identity obsessed woman instead of an American.
A national, affordable, quality health plan is the policy of every major peer country not Neo feminists.
If you start to divide people trying to get a national plan, you are asking for trouble.
1
@Paul it's feminist policy because it we still have disparities in the way we as a society treat women (who are expected to provide care without compensation) and men (who are not expected to do so and are treated as heroes when they do). Those are the disparities that feminism and policies like this are intended to address. When people don't want "identity politics," what they are really saying is that they want to pretend that people are not treated differently within our society based on race, gender, sexual identity, age or other identifying features so that we don't have to actually address those issues. So fine, don't read the article, but the problem here isn't that this is a feminist issue, it's that people put their heads in the sand when anyone wants to address women's uncompensated or undercompensated work.
2
@DH-Thank you for you reply. If women are uncompensated or undercompensated. sue, sue, sue, sue.
Don't ax grind, cherry pick, rationalize, intellectualized, male bash, enable, co depend etc.
That is what the original feminists did circa 1980.
The neo feminists of today are playing the gender card, just like so many other groups did in the past.
1
Is this a private insurance solution? Hmmmm...?
3
This plan depends on contributions from paychecks. But what about the people who don't work. They need this plan more than anyone else. And what about those who have already retired but have little money for healthcare? I think there needs to be another option for gathering funds for this otherwise excellent idea.
4
@MHB The people who don't work are typically disabled and thus unable to do the work, seniors who have retired from the workforce after paying taxes for a long time, children who are restricted from work and should be supported to focus on their studies, and homemakers doing a lot of uncompensated housework.
This proposal is to help those people who either have already gone uncompensated or who would otherwise have to drop their compensated work. It is based on the notion that labor should be properly compensated; this is why they are talking about a tax on earnings, as they are linking the funding to our workforce.
If we should come to a destabilized economy with high unemployment and underemployment then the funding can be revisited, but it's sensible for most of the time.
3
Child and elder care workers are undervalued and under paid. The means-tested safety net systems of support are underfunded and near to the breaking point, endangering many old and disabled. Universal benefits with just wages will help everyone. Again, we should look to Nordic economic models for guidance.
This country has the resources to fix this. Cut the military budget. Tax the rich. Share the wealth; wealth largely build upon the backs of workers, slaves and from stolen land, passed on through inheritance.
Thank you for printing this visionary proposal.
17
My wife had our daughter in February, and in addition to a $3,000 bill for the no-complication 3 day hospital stay, we are looking at $3,000/month for a nanny in July and August, then $1500/month for childcare when a space opens up at daycare. We were bumped from the day care's roster at the last minute, which is why we need a nanny this summer.
On top of this, we have a hefty student loan payment, and a mortgage. Even though we're well off in terms of total income, at times I feel like we're barely getting by.
This program, in conjunction with a low cost public option for healthcare would change our lives. Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang's idea for a unconditonal basic income or a negative income tax has also piqued my interest as it could give us and our friends and family the financial flexibility to help out.
I knew having a child would be expensive, just didn't realize how those costs would inform so many of our recent decisions about work and life.
13
One reason not mentioned is that because as we increasingly see men and women living into their 80 and 90s, many men become caretakers of elderly wives and female relatives. Sadly, also increasingly, we see that their answer to the stressors is to end the life of that impaired elderly female.
1
@Maggie I think you have it backwards. At all senior age levels women have greater life expectancies than do men.
@Mon Ray
Dementia and early onset corresponding illnesses hit women and men in the same rates and generally in the younger years, when males have yet to age into that shortened life expectancy range to which you refer.
Again, the increasing response of older American men who become caretakers is to end the life of the female. Btw, we already see this with younger men who become caretakers of children. Sons, too, are abusing elderly mother they caretake. It's often a matter of not just sociopathy but financial incentive: When women suffer workplace and wage discrimination all their life, they receive less in social security benefits than elderly men and thus their caretaker can have less incentive to properly care for them over what now can be decades of infirmity.
We either financially provide for caretaking of the young and the old, or we finally begin to train the male half the population to caretake, with stringent vetting if an employee so as to avoid elder abuse and even rape.
"Small amounts out of every paycheck" will pay for all of this?
Dream on. The money to pay for all of these things ($10,000/year for child care), 50K/year for long term support, etc., etc., will come from our country going more into debt.
.....which will, in turn, make it worse for these same families.
2
@Travelers
same old argument for not getting anything done. I'd rather have debt from funding these programs, than have the debt from Trump's welfare for his friends (tax cuts).
8
@LC
Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not in favor of either of these. They both will hurt ordinary people and rich folks will skate.
Even without congressional support your organization can provide a start on this project by developing a lower cost support agency. When my father needed individual care the agency charged $22/hr for the care giver it provided. I'm sure less than half of that went to the care giver. He had also already cared for several people in the assisted living facility where my father lived. There are certainly oversight and insurance costs to running such an agency, but there is huge room for a more reliable and cost effective source for care givers. I agree with you that the government should set up a family support system, with costs paid for by a lifetime of small contributions, but in the meantime there is great need for more cost effective resources.
7
If truly a feminist policy, the tax rate for a couple would be $400,000 or twice that of an individual. The assumption that one earner ( generally the male) would make $200,000 while the spouse (generally the female) would only make $50,000 reinforces the inequality of women in the workplace. Furthermore, another tax is not the answer; repurposed spending is a better solution.
14
@Marsha How about both? This isn't an either or. We can reform the tax system and re-calibrate our financial priorities. They aren't mutually exclusive and I'd go as far as saying, it would be foolish to do one without the other.
3
@Marsha
AMEN!
Do we really NEED a Defense budget of $750 billion a year?
Cut that in half and the warmongers like Bolton and Pompeo might have to walk a little softer and carry a smaller stick.
That money would fund quite a bit of increase in social security and Medicare for seniors that are NOT millionaires - most of them.
9
@Marsha - Good grief! When there's a couple, presumably they only have ONE house payment, ONE utility bill for each utility, just for starters. And it's generally not much more expensive to cook for two than for one. That's why the amount isn't doubled when there are two people residing in the same home.
Sounds like a great idea! What's the chance of it becoming reality, though? Since I live in TX, for example, I can't in my most far-out imaginings picture it happening here.
20
Good idea, as long as it's never privatized, and the salaries levels of top management stay reasonable.
40