The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODOCabinet OKs Y2 tril package for child-care support, education
TOKYO©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© KYODO
16 Comments
Login to comment
Cricky
Staff salery raised by ¥3000, is that an hour, a month or year. What ever it is I truly hope it raises their salery to at least the poverty point.
gogogo
If you can get into daycare it only costs 5000 yen full time per month, while a cost saving it is really not a lot of money. So I want to know what the money is going to be spent on!
pacint
Gogogo.
There is no fixed rate, rate is calculated according to family income, etc.
Usually taking the previous financial years income, some might score others might get hit.
fxgai
Great just in time to help cover the increased consumption tax payments.
What a joke. Government shouldn’t be setting wages in the first place.
fxgai
Who decides what “proactive” is, and who is going to be put to work evaluating that (to prevent yet more scandals relating to government programs), and for how many companies will such need to be done?
A better idea would be, simply cut corporate taxes for all companies, spend less on administration costs as a result, and be done with it.
Given their numerous failed policies to date it’s amazing anyone believes that these politicians are the solution to anything. Their hearts may or may not be in the right place but what’s important is good policy that achieves objectives. Anything less is short changing we taxpayers.
rainyday
Gogogo you are getting a steal, I pay way more than that, and kindergarten is going to set me back about 40000 per month when we start next year. For most people this is a huge expense so this poicy will have a major impact (too late for me if it starts in 2020 but good for others).
smithinjapan
No breakdown of how the money will be spent, which is typical, and how it will be made up for, which is even more so. It sounds like they are taking a page from the book of the lunatics in the GOP in the US; raise the deficit another few trillion and then look towards axing social programs and raising taxes on middle class now and later to make up for the massive losses, while cutting corporate taxes. We all know that immediately after this announcement they'll start talking about how they simply MUST increase the consumption tax to minimum 10% next year to pay for this and other things. After that's decided, these proposals for education and child care will not be finalized, or else the budgets will be allocated, but it'll be the usual fobbing off of responsibility to localities on how it's spent, with localities waiting for instructions from the federal government, and the only spending that is decided on will be for politicians' vested construction interests to build new facilities for day care. Also, I suspect that soon this will spell out more money for companies to provide day care to employees, but will actually not require them to do so, only suggest it while they pocket the extra cash and trickle down fails yet again.
clamenza
gogogo - ¥5000/month? Thats not a misprint?
socrateos
I am for it. But it should not be paid by tax hike. Instead, the government should just print more money to cover (i.e., government borrowing) because spending in education is an investment for future.
Dango bong
open more day cares, thats the only thing you need to do
fxgai
No one knows what will happen to the deficit in the US, predictions are always wrong because they are based on various wrong assumptions.
In Japan we are guaranteed a high deficit because the politicians spend 30% more than the tax take though. Without fail.
US politicians seem more flexible in how much they overspend.
Ever meet a social program you didn’t think was value for money?
kohakuebisu
It actually makes sense for the government to set daycare worker wages because most childcare costs in Japan are covered by the government. Parents only pay a tiny proportion, often under 20% of the actual cost. Even those that get charged the max amount based on income do not pay half the actual cost.
I can't say I like the idea of the government paying private high school fees. I know it saves the government paying to teach the same kids in a public school, but doesn't sound very fair. Lots of women arrange their work hours to remain dependent on their husbands and save maybe 300,000 yen in pension and health contributions. Missing that limit where you get free private HS for your kids would cost 750,000 plus per child. I can guarantee many many families will shoot below this line.
Scrote
Using taxes to pay for education at private high schools is unconstitutional.
Article 89 of the constitution reads:
No public money or other property shall be expended or appropriated for the use, benefit or maintenance of any religious institution or association, or for any charitable, educational or benevolent enterprises not under the control of public authority.
What part of that does Abe not understand? Abe keeps ranting about changing the constitution, but he ignores it when it suits him. Why would he bother changing it when he disregards the bits he doesn't like and the supine supreme court refuses to uphold it?
kazetsukai
Funding has always been easy for any nation. It is in the application and implementation of which it is supposed to fund, that becomes the problem.
In any case, for Japan with its multilevel bureaucracy and extremely influential private organizations intertwined within that bureaucracy, very little of those funds would probably reach those who actually can benefit from it all. To begin with there are too much rules, regulations and policies that would conflict and deplete the funds anyway. Funds are checked, monitored, recorded, double checked for proper recording, double checked to fund the right and correct project with the properly checked and verified receiver, etc. Then there are reports again to make sure that the funds are properly delivered, received then used properly by those that received. All of which would deplete the funds.
And.., It would be best if such funds were not given out as "free" subsidies or to fund "free" anything, including free childcare or free education.
Nothing in life is free.
Even if it is just 10,000 Yen per child per month, a parent must "participate" in the cost.
And.., they should "remove" the 30,000 Yen subsidy per child.
Reason: Although it certainly appear (idealistically) to helps society and its economy, "free" giveaways "create" "reliance and dependency" as well as loss in the sense of "responsibility" as well as "appreciation" and "gratitude", making it a "right" to get, rather than "earn".
Eventually it creates a "spoon-fed" dependent population that will lose "initiative" and "creativity" becoming unproductive and noncompetitive losing to those who have the desire. In other words, an Orwellian outcome where people are no better than robots and source of power and revenue for those in power. Such is EU and some parts of the USA today.
To begin with, robots will be replacing much of the population in the work place anyway. And that is another problem...
toshiko
Create training facilities for people who are willing to work as daycare workers.
fxgai
Well that is by current design, but it is not to say the system couldn’t be redesigned.
This is probably quite true - but what does that say about us? Is it truly the case that families need money from other taxpayers (maybe their own children when they are taxpayers in future) in order to balance caring for their kids and working for their incomes?
Personally I don’t believe this need be true for the majority of families in Japan, if only the government did not tax families with young children as much, and this let them spend more of their own money on their own families as each family sees fit.
It is no use to me personally that I pay plenty of tax but get insufficient child care service from the government dominated system. It blows my mind to think of all the other families in the same situation.
Yes. What would be fair is if families had a choice, to either pay for public or private. If people want to opt for something else, they should be permitted to without penalty.