OPINION: Taking issue with expanded childcare credit
May 8, 2024 | By Steven Martin
I am writing in response to the May 3 Waterbury Roundabout letter, “Act 76 sparks newfound stability for child care programs, families” submitted by 15 Vermont child care program directors.
You get three guesses as to who benefits financially from the legislation in Act 76 (besides many parents who may already be in better financial positions than many taxpayers). A few of the now familiar phrases from the letter that we increasingly hear include: “pandemic-era federal funding was running out,” “we were facing the impossible decisions,” and “much-needed public investment.”
I heartily disagree with this legislation and the glowing opinion of how great it is. It is just plain wrong on so many levels.
Who are the recipients? Prior to the most recent changes associated with the legislation, the childcare assistance program served families up to 350% of the federal poverty level. There were previously 7,229 Vermont children involved. Now, the eligibility is jumping to 400%, and again in October to 575% of the federal poverty level, expanding both the number of participants and the amount of assistance they may receive.
Who actually ends up with the taxpayer money? It would seem to me to be the childcare providers (the same folks who sounded the alarm).
Is it helping the truly needy? A family of four with up to $999,999 in assets may now qualify for some level of childcare assistance if their household income is under $124,800 per year. They could make $124,799 a year, own a $500,000 home, two $70,000 cars, and have several hundred thousand dollars in a bank account and still have taxpayers funding some of their childcare expenses. Really? What is wrong with this picture?
What's not to like? I see why daycares like it. They can raise rates, attract more customers and make more money.
Any other crazy changes? Starting this summer, families will no longer have to even meet citizenship requirements to be eligible for childcare program benefits.
Who funds this? The newly added tax required to help fund Act 76 is a 0.44% special payroll tax. I believe that 0.11% may be imposed on the employee by the employer leaving 0.33% paid by employers. However, if the employer does not elect to do this, then the employer pays the entire 0.44% tax. According to recent Harwood Unified Union School District budget presentations (slide 12), the childcare payroll tax adds $111,897 to our already unacceptable FY25 school budget. As an added expense to payrolls, including education salaries, this raises all school budgets, therefore increasing property taxes even further.
How does this keep happening? The private interest lobby, the legislature and the excuse “it's for the kids” and emotionally it feels good to agree and the taxpayers throughout the state foot the bill – again. Spend-spend-spend-tax-tax-tax. Sound familiar?
It was actually just a couple of generations ago that when couples decided to have children, they assumed the responsibility to feed, clothe, and provide for them. Apparently those days are long gone. In my opinion, it is morally wrong to rob taxpayers to pay for the care of the children that other people decide to have. Especially so when some of those families eligible to receive benefits may already be noticeably better off than many of the folks footing the bill.
Most Vermonters have a soft spot for the most vulnerable in our state. But really, $124,799 income and nearly a million dollars in assets? These families are now among the downtrodden that the state (taxpayers) must rescue?
The reason our legislature thinks this can go on forever is that we keep electing the people who vote for it. I dearly hope that the Vermonters who think these never-ending, well-intentioned, but seriously flawed, social programs will get out there in November and vote some sanity into the legislature. The current crop of legislators is out of touch and making the lives of ordinary Vermonters worse and worse. Don't just complain – vote these people out when November rolls around.
Just who voted for this socialist Act 76? All five legislators representing Waterbury: Rep. Tom Stevens, Rep Theresa Wood, Sen. Ann Cummings, Sen. Andrew Perchlik, and Sen. Anne Watson. Should you wish to communicate your opinion directly to them, contact information is online here.
Link for reference: Act 76 (H.217) Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Most of my data comes from the Waterbury Roundabout article New rules expand program for child care financial aid.
Steven Martin lives in Waterbury.