The Swiss government has recommended that voters reject the daycare initiative, citing the costs, but it said it is committed to promoting supplementary family childcare.
“The initiative would place a massive burden on the federal government’s financial budget with additional costs in the billions,” the government said in a statement on Friday. And this in an area that is primarily the responsibility of the cantons and municipalities.
The government argued that it made more sense to advocate for a further strengthening of supplementary family childcare within the framework of the parliamentary debate on the future of start-up financing.
The popular initiative “For good and affordable supplementary family childcare for all” was launched at the end of July. It demands that parents must spend a maximum of 10% of their income on daycare places for their children.
However, the initiative not only wants to make day-care centres and after-school care centres accessible and affordable for all families, but also the entire spectrum of supplementary family and school care. The initiative committee is broad-based with representatives from the political left to the centre.
According to the initiative text, the federal government would have to cover two-thirds of the costs. In addition, it would have to issue minimum guidelines on the quality of care, working conditions and other requirements.
Employers also under obligation
“The government shares the view that supplementary family childcare must continue to be promoted and that the public sector should provide greater financial relief for parents,” the statement said. For 20 years, the government has been making financial contributions to the creation of childcare places within the framework of the temporary impulse programme, it said.
It is now of the opinion that the tight financial situation does not allow any further commitment. “It is the task of the cantons to expand supplementary family childcare, and employers should also participate in this expansion in an appropriate form.”
As if it wasn’t expected for the gov to say no to that. Is it something poor people would benefit from? Nah we can’t have that.
Let’s ignore the social aspect of families being more relaxed overall. It literally is a measure that would allow more pleople to afford having a child, for women to stay in the workforce for longer and therefore strengthening the demography and economy.
Now how great would it be if those companies would have to pay more taxes to pay for that system?