Well if they're not paying for the daycare they don't. If they are they are then they do.If you want someone else's money then you're going to get it on their terms or not at all.

This is downpayment for the future taxes by their children. Seems fair to me. But, for some reason, not for you?

Does going to daycare over have a stay at home parent lead to an increase in the money made? And if we were considering just the number of children and how having more children will lead to more tax payers, then cutting funding for education in ways that result in more children being had is even better because you save money now and have more tax payers later.

If you begin to optimize social and political decisions on the basis of having more tax payers, you'll get weird results. For a second example, cutting reproductive education funding in schools will lead to more tax payers (though arguably tax payers who pay less, so then the question becomes are you optimizing for tax payers or for future taxable income in total).

> cutting funding for education in ways that result in more children being had

Do you have a citation for this? One with "cutting funding" in it and not the generic comparison between Somalia and Germany.

There is a well established correlation between education in girls increasing and child birth rates decreasing. Unless you think that funding could be cut without decreasing education rates, in which case shouldn't we cut funding?

But do you have correlation between education availability to girls decreasing and child birth rates increasing?

Your primary fallacy here is that you think you can always "mince the meat back". You usually can't. It doesn't work that way.