This chapter considers how far the costs of rearing children should be paid for by parents and how far the state should effectively subsidize parenting by paying for goods and services children need out of general taxation. This is a significant economic question because caring for children is extremely expensive. At a bare minimum they require food, schooling, health care and a dwelling for many years, and then there are the indirect costs of a parent's lost income, which are often even greater (Folbre, 2001: 34). The objection to subsidizing childrearing is that it is unfair to non‑parents. I refute this objection by showing why an economic system that reduces the costs to parents is justifiable to all citizens because it makes a better option set from which to choose from when deciding how to live one's life.

The challenge: luck egalitarianism

According to luck egalitarians, a just society is one that mitigates the impact misfortune has on people's lives but not bad outcomes caused by their own choices. The theory requires compensation for bad brute luck (unchosen circumstances) but not bad option luck (disadvantages resulting from choice). Applied to parenting, luck egalitarianism seems to require that people who have children should internalize all the associated costs that occur because of the child's existence. Rakowski writes:

To illustrate the force of this thought, consider:

Different pursuits: Oprah and Peter want to have a child. They are fully aware that this choice will require they make significant sacrifices in terms of time and energy, but they believe these sacrifices are worth making in exchange for the benefits of parenting. Quentin and Rachel have an identical set of skills and careers but want to spend all their spare money on travelling.

Luck egalitarians suggest the plans of both couples should be treated alike in the sense that neither's project should be subsidized or penalized by the state.