LOL, 50% cheaper would be stupid thing for the church to...

LOL, 50% cheaper would be stupid thing for the church to implement.

It is hard to critique your baseless assertions, when you provide no context as to how they achieve the lower fees.

Feel free to give the whole story, rather than your biased drivel.

Are they talking before or after CCS fees?

If it is after CCS is applied it is more plausible, but misleading as the parent is required to pay the portion of the fee based on their CCS percentage. So yeah you could claim a "50% reduction" in net fees, depending on individual circumstances and how you structure the fees.

But I call BS that 50% is achievable for the average user of childcare.

If the assertion is before CCS that is just flat out balloni

I doubt that the church can just perform a miracle and make the childcare industry less costly then it is when they enter the industry. I imagine that it is not a scalable solution(if they even have one)that can be extrapolated to the industry.

A few points:

1. They would be limiting the level of CCS that can be claimed per session, which basically means that the church would have to subsidise the centres rather than have the government do so. you would need a very low IQ to think that is a good idea.

2. 50% fees is below the cost of labour required for staffing these centres alone. Yet alone providing a quality service. Even for larger centres that get economies of scale, which I doubt the church is doing, you are still talking the vast majority of fees going to wages.

3. Even if the church is able to utilise space that they already own, you would be talking millions of dollars to bring the space up to code for service approval.

4. Even if the church did implement fees that are 50% less than competitors, i imagine the places would be very limited and would not result in other centres following their pursuit of a "For Loss centre" model.

5. etc etc

Detrimental effect my ass.