(MONEY Magazine) – January's "Why Middle-Class Kids Are Losing Out" prompted several readers to question our story's emphasis on what we as a nation are, or aren't, investing in day care and early childhood education. Those readers thought we should have spent more time pointing out the costs--in hard cash and family stress--that couples incur when both parents are working. A professional child advocate felt the article was right on target, however, arguing that poor wages and underfunding of the child-care industry will hurt us all in the long run.

Readers also had a lot to say about our analysis of the tax reform proposals now floating around Congress. The message in those letters was clear: Radical reform must treat different income groups equitably. Otherwise, why bother?

"Pressure your state and local governments to provide pre-kindergarten classes"? MONEY advocating an expanded role of government in our lives? I can scarcely believe you would print a story with such a recommendation. Yet you did. How do you suggest we pay for this?

On top of that, your example of a family who could not afford to send their daughter to a private preschool, so she instead had to "spend several hours each day at home studying or in the public library," was a poor one. Most children are not emotionally mature enough at five to attend all-day school, yet you would have us believe that a four-year-old would be at a disadvantage if she isn't immersed in a top quality pre-kindergarten class five days a week.

These programs are not for children as much as they are for parents who feel guilty about leaving their children with others all day and rationalize it by saying, "At least they are learning."

It is unfortunate that by the time you factor in all the extra costs associated with a two-income family, very few careers pay well enough to make that second job worth the added stress. But that's the market system in which we live. The economics of raising children is such that most parents would be better off with one parent staying home to raise the children.

Our society's obsession with making money at the expense of raising our children properly is just now starting to bear fruit. Will we be surprised when our children tell us that they are too busy to take care of us in our senior years, so they are sending us to a nursing home? Oh, I guess that's already happening too. And we the taxpayers are paying for that as well. JOHN HUNT Big Lake, Minn.

Your January article on day care appeared under the banner "Investing in Children." Yet there was no mention anywhere about Mom or Dad staying home with the child. Now wouldn't that be a real investment in the life of your child? DAVE MOLANDER Franklin, Mass.

I was delighted to find your article. We are raising our next generation in a market-driven industry based upon what parents can afford to pay.

Everyone worries about the high cost of child care. There is too little focus on the importance of quality. The cost of not doing it right will make the current cost of child care pale in comparison. A national commitment to systemic change in the provision of early education and care is essential for the future well-being of our children.

The child-care field is heavily subsidized by the low wages paid to the child-care staff. Inadequate compensation leads to excessive turnover and poorly trained staff. Approximately 60% of child-care costs are paid by parents, while the government (federal, state and local) provides 39% through tax credits and direct subsidies, and the private sector, including employers and charitable organizations, provides a meager 1%. Financing child care involves competing factors: quality for children, affordability for parents, and adequate compensation for child-care professionals. KATHLEEN HAIGHT Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

The writer is executive director of a child-care resource and referral agency.

LET'S TRY A REAL FLAT TAX

January's "Get the facts on tax reform" clearly shows that Congress has no intention of effectively and fairly reforming tax laws. As you have pointed out, the three proposed alternatives (the flat tax, the sales tax and the simplified income tax) show favoritism for one income level or another. I believe a totally flat tax would be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of taxpayers.

An example of a totally flat tax would be between 10% and 15% on wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, inheritance, Social Security and welfare, thereby eliminating all tax exemptions and tax shelters. Such reform would definitely improve the fairness of taxation in this country. ABDUL-AZIZ AL-BATAA Aurora, Colo.

ATTACK THE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY

Regarding your critique of the three competing tax reform plans, the flat tax and the simplified income tax both redistribute income from law-abiding taxpayers. The sales tax brings the "underground economy" to the surface. Billions of dollars of currently uncollected taxes will help to keep the rate well below 30%.

This Democrat supports Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.) and his 15% national sales tax. SAM SEIBERT JR. Hagerstown, Md.

INVESTING FOR LIFE

I agree wholeheartedly with Bill Higby's philosophy spelled out in your Forecast issue's "Five Secrets from a Real Long-Term Investor." I purchased my first stocks--3M, Monsanto and Standard Oil (now Amoco)--back in 1959-60, and I still have them.

Through my broker, I bought one share of 3M for each of my grandchildren. Since 3M has a DRIP plan, I add more to their stock for their birthdays and Christmas. The oldest grandchild is eight years old, so this should give him, and the other two (six and 2 1/2 years old, respectively), quite a bit by the time they are ready for college. BETTY OVERHULSE Upland, Calif.

AN UNBEARABLE COVER

The bear on the cover of your Forecast issue looks very sad indeed. I wouldn't want to be held on a leash. The bear probably did not like it either. DIANA NUZZOLILLO Southington, Conn.

CORRECTION

In January's "The Best Funds for Steady Savers," the box "These top funds build wealth--a dollar at a time" incorrectly reported the minimum initial investment for the Quantitative Growth & Income fund's automatic investment plan. The correct amount is $1,000.