Renegade

I agree with you. It would be ludicrous to take a child from a mother for a petty and relative minor incident, but if the incident was serious which involved years of jail time, the child is better off in adoption. The most formative years of a child's development are the first 4 years. Are they really going to develop properly in four years of a jail environment? Alternatively, if they are in foster care for 4 years, they are going to bond to that foster family. What is it going to do to them emotionally to be ripped from that environment and sent to their mother, who is basicly a stranger to them.

The primary objective of the CPP investment board is to maximize returns. It would only invest in a wind turbine company if it felt it was a profitable investment, not because it wanted to promote a greener world.

It made sense for the government to do that as they basicly was able to borrow money from the CPP fund at low rates. I made no sense for the CPP-contributng population in general as all they got were inferior returns. A couple of years ago it came to a crisis as CPP was projected to run out of money if the demographic trends continued. The government took action to jack up contribution rates and also allow the fund to invest in many investment types other than loans to the government Yes the CPP is now a stock market investor and has done pretty well. This is a good thing for us all because otherwise the fund would not have sufficient assets to pay out its obligations. The CPP investmetn board makes its investment decisions independant of government intervention. Overall I would have been happier if the government stayed out of the pension game altogether. Of course the downside is there would be fools who if not forced, would not save for retirement, and then would come upon retirement with hands extended looking for a hand out. ** Edited to remove and inaccurate statement

I don't beleive this is true. CPP is not funded by taxes but by CPP contributions. (Admittedly it is the many of the same people as those paying taxes) I suppose you believe that CPP contributions are not a tax either.Since, according to you, the CPP is not funded by "taxes" but rather by "contributions", I suggest you stop making the "contributions" and see what happens. I guess it really depends on what you want to call a "tax". I agree that the CPP contributions are mandatory. If you define a tax as any payment to the government with is not voluntary, then I agree it is a tax. In my mind, a tax is a non-voluntary payment which is directed toward general revenues. But at this point we are simply disputing nomenclature.

I too disagree with the plan, however since it was part of the platform they ran under, and got a mandate to form the government, I think they owe it to their supporters to follow through and implement the plan. Promises made should be kept.

Like I said, except for the fools who don't bother saving for retirement, we'ed be better off if the system was collapsed and our contributions returned to us with interest.

OK, but I would not consider returning people their own money collected through their contributions handouts.

The agreement with the provinces and the Liberal federal government is relatively recent. Much of $5B the subsidy has not yet reached the childcare providers. In fact the agreements were made less than a year ago. So it is hard to believe the claim that working parents are already relying on this subsidy. I'm sure you object to the concept, but you seem to keep harping on the name. As I've said, the agreements for additional funding with the provinces are relatively recent.. Since this family has had kids and childcare needs even before that, what did they do in previous years? Obviously for at least 6 years they've been able to manage. Let me articulate the scenario you describe. The couple above give up one income (say $25000) and get no childcare tax deduction so the net childcare cost to them is $11,300 (ie $12,500 - $1200). On the other hand a lower income couple with two parents working, will get to pay say $7000 per child, but will get a tax deduction for the $7000, in addition to $1200. So at a 30% tax bracket that works out to $3700/child ($7000 - 2100 - 1200). Still a big difference wouldn't you say? Is it fair? In my opiinion neither the Liberal nor the Conservative plan is fair. The parents should have the total responsiblity for funding childcare. The fact that childcare expenses are deductable mean that even without the subsidy the taxpayer is footing part of the bill. In your example above, what were the parent's (who can barely make ends meet), plan when they decided to have 3 kids, or did they even have one? If they didn't, who's fault is that?

Yes, I understand what your saying. But your argument that this is economically beneficial doesn't stand up, for non-welfare parents, and it only may be valid for the small subset of welfare parents who can earn enough to offset the welfare payment including the exempted income. If you start including low-income parents who are not on welfare, as a whole subsidizing childcare is not economically beneficial for the taxpayer. Those parents who are not on welfare and working have already found a daycare solution, otherwise they could not work. By economically beneficial I mean saves at least as much money as is required to invest in the program. I guess it is a matter of personal preference of where you want your taxdollars spent. Personally, I'd prefer that the tax rate was lowered and in effect it was returned to the taxpayers from where it came. I agree with you here in that it is not specificly a Childcare plan. Perhaps they should have had parents submit childcare receipts, or made it a credit as a % of the childcare deduction, then they would have better baisis to call it a child care plan. However creative naming is not new, nor exclusive to this regime. Remember Mike Harris' "Fair Share Health Care Levy", which had nothing to do with Health Care, or McGuinty's "Health Premium" which was really a general tax. Or how about welfare recepients who receive a "Shelter Allowance" but can spend it on beer and popcorn if they so choose. So if you're upset about naming, brace yourself, because governments have a long tradition of spinning creative names.

It would seem then your entire argument of it being economically beneficial depends upon providing the childcare to welfare mothers. Do you agree that providing subsidized childcare to non-welfare parents does not make economic sense?

In my view the payouts should be modeled the same as insurance annunity payouts. You would get to choose whether the payout was for you alone, or until joint death. Naturally if you choose joint, the payout is lower and depends upon your age and that of the joint party. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement that the joint party be a spouse or dependant. I don't beleive this is true. CPP is not funded by taxes but by CPP contributions. (Admittedly it is the many of the same people as those paying taxes)

Personally I think CPP Survivor benefits should be extended to whomever you choose whether a dependant on not. Afterall, we all pay the same into CPP, why should only those with spouses get survivor benefits. An alternative would be to have a higher payout to those who don't name a survivor, and if a survivor is named, the benefit amount should depend upon the age of the survivor. Sorry for the repost. There seem to be two threads on this. Not sure why.

CPP funds are segregated so that the funds collected are only used to pay out CPP benefits. They don't get to be used as a slush fund to pay for other benefits.

Personally I think CPP Survivor benefits should be extended to whomever you choose whether a dependant on not. Afterall, we all pay the same into CPP, why should only those with spouses get survivor benefits. An alternative would be to have a higher payout to those who don't name a survivor, and if a survivor is named, the benefit amount should depend upon the age of the survivor.

I didn't say you were unaware of the cost of childcare; I said you were unaware of the amount of the taxpayer subsidy. As long as the childcare cost is more than zero, there will always be a portion who worry about the cost, so in the subsidized childcare scheme it will open up some spots to some parents, but the rest will still have a cost issue. Does it make sense to you for the government to spend $7000 to subsidize a childcare spot, so that a mother can earn $7000 and pay at best $1000 in taxes? It doesn't make sense to me either. Your argument that the government should subsidize childcare so that the parent will work and pay taxes, only makes sense if the taxes collected outweigh the cost of the subsidy. Do you have any evidence to show that it will? In Quebec, the numbers I've seen show that the government only recoups $0.40 in generated taxes for every $1 it spends subsidizing. Doesn't make economic sense does it? The payment is made to you as guardian, not to your grandson. It is yours to spend, not his. You may choose to put it in his account, which is apparently the route you chose. You make an argument that it is "his money" and the choice is out of your hands, but this is simply not true. If you think there is a higher priority use for the money, you are free to use it that way. Apparently soliders or whatever else is not priority. Again, you show that your perception is that he government only contributes $100/month to childcare cost. Again, do you know the average childcare cost? Do you know how much is already paid by the taxpayer? It is interesting that you seem critical that parents are not spending it on childcare. Certainly you have stated that you don't intend to. So I ask again, is your biggest problem in the name of this plan, that you feel it is falsely labeled?

If I remember correctly, there was a time when you no longer participated in UI once you were over 65 and retired. Court challenges deemed that age discrimmination, and it is no longer possible to determine for insurance purposes when you "hang up the gloves for good". A voluntary system would address this issue. If CPP is not that good, it is because it is not intended to be the sole means of retirement income. That's what RRSPs are for, to supplement CPP. What you are referring to is "whole life insurance". In effect the amount you pay is both a premium and and extra "contribution". The premium covers your insurance and the extra contribution is like a savings plan. So what you get refunded or borrow aginst is what you've saved (with interest of course). Unfortunately UI isn't funded that way. There isn't any "extra" which is directed toward savings. So, unless your suggesting that UI contributions be increased in order to provide this, it is not part of the UI system. Well EI is supposed to be operated as a separate fund which generally pays out what it collects in premiums. There were years that EI was in the red and needed to get additional funding from general revenues. Then the government tightened the eligiblity rules and trimmed the payout. Since then the program is in the black and generating surpluses. So I agree with you in the sense, I think the surplus should be returned to the contributors, but only because I think they have overpaid. Not because they haven't collected. The "no-claims" bonus is an interesting idea. Some insurance plans include a discount on premiums if no claim is made for a number of years. A similar idea might apply here.

OK. See was that so hard? Let's call a truce. I think we know each other's positions.

huh? What do you mean? Your argument is that everything you said doesn't apply to pedophiles, because they aren't people? Hate to break it to you, as vile as the things they do, pedophiles are people and do qualify for all the same rights. Oh, and BTW, you avoided answering the simple question I put to you. What effin question? you keep askin and twisting everything -- Jesus are you a friggin lawyer LOL What do you want me to say? Do you want me to say that I think pedophiles should have 5 to 6 kids each? WHAT WHAT WHAT? **ck already. What I'd like is for you to answer the question. Here let me state it again: Simple question no? All it takes is a simple answer.

Well that would change the nature of the program into exactly what CPP is. Why would you have two programs to do the same thing? Consider EI somewhat like home insurance. If you don't claim for 40 years, do you think you have justification to go to the company and claim that since you didn't claim, the company owes you some of your premium back? In my view, the premiums should reflect your risk of being unemployed. So if you were in the Army, and the risk was low, the premium should reflect that.

huh? What do you mean? Your argument is that everything you said doesn't apply to pedophiles, because they aren't people? Hate to break it to you, as vile as the things they do, pedophiles are people and do qualify for all the same rights. Oh, and BTW, you avoided answering the simple question I put to you.

Many posts ago I said that was not okay for child molesters to have kids.... you wrote: My response: The thread is about women raising children in jail. Not about whether or not we should neuter child molesters... Our discussion led us to the point of discussing whether society should have any ability to limit who should be a parent. On one hand you say: On the other hand you say: So I'm confused, how exactly do you propose to prevent child molesters from having kids if not sterilize them? Or are you saying it is ok to sterilize them.

I've got a silly question, i've been employed in the military for some 26 years now, UI is regularly deducted of my pay check as with everyones,.however at a retirement seminar we were told that we can not collect UI as we would be recieving a pension. The only way we could effectivly collect UI is to get employed again and work for the required time...then and only then could we collect it,and only at the rate of our 2 and job. So for some it's not an insurance plan but just another tax. Army Guy, yes I agree. For some it is not even insurance just overhead. That is why I would have favoured making EI participation voluntary, so for those who neither need, or want it, they can save their contribution. If the system were voluntary, only the "high risk" individuals would participate, and by necessitity the contribution rate would go up. But so what, that's the nature of insurance.

So would you agree then your kids have some moral obligation to support you? I don' t doubt you value it, but let's at least have the honesty to call it what it is.

Yeah, I'm ok too with the way the world is too. I'm not ok with the social safety net which provides an enablement system for even irresponsible parents to have kids. So as you've said, you prefer abortion to sterilization. "Neutered"? You bet. Child molesters should be neutered because they do not deserve to be parents. But, you'd be ok to give them a shot at beiing a parent right?

No absolutely not. Personally I would have preferred a completely non-interventionist model. Let anyone who wants to be parents be parents and if the child gets screwed in the process, well tough luck for that child. If the parent doesn't have enough resources to feed the child, but because of their own stupidity continues to have more children, well tough titty for both parents and children. I'm fine with that kind of world. Are you? Funny, we think it is "humane" to spay an neuter animals (not requiring their consent) to avoid them from procreating, but for humans who are too stupid to exercise good judgement, we don't offer that service.