Is the Harper government doing a good job?

[Bryan]

#4 Child care.

Why the Conservatives even think of this farce as a positive is beyond me. No new childcare spaces with billions spent.

As a parent of two, the Conservative Child Care plan was one of the main reasons I voted Conservative. Giving the allowance lets parents take control of their own child care situation. The Liberals plan would lock families into using government run daycare. No thanks.

Now why would you give money back to a family who could already afford to put their child into a organized sport while totally ignoring those who can't afford such a thing in the first place?

You only get the credit if you already had the money to sign up and buy the necessary equipment. It does nothing for the families who can't come up with the initial fees to join a league in the first place. These are the kids we need to get into after shool programs and organized sports.

Again, the credit makes it more affordable in the long run. You're less worried about the sacrifice it takes to put your kids in sport, because you know you're getting a rebate for it at the end of the year. How else would you do it? They can't send that kind of cash out to every sports organization in hopes that people will sign up at a discount. It has to be based on actual usage.

The GST cut is another one I find is all sizzle and no substance for the average middle to low income family. Only those with high amounts of disposable income to spend on GST applicable items are really benifiting from the reduction.

Less tax is less tax. Every little bit helps.

[Topaz]

If Ford wants investment money they should look for investors, not Canadian Taxpayers who will never see a cent return on investment. If the CAW wants to make ford morfe attractive for investors, they should negotiate lower wages.

While there may be a vested reason for Ontario to prop up the sick man, there's no good reason for Ottawa..

My advice to the workers of Essex, move to Cambridge or Aliston*

*where toyota and honda operate

Dancer, are you totally against unions of any kind or are you concerned about your tax dollars??? IF the answer about the government giving out tax dollars, then you better take a beter look were the Harper government is helping. This week, they are giving PIG FARMERS 50 MILLION, to out of business for 5 years, tobacco farmers are asking for the same, they want out of growing tobacco.

[daniel]

As a parent of two, the Conservative Child Care plan was one of the main reasons I don't vote Conservative. Even though they took away another child care option, replacing it with some pittance of cash isn't enough for me to quit my job to be a stay-at-home parent.

[capricorn]

As a parent of two, the Conservative Child Care plan was one of the main reasons I voted Conservative. Giving the allowance lets parents take control of their own child care situation.

What I like about the child care allowance for pre-schoolers is that it is paid to all families, whether or not there is a stay at home parent. Indirectly, it places value to the tough job of being a parent and all the struggles it brings.

[MontyBurns]

As a parent of two, the Conservative Child Care plan was one of the main reasons I don't vote Conservative. Even though they took away another child care option, replacing it with some pittance of cash isn't enough for me to quit my job to be a stay-at-home parent.

You want somebody else to pay your way in other words.

[scribblet]

You want somebody else to pay your way in other words.

Right. Don't know what I did wrong, but darn it, I worked full time my whole working life taking two mat. leaves - and didn't expect anyone to subsidize my choice to have children.

[Melanie_]

Not "Good for him". This is a perfect example of the rediculousness of the program. Someone who doesn't need daycare is recieving our tax dollars for no other reason than the fact they have a young kid. Then you have the high income earners who will likely be giving most if not all of the subsidy back to the Govt. at tax time and the boondoggle becomes even bigger. We just wasted more money processing and delivering the cheques, only to have it taxed back.

The people who benefit most from this program are single income two parent families with a net income of over $200,000/year - after taxes and reductions they will keep $1076 of the $1200. The ones who benefit least are two income families with a net income of $30,000/year - after taxes and reductions they will keep $199 of the $1200 (Ontario numbers). This is because it is taxed on the lower income - for a single income family the lower income is $0. Also, the lower income two earner family loses other benefits because their pretax income has increased by $1200/year - this may impact their eligibility for child care subsidy, Child Tax Credit, GST cheques, etc. The losses easily outstrip the benefit of the $100/month.

Go to the Caledon Institute of Public Policy and read the article, "The Incredible Shrinking $1200 Child Care Allowance: How to Fix It", by Ken Battle (April 2006). Its a PDF, and it isn't letting me make a link, but there is a great table in the article that shows how the money translates to real dollars for families at all income levels.

[jdobbin]

What I like about the child care allowance for pre-schoolers is that it is paid to all families, whether or not there is a stay at home parent. Indirectly, it places value to the tough job of being a parent and all the struggles it brings.

However, it didn't create any childcare spaces as even the minister admitted.

[Melanie_]

I found a quote from another article at the Caledon Institute that explains it well...

The Universal Child Care Benefit will be taxed in the hands of the lower-earning parent in the case

of couples and the single parent in the case of one-parent families. As a result, families of different type but

with the same income will end up with different after-tax benefits.

Take, for example, the case of families with net income of $50,000. In the case of two-earner

couples, the lower earner will pay federal and provincial/territorial income tax on the $1,200 Universal

Child Care Benefit. Using Ontario as an example, that family’s total federal and Ontario income tax

payable on the $1,200 would come to $265. The one-earner couple will pay only $213 on its UCCB; the

lower-earner parent still owes no income tax even with the extra $1,200, but the higher-earning spouse will

get a smaller married credit (whose value is linked to the lower earner’s income) and so will pay more

federal and Ontario income tax. The single parent adds $1,200 to her taxable income and so pays the most

federal and Ontario income tax – $374.

In summary, federal and Ontario income taxes payable on the $1,200 UCCB range from $213 for

one-earner couples to $265 for two-earner couples and $374 for single parents, resulting in after-tax

benefits of $987, $935 and $826, respectively.

Still can't make a link! Here's the article info, though....

More Than a Name Change: The Universal Child Care Benefit

by Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson

May 2006

[eyeball]

I think the Conservatives main accomplishment has been to fuel more cynicism regarding Parliament if not the very institution of government. It seems that engineering an appreciation for smaller governments must involve getting people to detest politicians and tune them out.

The so-called Accountability Act is a particularily sick joke in the face of Stephan Harper's near paranoid need for secrecy and information control - corruption in other words.

[daniel]

You want somebody else to pay your way in other words.

No, in other words, the Conservatives have taken options away.

And contrarily, it seems like people who supported the $100/month wanted somebody else to pay their way.

...

The so-called Accountability Act is a particularily sick joke in the face of Stephan Harper's near paranoid need for secrecy and information control - corruption in other words.

Yes, now imagine the context of the last election. While Harper was campaigning on accountability, his own members just a few months earlier had tried to use bribery to bring down another government.

Edited March 8, 2008 by daniel

[Bryan]

No, in other words, the Conservatives have taken options away.

No they didn't, they provided morer options. The Liberals only wanted to support registered, government regulated daycare institutions. Giving an allowance to all parents directly lets you choose to use that towards that day care spot if you choose, or use it for a private babysitter, or whatever other option you choose. People paying for a non-government childcare option got nothing under the Liberal plan, now they do.

The very last thing I was ever going to vote for was a party that was attempting to create a national daycare program. Even using tax dollars to create new daycare spaces is unacceptable, IMO. My first child went through regulated daycares, that was never going to happen again for my second child. As far as I'm concerned, government regulated day cares could cease to exist, and the country would be a better place for it.

[Melanie_]

No they didn't, they provided morer options. The Liberals only wanted to support registered, government regulated daycare institutions. Giving an allowance to all parents directly lets you choose to use that towards that day care spot if you choose, or use it for a private babysitter, or whatever other option you choose. People paying for a non-government childcare option got nothing under the Liberal plan, now they do.

The very last thing I was ever going to vote for was a party that was attempting to create a national daycare program. Even using tax dollars to create new daycare spaces is unacceptable, IMO. My first child went through regulated daycares, that was never going to happen again for my second child. As far as I'm concerned, government regulated day cares could cease to exist, and the country would be a better place for it.

It sounds like you had a really bad experience with licensed child care, which unfortunately can happen. It doesn't mean that your experience is common to everyone who uses licensed child care, though. There are just as many (probably more) horror stories about unlicensed care. Regulations are in place to ensure that health and safety standards are met, staff have the required training, and there are acceptable adult to child ratios. The conservative plan does nothing to ensure any of those things are in place.

My beef with the UCCB is that it is taxable income, and is a greater benefit to people with higher incomes than it is to those with lower incomes. If it were as "universal" as the name implies, it would deliver the same benefit to everyone equally.

Also, regardless of whether or not someone supports a national child care plan, the Conservatives did promise to create 25,000 new spaces per year. They've been in office two years now, and not a single space has been created. Obviously, a promise they haven't delivered on.

[daniel]

No they didn't, they provided morer options. ....Giving an allowance to all parents directly lets you choose to use that towards that day care spot if you choose, or use it for a private babysitter, or whatever other option you choose.....

$100/mo will help parents to stay at home only if they are already at home. $100/mo doesn't release the stay at home parent from looking for full time work outside the house. $100/mo isn't enough to fully pay for any kind of childcare for a parent working full time outside the house. $100/mo before tax doesn't even come close to subsidizing childcare which can be at $1000/mo. And it doesn't offer a viable option to quit work to stay at home.

The Conservatives only promised more childcare space at private institutions - which as we all know, never materialized.

And if you're lucky enough to find full time childcare at $100/mo it's probably a kiddy-mill.

So what other kind of option could you possibly be thinking of?

[Alta4ever]

$100/mo will help parents to stay at home only if they are already at home. $100/mo doesn't release the stay at home parent from looking for full time work outside the house. $100/mo isn't enough to fully pay for any kind of childcare for a parent working full time outside the house. $100/mo before tax doesn't even come close to subsidizing childcare which can be at $1000/mo. And it doesn't offer a viable option to quit work to stay at home.

The Conservatives only promised more childcare space at private institutions - which as we all know, never materialized.

And if you're lucky enough to find full time childcare at $100/mo it's probably a kiddy-mill.

So what other kind of option could you possibly be thinking of?

So are you saying that it is the governments responsibily to raise your children? Or is it yours, the 100/month was never about taking the burden of child rearing away from the family, but to subisidize it so it would be a little easier on those with children.

If you want to see what the alternative that was proposed by the libs, just look at Quebec. State run daycare that is run so well that by the time your child can get a space, they are already in school. Its a great system.

Blindly throwing money at problems does not solve them, and the government, left or right will not solve this one.

This problem will be solved by parents, free markets, and the support of communities, not big government.

Its time people come to terms with the fact that government cannot solve your problems.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Alta4ever

[Who's Doing What?]

Problem is the $100/mo prgram has cost as much or more than the proposed daycare program without creating any spaces.

Not to mention it is a complete boondoggle when you figure that some families pay almost the entire amount back at tax time. Most families will repay some. A total waste of time and money.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Who's Doing What?

[margrace]

No they didn't, they provided morer options. The Liberals only wanted to support registered, government regulated daycare institutions. Giving an allowance to all parents directly lets you choose to use that towards that day care spot if you choose, or use it for a private babysitter, or whatever other option you choose. People paying for a non-government childcare option got nothing under the Liberal plan, now they do.

The very last thing I was ever going to vote for was a party that was attempting to create a national daycare program. Even using tax dollars to create new daycare spaces is unacceptable, IMO. My first child went through regulated daycares, that was never going to happen again for my second child. As far as I'm concerned, government regulated day cares could cease to exist, and the country would be a better place for it.

So are you saying that privately run day cares are better? Or are you saying as Mr. Harris propsed that people should rely on family and neighbours to look after their children, or should mothers just stay home?

[Wild Bill]

I think the Conservatives main accomplishment has been to fuel more cynicism regarding Parliament if not the very institution of government. It seems that engineering an appreciation for smaller governments must involve getting people to detest politicians and tune them out.

The so-called Accountability Act is a particularily sick joke in the face of Stephan Harper's near paranoid need for secrecy and information control - corruption in other words.

Well, we all have our own limit to cynicism. Moi, I thought I had hit my limit after Adscam but I had to actually drill new holes to raise the bar higher after watching Dion keep slamming Tory motions and then refusing to vote them down.

[Alta4ever]

Problem is the $100/mo prgram has cost as much or more than the proposed daycare program without creating any spaces.

Not to mention it is a complete boondoggle when you figure that some families pay almost the entire amount back at tax time. Most families will repay some. A total waste of time and money.

Who's to say that 100/month costs more, look at the gun registry and how it ballooned out of control.

I would prefer poeple find their own solution rather than dump their problems on the governments.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston S. Churchill

[oreodontist]

It's difficult to judge them in a vacuum. They are a lot better than Chretien's reign....better than Mulroney. Un-fortunately the governments before them have been poor or 'so so' and it makes Harper's government seem good in comparison.

I'd give them a B plus on the economy. An 'A' on social policy (for not starting new bottomless pit programs) and a 'C' on foreign policy. Perhaps a 'B' on the environment for not running around screaming like Chicken Little but showing a more thought out approach. An A on National Unity by not precipitating any crisis with talk on 'the Constitution', etc.

[oreodontist]

Who's to say that 100/month costs more, look at the gun registry and how it ballooned out of control.

I would prefer poeple find their own solution rather than dump their problems on the governments.

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." Winston S. Churchill

Agree 100%.

[oreodontist]

$100/mo will help parents to stay at home only if they are already at home. $100/mo doesn't release the stay at home parent from looking for full time work outside the house. $100/mo isn't enough to fully pay for any kind of childcare for a parent working full time outside the house. $100/mo before tax doesn't even come close to subsidizing childcare which can be at $1000/mo. And it doesn't offer a viable option to quit work to stay at home.

The Conservatives only promised more childcare space at private institutions - which as we all know, never materialized.

And if you're lucky enough to find full time childcare at $100/mo it's probably a kiddy-mill.

So what other kind of option could you possibly be thinking of?

It wasn't meant to pay for daycare. It's meant to help. I don't want my tax dollars paying for your daycare costs. Millions of parents pay for day care. It always amazes me how some in society are either too stupid or too lazy to take care of themselves when millons of others manage just fine. The day cares in Canada must be empty because no one can afford them

[Melanie_]

It wasn't meant to pay for daycare. It's meant to help. I don't want my tax dollars paying for your daycare costs. Millions of parents pay for day care. It always amazes me how some in society are either too stupid or too lazy to take care of themselves when millons of others manage just fine. The day cares in Canada must be empty because no one can afford them

Many parents can afford daycare. Other parents might qualify for a subsidy based on a sliding scale, depending on their income. This isn't really about paying for daycare, its about creating a safe, regulated, licensed system. The daycares in Canada aren't empty, they have waiting lists two years long because there simply aren't enough spaces - many parents put their names on waiting lists when they find out they are pregnant, hoping for a spot when their maternity leave ends. Harper promised 125,000 new spaces over 5 years; there was supposed to be 25,000 new spaces per year, but not a single space has been created yet. They didn't have a hot clue what to do to create those spaces. Instead, they reneged on signed deals with the provinces, discarding a promising program that was designed to meet the different needs identified by each province. Now they really wish everyone would forget about the promise of spaces and just focus on the $100/month, but unfortunately its tax season and people are finding out just how much of that $1200 they actually get to keep. (See the numbers from Ontario I posted earlier in this thread.) No matter what you say about the rest of Harper's government, he has done a very poor job with child care.

[oreodontist]

Many parents can afford daycare. Other parents might qualify for a subsidy based on a sliding scale, depending on their income. This isn't really about paying for daycare, its about creating a safe, regulated, licensed system. The daycares in Canada aren't empty, they have waiting lists two years long because there simply aren't enough spaces - many parents put their names on waiting lists when they find out they are pregnant, hoping for a spot when their maternity leave ends. Harper promised 125,000 new spaces over 5 years; there was supposed to be 25,000 new spaces per year, but not a single space has been created yet. They didn't have a hot clue what to do to create those spaces. Instead, they reneged on signed deals with the provinces, discarding a promising program that was designed to meet the different needs identified by each province. Now they really wish everyone would forget about the promise of spaces and just focus on the $100/month, but unfortunately its tax season and people are finding out just how much of that $1200 they actually get to keep. (See the numbers from Ontario I posted earlier in this thread.) No matter what you say about the rest of Harper's government, he has done a very poor job with child care.

So people can't afford daycare but the demand overwhelms the system? Which is it? There's millions who are responsible parents and have raised children fine without Big Brother's nose in every aspect of their lives.

hint: take the initiative for yourself and stop looking to Big Brother to raise your kids.

[Melanie_]

Reread my post. I said people can afford it, they are willing to pay for it, but they want programs that are licensed and regulated. That includes child abuse registry checks, first aid certification, health and safety standards, and a basic understanding of child development. It isn't good enough to just park your kid in front of someone's TV for the day.

And as I have stated, the thread is about whether or not Harper is doing a good job, and I keep pointing out that he has dropped the ball on his promises regarding child care. It's not about whether or not you like what he promised, it's about whether or not he has kept that promise.