How much does child care cost you?

Oleg Bach · February 6, 2009

Why is it that we expect the nanny state to look after your kids, life is all about making choices. We down sized our home to reduce payments so that my wif could stay at home with the kids.
You can't have you cake and eat it too.

Having children is about making sacrifices.

What two western people toss in the garbage as far as food is enough too feed two children. Those that say "we can't afford children as of yet" are quite foolish - children are not a public commodity, nor are they a luxury item. The sacrafice of time is what is really the root of having children - doing your duty for 20 years then kindly over seeing them till you are dead..yes that is a sacrafice - but the only worldy sacrafice worth while. The nation should be lobbying the government so as one person could support a family - the finacial freeing of woman has been a hoax - now the banks have two people they can suck from.

daniel · February 6, 2009

.....if people can't afford children, why do they have them?...There are too many people with children who simply shouldn't have them.

If everybody thought like that, there would be nobody left on earth.

People have children because that is one of the primary drives of all living organisms. People have kids because people have always had kids, and people will continue to have kids. For much of history, having kids was essential to maintaining not only the family's economic situation, but the entire society's.

Only from the 2nd half of the twentieth century did the standard of living in western countries really improved - health care, education, work environment, relative peace.

From beginning of human history right to the end of WWII, alot of humanity just lived through constant wars, diseases, famine, etc. One wonders how people continue to have children under those circumstances but they do. And guess what, children were taken care of by extended families and others in their community. That's what daycare is.

BigAl · February 6, 2009

If everybody thought like that, there would be nobody left on earth.

There are days, Daniel, when I fail to see how that would be a bad thing...

Oleg Bach · February 6, 2009

There are days, Daniel, when I fail to see how that would be a bad thing...

You are welcome to leave - now shoooo - off the planet - do your duty.

Alta4ever · February 6, 2009

There are days, Daniel, when I fail to see how that would be a bad thing...

Then why do you continue with your life.

Melanie_ · February 6, 2009

I think the CBC is interested in what anyone pays for child care. That might mean licensed care, or family child care homes, or the babysitter down the street. Anyone who pays someone else to look after their kid during the day, while they are at school or at work, is paying for child care.

Bryan · February 6, 2009

You can't really take $ 100.00 a month off that. Since it's taxable, and both you and your wife are working, depending on your income, I'll bet you see a fraction of that.

Daycare is deductible as it is, and the CPC also added several additional new credits for child related expenses, as well as the $2000 per child under 18 credit. When it's all added up, I'm seeing quite a bit MORE than just the $1200/yr.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Bryan

Renegade · February 6, 2009

People have children because that is one of the primary drives of all living organisms. People have kids because people have always had kids, and people will continue to have kids.

We expect people to control their primary drives and be responsible for the outcomes. Living organism have a sexual drive, however we do not excuse sexual molestation or rape simply because those drives are innate. The same should be true for the urge to procreate. If people want to procreate they need to do it in the context of being responsible for its impact to others, namely their kids. If they can't afford to bring up thier kids, they should control their primary drive to have them. Modern technology has made it possible so that no one needs to have kids if they so choose.

For much of history, having kids was essential to maintaining not only the family's economic situation, but the entire society's.

If at one time having kids was an economic benefit for the parents, (such as having workers for a farm) such a case cannot be made today. For the most part they are an economic burden. When they cease to be a burden, such as when they reach adulthood, it generally has been an economic beneift to themselves rather than their parents. Much of what was requred for labour can be automated, or offloaded to more densely populated areas. Beyond a certain point, a population's size does not increase its wealth. Look at some of the most densely populated areas on the planet and ask yourself it they are the wealthiest.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Renegade

Oleg Bach · February 6, 2009

As we get more utlitarian and mechanical as a collective - KIDs are the only safety net you have when you are old - and infirm...stangers will not take care of you - You will just be some piece of diapered meat that is slapped about when no one is looking - kids are insurance and advocates. Those that do not have children or have trained their kids to be cold and caculating will pay a price in the end...sufferning and abuse.

Molly · February 6, 2009

So people who can't afford to raise kids shouldn't give birth to them. We can all agree.

But oops, they did it anyway! Now what? Should we make sure that those folks who couldn't afford kids, and the kids they had, all live the rest of their lives in abject poverty with no hope of ever improving on the situation?

Vent all you want, but then let's get real, and figure out what's more costly: lots of people with no way to support themselves and their families, and no means to prepare their families to be self-supporting, either... or a boost that lets most of them get their feet on the ground, and able to pay for both their own, and some of the next ones facing the same challenges.

Daycare assistance only accrues to those who maximize employment opportunities. Who is more deserving of the help?

Oleg Bach · February 6, 2009

Sometimes I wonder if the pro abortionists are motivated by the sublime idea that people yet unborn should be blocked from landing on earth because good people might arrive and take over - and there instituted corruption that they live on and by may be effected? Put in plain words - evil people don't want to take the chance of angels landing - so they kill them all just to maintain a hellish earth - that should be a heaven. :rolleyes:

Brunopolis · February 6, 2009

I hope most people are aware that children raised poorly by poor parents don´t just ¨vanish¨. They grow up and live in your very community making your life suck.

As a community we should help parents raise their children properly. Having many of our next generation believe that welfare, homelessness, etc is normal will lead to a new generation doing exactly that with their children.

Letting people fall and go to hell because they made mistakes(such as having a child that they are unable to support ) leads to serious income inequality(we have safety nets for this very reason).

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf

In many studies(like the one mentioned above) income inequality is highly correlated with crime. Letting our youth spiral downwards into crime due to poor/non-existent parenting will lead to a society you would probably dislike.

Man, why do so many people think that we live in some sort of vacuum where the poor/lazy/etc somehow disappear and never bother us again. Maybe they have to live a few years in a third world nation to see what happens in a society like that?

guyser · February 6, 2009

I hope most people are aware that children raised poorly by poor parents don´t just ¨vanish¨.

Most dont, but as you can see in this thread, some internet redneck commandos want that. Oh well, stupid is as stupid does.

As a community we should help parents raise their children properly.

And this is where it breaks down. MYOB.....catchphrase of the millenium. It is not that I disagree, but how and where do we do so?

If the parents parents sucked, then the circle keeps on truckin' .

Man, why do so many people think that we live in some sort of vacuum where the poor/lazy/etc somehow disappear and never bother us again.

Because they are tough guys on the 'net, dont think and want to know why they should have to pay for someone else's kid all the while the rest of the people of this country pay towards benefits for the complainers kids.

:blink:

Renegade · February 6, 2009

But oops, they did it anyway! Now what?

The parents should be penalized. If a parent subjected a child to neglect, the child woudl be taken away and the parent penalized. This situation is no different. What is missing is a set of rules on who should be allowed to assume the responsiblity of parenthood and then enforcing those rules. We license driving of cars to ensure only qualifed people drive, shouldn't we limit parenting to permit only qualified people parent?

Should we make sure that those folks who couldn't afford kids, and the kids they had, all live the rest of their lives in abject poverty with no hope of ever improving on the situation?

"We" don't make sure, "they" made sure by their choice. However your point is valid. Should the children be penalized for the poor choice of their parents? IMV, no, however since the parents have demonstrated irresponsibility they are not qualifed to be parents and the kids should be removed from their custody and placed with parents who are responsible. That way the kids are not penalized, only the parents.

Renegade · February 6, 2009

I hope most people are aware that children raised poorly by poor parents don´t just ¨vanish¨. They grow up and live in your very community making your life suck.

Exactly! So perhaps instead we should not let parents who do a poor job raise kids, both for the kids sakes and our own.

guyser · February 6, 2009

The parents should be penalized. If a parent subjected a child to neglect, the child woudl be taken away and the parent penalized. This situation is no different.

The kid is how old now...mere days ? So...this situation is different.

What is missing is a set of rules on who should be allowed to assume the responsiblity of parenthood and then enforcing those rules.

But at what criteria?

Deaf, blind , Downs Syndrome etc no go as parents ? Just how will that line be set, and how does one get around it?

Hell, I can show lots of parents who sucked , but they had tons of money and threw it at whatever problem junior got into. Junior et al now is a leach(s) on society.

I can show you lots of parents who were lower class to poor who made it big in this world.

Should the children be penalized for the poor choice of their parents? IMV, no, however since the parents have demonstrated irresponsibility they are not qualifed to be parents and the kids should be removed from their custody and placed with parents who are responsible. That way the kids are not penalized, only the parents.

Contradiction, you are penalizing the children and the parents.

daniel · February 6, 2009

Exactly! So perhaps instead we should not let parents who do a poor job raise kids, both for the kids sakes and our own.

Sounds like a proposal for nanny-state from a critic of daycare complaining about the nanny-state. Less government inevitably leads to more government.

Renegade · February 6, 2009

The kid is how old now...mere days ? So...this situation is different.

Huh? What does the age of the child have to do with it? If a parent introduces a child to an environment where the child is determentially impacted the parent may be negligent, regardless of the age of the child.

But at what criteria?
Deaf, blind , Downs Syndrome etc no go as parents ? Just how will that line be set, and how does one get around it?

Well the criteria is up for discussion. First you have to accept that we should as a society indeed set criteria. I'm sure when cars were first invented and the idea of licensing drivers came up, someone asked by what criteria, and whether deaf people should have licenses, and if one handed people should? All good questions, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't limit who can drive or who can parent.

Hell, I can show lots of parents who sucked , but they had tons of money and threw it at whatever problem junior got into. Junior et al now is a leach(s) on society.

Me too. I certainly don't think that money is the only criteria of a good parent. There are many, however being able to afford a child is probably a miminimal one, just like being able to see is a minimal criteria to being granted a driver's license.

I can show you lots of parents who were lower class to poor who made it big in this world.

So what. I can show you many people who drove drunk but didn't crash into anything either. If you accept a premise that growing up poor is a substantial risk to the child and society then you accept that even though some people may be thrive inspite of the poverty, that society should mitigate the risk by limiting who can be parents. If you don't accept the premise to begin with, then why bother to address poverty at all?

Contradiction, you are penalizing the children and the parents.

How so? Leaving kids with irresponsible parents is penalizing them. Removing them from the situation is not and on balance is probably better for them.

Renegade · February 6, 2009

Sounds like a proposal for nanny-state from a critic of daycare complaining about the nanny-state. Less government inevitably leads to more government.

No what I'm looking for is consistency. I'm fine to have no government interference, but since we have government interference today, it shouldn't be a half-measure where it only impacts one side of the equation.

I'm fine for anyone to have as many babies as they choose, and bring them up under whatever conditions they choose as long as they are fine with state non-intervention, however when people expect state intervention in daycare and welfare and other support systems, they shoudl also expect that the state intervene in making sure they make responsible choices especially when those choices impact the state.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Renegade

guyser · February 6, 2009

Huh? What does the age of the child have to do with it? If a parent introduces a child to an environment where the child is determentially impacted the parent may be negligent, regardless of the age of the child.

Perhaps some confusion . You said that this situation is no different, meaning the lady at 60 having a baby a couple of days ago, so how could anyone know there is neglect of any kind?

Well the criteria is up for discussion. First you have to accept that we should as a society indeed set criteria.

I dont accept that we should.

If 'parents' are found to be outside the criteria , or in fact fail to be better than the lowest set critieria, then you advocate the state step in and remove the child. Ok, then 9 months goes by and they have another......and another one when that ones gone.

The idea then moves to a provincial sterilization board.

Not my idea and I cant support that.

I'm sure when cars were first invented and the idea of licensing drivers came up, someone asked by what criteria, and whether deaf people should have licenses, and if one handed people should? All good questions, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't limit who can drive or who can parent.

Driving a car preceeded licences by a long shot. (in Iowa in 1959 you didnt need one to drive) Taxation was a more compelling reason for the govt to introduce licences.

Me too. I certainly don't think that money is the only criteria of a good parent.

And they (rich) will never hear from nor be part of the 'system'.

How so? Leaving kids with irresponsible parents is penalizing them. Removing them from the situation is not and on balance is probably better for them.

In most cases I would think not.

A child who has irresponsible parents may suffer no harm. Criminal irresponsibility is on the books and can be used.The govt does it all the time.

A child will be hurt far more being moved than if he stays at home, where he/she belongs.

guyser · February 6, 2009

edit-double shot

Edited February 6, 2009 by guyser

Renegade · February 7, 2009

Perhaps some confusion . You said that this situation is no different, meaning the lady at 60 having a baby a couple of days ago, so how could anyone know there is neglect of any kind?

I am indeed confused. I have not brought up a 60 year old having a baby nor am I referring to it. My point is that if a parent birngs a child into the world and that situation is determental for the child, that parent is indeed acting irresponsibly just as a parent who neglects a child would (for example by leaving a baby in a hot locked car). Maybe you can clarify your comments because I dont' understand what you mean.

I dont accept that we should.

Then why even bring up criteria since it is irrelvenat to you what the criteria is? We first need to estabilsh that there shoudl be one.

If 'parents' are found to be outside the criteria , or in fact fail to be better than the lowest set critieria, then you advocate the state step in and remove the child. Ok, then 9 months goes by and they have another......and another one when that ones gone.

I don't only advocate that the child be removed, I advocate that the parents penalized. Just as with repeated transgressions in society, penalties should get more severe with repeated offences. IMV the penalties should extend as far as sterilization for those not responsible enough to control themselves.

The idea then moves to a provincial sterilization board.
Not my idea and I cant support that.

Ok you don't and I do. I have explained why I do. You have not provided any explaination why not or how you propose that irresponsible parenting should be limited.

Driving a car preceeded licences by a long shot. (in Iowa in 1959 you didnt need one to drive) Taxation was a more compelling reason for the govt to introduce licences.

Sure, until some point society decided that someone could get killed by an 8-year old driving. If as you say taxation was the reason, then provide a cite and explain why it doesn't maximize revenue by licencing anyone who wants a license despite whether they are qualified or not.

And they (rich) will never hear from nor be part of the 'system'.

Please explain why not. Are the rich exempted form all other licensing systems and if so does that invalidate all licencing systems?

A child who has irresponsible parents may suffer no harm. Criminal irresponsibility is on the books and can be used.The govt does it all the time.
A child will be hurt far more being moved than if he stays at home, where he/she belongs.

They "may" or "may not" suffer harm. If data shows that bad parenting is a strong causitive factor to negative behaviour of kids (eg crime) then that is sufficient justification. It doesn't have to be the case that every kids with bad parents will turn out bad for society to step in.

Molly · February 7, 2009

It's also a pretty wild stretch to say that one doubtful decision made in youth= permanent irresponsibility, and poor parenting.

I doubt any of us noble taxpayers would manage to pass that test.

And if parenthood is also to be subjected a means test, I wonder how many of us would pass that test, either, while still young enough to have children. Not many, I suspect.

In 'the good old days', the grandparents of the world paid their fealty and support to the following one largely through direct labour. Now we do it in cash. It is a minor adjustment to the times.

Renegade · February 7, 2009

It's also a pretty wild stretch to say that one doubtful decision made in youth= permanent irresponsibility, and poor parenting.

I don't know who you are inferring is saying that. It isn't me. However society shoud penalize doubtful decisions even made in youth, especially if the person makeing that "doubtful decision" will leave the rest of society to pick up the pieces from that doubtful decision.

I doubt any of us noble taxpayers would manage to pass that test.

If doesn't matter if any individual taxpayers pass or don't pass so long as the ones impacted are themselves. Once they impact others, they should expect their decisions to be scrutinized and judged.

And if parenthood is also to be subjected a means test, I wonder how many of us would pass that test, either, while still young enough to have children. Not many, I suspect.

Perhaps not, and perhaps those who didnt have the means shouldn't have had them as you have agreed "people who can't afford to raise kids shouldn't give birth to them. We can all agree."

Oleg Bach · February 7, 2009

So you can afford kids? So you take the high and mighty privledge that YOU of means can propogate your family line and all other clans that YOU consider poor in everyway should simply leave the planet ---- do I smell entitlment to life - and death to all others ---now where is my sword? :lol: