Liberal universal child care plan

[scribblet]

I think tax credits are the way to go.... preferable to subsidies because it gives the parent the choice...and the credit should be for the child and for the parents to do with as they see fit.

Exactly !!

[BubberMiley]

It was expensive, but I didn't expect other taxpayers to pay for my choice to have children.

Do you send your kids to private school and oppose government subsidies to private schools?

[punked]

Wait the first time the Liberals planned this in 93 they said it would cost 4 Billion now 20 years later it will only cost 500 million? These guys are making up their numbers there is no way this will cost 500 million no way in hell you can offer childcare for 500 million. That is around 100 dollars for every child in Canada so the Liberal plan is to offer a week of childcare and call it a day. Bunch of liars.

[Saipan]

Do you send your kids to private school and oppose government subsidies to private schools?

Try not to carry it too far. You may end up doing your own police work, firefighting and surgery.

[capricorn]

State-sponsored child care is education.

State sponsored child care is me paying for someone else's babysitting costs.

[BubberMiley]

State sponsored child care is me paying for someone else's babysitting costs.

So you're opposed to public education?

[capricorn]

So you're opposed to public education?

So you're lumping child care with public education?

[Saipan]

So you're opposed to public education?

Babysitting is not education. Raising children is parent's work.

[Scotty]

I know two couples. One couple both work, and their kids are in daycare. They made the decision to do that. The other couple decided to do without the extra money and consumer goods etc. and the husband has stayed home to look after their kids. The income of the first couple is about $150k per year. The income of the second couple is about $70k per year with only one working.

Btw, there is absolutely no question in my mind the second couple made the right choice. Their kids are happier and better behaved, and they see far, far more of them.

So the problem I have with a national daycare program is it takes money from the second family and uses it to help the first family. That doesn't strike me as particularly fair.

[August1991]

Paid childcare is paid childcare. The children are no more or less their parents depending on whether it's a private or a public institution.

There's a big difference, BM, and if you don't see it, then you are willfully blind.

IMHO, there are two issues here: First, to what extent should the State take care of our children and second, who should pay for the raising of children.

I think most people would agree that most parents make the best decisions concerning the education and raising of children. In an ideal world, parents would be free to keep children at home, home-school them, send them to private schools or State schools.

The problem is that some people are atrocious parents. They are incapable of raising or educating children. Someone must protect their children and that ultimately is one role of the State.

As to the question of who should pay for the raising/education of children, I think it's in everyone's interest to have well-educated, well-adjusted children. I can understand the logic of taxing some people and giving this money to certain parents with children. (To understand this idea, consider that immigration forms about half of Canada's population growth. The children of these families must be integrated into Canadian society.)

----

In short, I don't understand this idea of taking money from some taxpayers and using it to create State-controlled daycare places. In Quebec, this policy has created another government bureaucracy that is profoundly unjust, and doesn't solve more basic problems of children.

The number of spaces available is limited, there are long waiting lists and invariably mothers/fathers who understand the system well are typically those who benefit from it. These parents are usually those who least need State support.

----

Anyway, the Liberals have promised this before (like so many other promises) and have never followed through. This time, they are offering the underwhelming sum of $500 million. There are about 2.2 million toddlers in Canada. This policy announcement represents about $220 annually for each one - that's about 6 days of daycare for each one. More likely though, the money would mean some lucky toddlers would get day care while the others went without.

[ToadBrother]

I know two couples. One couple both work, and their kids are in daycare. They made the decision to do that. The other couple decided to do without the extra money and consumer goods etc. and the husband has stayed home to look after their kids. The income of the first couple is about $150k per year. The income of the second couple is about $70k per year with only one working.

Btw, there is absolutely no question in my mind the second couple made the right choice. Their kids are happier and better behaved, and they see far, far more of them.

So the problem I have with a national daycare program is it takes money from the second family and uses it to help the first family. That doesn't strike me as particularly fair.

Wonderful. Now we're being told to make electoral decisions based on anecdotal stories.

[jefferiah]

Wonderful. Now we're being told to make electoral decisions based on anecdotal stories.

It seems to me that what Scotty did here was he related a story and then stated that the aforementioned anecdote is a reason why he, personally, does not support state-funded daycare. What I do not see is where he told anyone what electoral decisions to make. Maybe I missed something. Perhaps you could point it out.

Edited April 1, 2011 by jefferiah

[cybercoma]

State sponsored child care is me paying for someone else's babysitting costs.

Yeah, so? Do you want them to work, make money and contribute to taxes, CPP and EI or do you want them at home on social assistance because they can't afford private childcare? Or do you expect extended family members (grand-parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc...) to work for free as babysitters? Even the CPC uses your money to pay for others' babysitting costs. Mothers get a cheque every month as part of the Conservative childcare plan. The only difference in policies is the Conservatives believe in transferring cash, while the Liberals believe in delivering services. At least with the latter, things geospatial coverage and quality can be ensured. The former, not so much.

[cybercoma]

I know two couples. One couple both work, and their kids are in daycare. They made the decision to do that. The other couple decided to do without the extra money and consumer goods etc. and the husband has stayed home to look after their kids. The income of the first couple is about $150k per year. The income of the second couple is about $70k per year with only one working.

Btw, there is absolutely no question in my mind the second couple made the right choice. Their kids are happier and better behaved, and they see far, far more of them.

So the problem I have with a national daycare program is it takes money from the second family and uses it to help the first family. That doesn't strike me as particularly fair.

How do you know that? If there was a national daycare program, perhaps they would have put their children in daycare and both partners would be working in the second family. They possibly made the decision to have one stay home because the cost of putting their child in daycare versus the additional income made it not worthwhile (taking into consideration tax brackets, etc).

In any case, so what? Is it not better to give people the support they need so that they may both work? The partner in the second family that took himself out of the workforce is shooting himself in the foot in the long-run. His insurance benefits are drying up. He will not have contributed as much to CPP or EI, so he's hurting his own retirement, amongst other things.

It's also great that they are a couple and have that support, but let's be honest here. Child daycare programs are primarily designed to benefit single mothers in particular. They have the greatest barriers to getting off welfare of all groups in Canada. This is just one way of empowering them and getting them the help they need for autonomous living.

[August1991]

Wonderful. Now we're being told to make electoral decisions based on anecdotal stories.

Scotty's anecdote is germane. Would you diagree with Issac Newton because he observed an "anecdotal story" of an apple falling?

How do you know that? If there was a national daycare program, perhaps they would have put their children in daycare and both partners would be working in the second family. They possibly made the decision to have one stay home because the cost of putting their child in daycare versus the additional income made it not worthwhile (taking into consideration tax brackets, etc).

So you are asking me to subsidize my neighbours so that rather than have an income of $75,000, they can enjoy a lifestyle of $150,000?

Why should I pay taxes so that other people have more vacations in Hawaii?

And more importantly, why should I do this when there are far more pressing uses for my tax money?

----

Simply put, if the government uses tax money to create daycare places, the places are limited and only people in the know get them. These State-financed daycare places amount to subsidies for richer double-income professional couples.

Meanwhile, children in difficult family situations receive haphazard or no care.

====

But look, the Liberal Party and the NDP care about people. They really do. Ignatieff says so.

Edited April 1, 2011 by August1991

[nicky10013]

Scotty's anecdote is germane. Would you diagree with Issac Newton because he observed an "anecdotal story" of an apple falling?

So you are asking me to subsidize my neighbours so that rather than have an income of $75,000, they can enjoy a lifestyle of $150,000?

Why should I pay taxes so that other people have more vacations in Hawaii?

And more importantly, why should I do this when there are far more pressing uses for my tax money?

----

Simply put, if the government uses tax money to create daycare places, the places are limited and only people in the know get them. These State-financed daycare places amount to subsidies for richer double-income professional couples.

Meanwhile, children in difficult family situations receive haphazard or no care.

Disputing the law of gravity is hardly the same thing as disputing a day care program. Disbanding one would destroy everything as we know it. And no, it isn't socialized daycare.

[capricorn]

Yeah, so? Do you want them to work, make money and contribute to taxes, CPP and EI or do you want them at home on social assistance because they can't afford private childcare? Or do you expect extended family members (grand-parents, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, etc...) to work for free as babysitters?

Don't get me wrong. If government revenue grew on trees, I'd approve buying every couple who agreed to have a child a new house, supply them with an SUV, give a guaranteed income to stay at home parents and I'd put a chicken in every pot. The Treasury's finances are finite.

About relatives providing care, come to think of it, I heard Olivia Chow say recently that family reunification should be stepped up because grandparents could babysit their grandchildren while the new immigrant couple goes to work. Funny how the left can work their arguments to fit their position.

Even the CPC uses your money to pay for others' babysitting costs. Mothers get a cheque every month as part of the Conservative childcare plan.

I gladly support that and I would even support doubling the payment. The beauty is it goes to the stay at home mother or father to care for their own kids or toward child care. I like that the parents manage that money as they see fit.

The only difference in policies is the Conservatives believe in transferring cash, while the Liberals believe in delivering services.

I can just imagine a Liberal bureaucracy expanding to "deliver" child care. Another gun registry boondoggle in the making.

At least with the latter, things geospatial coverage and quality can be ensured. The former, not so much.

I have no clue what you mean by "geospatial coverage.

In any case, generally the parent is best positioned to provide quality care for their children. There are neglectful parents just as there are neglectful day care workers. 100% perfection is unachievable by the mere fact that humans are involved. Here in Ontario there are plenty of programs available to provide for neglected children. Think school breakfasts, after school activities, child welfare services, etc.

[August1991]

In any case, so what? Is it not better to give people the support they need so that they may both work? The partner in the second family that took himself out of the workforce is shooting himself in the foot in the long-run. His insurance benefits are drying up. He will not have contributed as much to CPP or EI, so he's hurting his own retirement, amongst other things.

Cybercoma, this is the terrifying argument about State-control. To benefit, both parents must work in paid employment and pay taxes to the State.

Yet if a father/mother cares for their own children, is that not also "work"? What is "work"?

Cybercoma, you want the State to hire people to raise children so that mothers/fathers can work elsewhere and pay taxes so that State-hired unionized child care workers receive a decent salary.

IOW, you want to industrialize child-rearing. And in the 21st century, this is considered "progressive".

Edited April 1, 2011 by August1991

[Bonam]

How do you know that? If there was a national daycare program, perhaps they would have put their children in daycare and both partners would be working in the second family. They possibly made the decision to have one stay home because the cost of putting their child in daycare versus the additional income made it not worthwhile (taking into consideration tax brackets, etc).

In any case, so what? Is it not better to give people the support they need so that they may both work? The partner in the second family that took himself out of the workforce is shooting himself in the foot in the long-run. His insurance benefits are drying up. He will not have contributed as much to CPP or EI, so he's hurting his own retirement, amongst other things.

I literally felt my skin crawling in disgust as I read this post. Wtf happened to parents actually raising their own children? It is not all about the goddamn freaking workforce or "insurance benefits". Holy crap. What a brainwashed socialist-materialist attitude is this?

[M.Dancer]

Bring on the Baby Mills!

[cybercoma]

So you are asking me to subsidize my neighbours so that rather than have an income of $75,000, they can enjoy a lifestyle of $150,000?

That's not what I'm saying and if anyone wants to take the time to read my full post and see that daycare is a barrier to getting off welfare for single-mothers they can.

Simply put, if the government uses tax money to create daycare places, the places are limited and only people in the know get them. These State-financed daycare places amount to subsidies for richer double-income professional couples.

Meanwhile, children in difficult family situations receive haphazard or no care.

Mere speculation. We don't have national daycare, so you have no idea what it would be like. Futhermore, private day-care will have inconsistent levels of care contingent on the pool of customers available to them. More to the point, areas where income is low and people are on welfare, which is the most important group for these services may not have daycares because it might not make the most financial sense to start one of these businesses in those areas. In the interest of reducing barreirs to getting off welfare, a national daycare system is the best solution and it benefits everyone.

But look, the Liberal Party and the NDP care about people. They really do. Ignatieff says so.

I'm sure all the parties care about people. That's why people get involved in politics. They all just have different ideological approaches. If it's your party's ideology that the be as small as possible and rely as much as possible on the free-markets, then it makes sense to simply hand out cheques to everyone and let them rely on finding their own daycare. If your party's ideology is about delivering services themselves, then you're going to build a program where you can deliver services yourself and do what you can to ensure that they address the social inequalities you're trying to solve. Both approaches are about caring about people, just in different ways.

[scribblet]

If the aim is to help single mothers it doesn't have to be a full nationalized day care scheme, they can be helped by subsidies etc.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma, this is the terrifying argument about State-control. To benefit, both parents must work in paid employment and pay taxes to the State.

Yet if a father/mother cares for their own children, is that not also "work"? What is "work"?

Cybercoma, you want the State to hire people to raise children so that mothers/fathers can work elsewhere and pay taxes so that State-hired unionized child care workers receive a decent salary.

IOW, you want to industrialize child-rearing. And in the 21st century, this is considered "progressive".

No. What I want is for single mothers, particularly those on welfare, to have a better opportunity to get off social assistance, and for those that can only work part-time because they need the flexibility to care for their children, to be able to work full-time and contribute fully to their retirement benefits (CPP/QPP) and EI.

Child-rearing is already industrialized now. We have private day-care centres and the government gives people cheques to give to these daycare centres. What also happens is these parents sometimes stay home. When it comes to single mothers, it becomes exponentially more difficult for them to work fulltime and care for their child(ren). Handing them a cheque, a mere pittance mind you, does nothing to address the problem of them 1) getting off welfare and 2) contributing to programs such as CPP for their retirement. If they're not working or they're only working part-time, when it comes time for them to retire, they won't have the savings necessary to survive. The other problem with the current system is that it depends on free-market economics to deliver services that are designed to assist those in need. The Liberal program would be universal because you're not going to tell someone that makes $60,000/year that they must pay taxes into the system, but aren't allowed to use it; however, it addresses the problems of free-market day-cares not setting up shop in the poorest areas of the country where it doesn't make a whole lot of financial sense. Moreover, daycare as a means for helping single mothers get off welfare is not a function of the free-market. They don't receive enough money through social assistance, nor does the federal cheques cover full-time daycare. These people can't afford it and the current level of assistance is not enough to help.

Mind you, those that can afford to stay home with their children because one partner or the other makes enough money probably would continue to do so. I don't need to tell you how that's the preferential mode of rearing your children. Futhermore, those that have familial supports in place where grandparents or some other family member can watch the child will probably still use those modes as well (although there's the issue in both cases where people are actually working but not being paid for this "domestic" work and receive no CPP or other benefits tied to other types of work).

When you look at the issue this way, it becomes plain as day who the program is designed to help. Now if you want to say, forget the single mothers on welfare, I don't want to help them. That's your perogative, but the majority of people in Canada don't believe in giving no assistance to those in need. We already help people through social assistance programs and a national daycare program is being proposed as a way of getting one of the largest demographics on welfare off it.

[kimmy]

In any case, so what? Is it not better to give people the support they need so that they may both work? The partner in the second family that took himself out of the workforce is shooting himself in the foot in the long-run. His insurance benefits are drying up. He will not have contributed as much to CPP or EI, so he's hurting his own retirement, amongst other things.

Clearly they've made a choice that will cost them in a financial sense but which they consider to be worth the cost. The other couple has also made a choice, which will benefit them financially but have costs which won't show up on their bank statements or tax returns. I don't see why one choice should be financially subsidized while the other is not.

In other words, I hope any subsidized daycare program would have a needs-assessment component. I'm not opposed to the idea of subsidizing daycare for a couple who need two incomes to survive. I don't want to subsidize daycare for couples who want a second income so that they can make bigger mortgage payments or buy a second SUV or retire sooner.

I haven't read the specifics of the Liberal plan (are there specifics yet?) but I won't support it unless there's needs-assessment.

It's also great that they are a couple and have that support, but let's be honest here. Child daycare programs are primarily designed to benefit single mothers in particular. They have the greatest barriers to getting off welfare of all groups in Canada. This is just one way of empowering them and getting them the help they need for autonomous living.

If they can assure me that it really will work to the benefit of single moms rather than that couple that wants the bigger mortgage, then ok.

Even that, however, they better do it in a financially sensible manner. It better not turn into Gun Registry 2. If this turns into big grey buildings being constructed with Canada logos on the front, it's going to be a disaster. Again, I'll need to read the specifics. However, I think it's important to point out that it would be *easy* for this to be implemented in a way that it would end up cheaper giving single moms money to just stay home and look after the kids themselves.

-k

[cybercoma]

It's funny how everyone points to the Gun Registry, which was undoubtedly a mess, but it's not fair to infer that every government program will end up a disaster. Whereas I can't even tell you what problem was addressed by the Long-gun Registry, the daycare program actually addresses a problem.

You could put mothers through a needs test, but there's no point in having mothers that are on weflare go through an additional needs test after already having one. Personally, I would rather have the program available for anyone that wanted to use it. I'm sure the situatino of those looking for a double-income would happen, but I'm equally sure that most people who can afford and have the supports to raise their own kids would do so. There's no point scrapping an entire program that can do a world of good solving a pretty significant problem because a handful of people may or may not take advantage of it. Either way, the "abusers" would be paying into the system with their taxes just the same. So would they really be "abusing" the system?