Liberal universal child care plan

[blueblood]

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.

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

Yes all these promises are hunky dory, but I believe it leads people down the road of entitlement. In canada we went down that road in the 60s and 70s and it all came to a head in the 1990s. Canadians have an entitled view of healthcare even though its current form is unsustainable. I don't think we can afford daycare. What's worse is once those programs are in place, it is political suicide to consider cutting them.

The usa is having a massive debate about entitlement spending. It is expensive, and in the long run doesn't drastically improve a person's living situation. These are the type of spending where there is no return on taxpayers investment. At the end of the day people have to realize that there are things they can afford and things they can't, whether that comes to houses or children.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes all these promises are hunky dory, but I believe it leads people down the road of entitlement. In canada we went down that road in the 60s and 70s and it all came to a head in the 1990s. Canadians have an entitled view of healthcare even though its current form is unsustainable. I don't think we can afford daycare. What's worse is once those programs are in place, it is political suicide to consider cutting them.

The usa is having a massive debate about entitlement spending. It is expensive, and in the long run doesn't drastically improve a person's living situation. These are the type of spending where there is no return on taxpayers investment. At the end of the day people have to realize that there are things they can afford and things they can't, whether that comes to houses or children.

The cold hard reality here is child poverty. Single moms are not the only ones that need this, but there are a lot of families with two working parents busting their behinds just to make ends meet. What is the shape of social engineering, this is it. Guess what....it needs doing. The monetary cost needs to be formulated to be sure, but it is another of the things we need to do. Such as reforming the welfare state altogether. We need to have the cradle to grave benefit debate. The entire concept of entitlement must have a front seat by the big stage. The nation needs to wake up! Its not just healthcare and education that need attention but instead the entire designed system we have put in place.

[BubberMiley]

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.

Do you think there should be a needs assessment component to public schooling?

[M.Dancer]

Do you think there should be a needs assessment component to public schooling?

That isn't a bad idea.

[M.Dancer]

State-sponsored child care is education. That's why the people who provide it are licensed Early Childhood Educators.

...are you saying the people are licensed? Are you quite sure about that?

At least not in Ontario...no license required to be an ECE.

Have you found the licence yet?

[cybercoma]

The cold hard reality here is child poverty. Single moms are not the only ones that need this, but there are a lot of families with two working parents busting their behinds just to make ends meet.

Thank you for underlining this. You're absolutely correct.

[capricorn]

Yes all these promises are hunky dory, but I believe it leads people down the road of entitlement. In canada we went down that road in the 60s and 70s and it all came to a head in the 1990s.

You make good points blueblood.

In that period, women joined the workforce in growing numbers and personal taxation skyrocketed. Consumerism certainly added to the mix. Taxes had to be raised substantially to fund the government's out of control spending on social programs and growing bureaucracy. Saddled with a heavy tax burden and personal debt, working couples have to stay in the workforce just to keep afloat.

As a result, choice as to whether one parent stays home to care for kids has all but disappeared. Seems to me lowering taxes is key but to do that governments have to stop expanding social programs to address every conceivable malaise felt by the population.

[Muddy]

Single parenting is hardship yet no reason for anyone else to pay for my family. And that is the point.

Likewise with sport or hobbies. Why should I pay for someone's golf or hockey??

You should be very proud of yourself. It takes a lot of courage to face responsibilities that are and can be so overwhelming. Our children will be responsible citizens if they have a parent as a template like you. Bloody good show!

[guyser]

. Our children will be responsible citizens if they have a parent as a template like you. Bloody good show!

Stick around and read , you will change your opinion quite fast.

[Bryan]

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.

Same here. If you are going to have the government deliver support for child care, the UCCB is by far the best and most fair option. Everyone with kids gets the same benefit, the parent still gets to make the decision on what kind of care the child gets, and the government can actually keep track of the real cost of the program.

A national daycare program is one of the most terrifying things I can imagine a government doing in Canada.

[Muddy]

Stick around and read , you will change your opinion quite fast.

Why would I change my opinion? Do you not agree that we parents lead by example? If we are responsible ,law abiding and honest individuals do you not believe that will influence our children?

[Keepitsimple]

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.

-k

You make a good point.....and that leads back to why it should be funded my Municipalities and Provinces - and again, education delivery falls under Provincial juristiction. Municipalities are "closest" to the people who need the services. Provinces and cities should work together (as they do now) to determine needs. All the Liberal plan does is transfer money to the Provinces to do exactly that....but there is only one taxpayer - so either it gets taken out of federal tax or it gets taken out of Provincial tax. When the Feds start to intrude on Provincial juristictions, each party gets to blame the other for a lack of funding and nothing gets done. Voters and cities should be able to put pressure where it belongs - on the provinces. One need only look at Healthcare to see what confusion can be sown.....the Feds only contribute 15% towards Healthcare and really, it's only to "ensure" that the provinces stick to the Canada Health Act. It's the Provinces that deliver Healthcare....yet people think the Feds can solve Heathcare "for a generation". Message to Feds - stay out of the Provinces' juristictions.

[cybercoma]

Same here. If you are going to have the government deliver support for child care, the UCCB is by far the best and most fair option. Everyone with kids gets the same benefit, the parent still gets to make the decision on what kind of care the child gets, and the government can actually keep track of the real cost of the program.

This is not true at all. Yes, everyone with kids gets the benefit, but it's not enough to pay for childcare. Show me where a kid can go to daycare for $100/month. The parents also don't necessarily have access to daycares, depending on where they are. Moreover, the cost of the federal program can be in check, sure; however, giving more money to the consumer to buy daycare just increases the cost of daycare. A federal program would ensure that there are daycare spaces in areas that don't have them or where there's high poverty, so that parents can have their children looked after while they try to find work or do what they can to make a living. It also ensures that affordable spaces are available, rather than just subsidizing every consumer, effectively pushing the price of daycare up by increasing demand without addressing the supply. Where $100 doesn't even cover the cost of daycare as it is, the additional money gets eaten up by the price of daycare going up. A federal program is the only thing that will adequately address this very real barrier to getting off social assistance, both during working age and the increased payouts of GIS in retirement because of lower CPP contributions (where parents cannot work to pay in).

[BubberMiley]

Have you found the licence yet?

I only know Manitoba. Here you go.

[BubberMiley]

That isn't a bad idea.

No. It's a terrible idea, and representative of the regressive agenda of many CPC supporters.

[M.Dancer]

I only know Manitoba. Here you go.

Nothing about people working there needing to be licensed.

[M.Dancer]

No. It's a terrible idea, and representative of the regressive agenda of many CPC supporters.

What is exactly wrong with the very wealthy having to pay for education?

[BC_chick]

There was an article I read recently which founds that parents overstated the joys of parenthood in order to self-justify the cost of having children these days. They stated the changing role children have in people's lives from generations ago where children actually worked in the parents' trade and cared for the parents in their old age. The cost of living also wasn't so high and it was a lot easier for a family to afford to live on single-income salary. Lest we forget, the average salary in Canada is not $75,000, it's around $42K last time I checked. How anyone can raise a family on that is beyond me. Especially given that the cost of raising a child is around $150,000 (though I can't remember if that included higher education or not).

Unless you're making a substantial salary, you're paying half your month's net wages to pay for daycare. This ratio increases with the number of children a family has where it doesn't even make sense for a parent to work if there is more than one child in the family.

Times have changed and the end result is that people don't have more than one child because it doesn't make sense. I know that I waited until I was older and financially secure, yet even with a dual-income of over $120,000 we don't know what to do about the daycare situation. And even though we want more children, we have serious reservations because of the all that is involved financially.

My personal opinion on the subject is that we need the future generation. We need to make this possible for middle-class families like myself to have more than one child.

I also find it quite ironic that the same people who don't want "to pay for raising someone else's child" are more or less the same people who are often critical of immigration policies. We have to get our future generation from somewhere. If we don't create an environment for current Canadian families, we have to bring them in from somewhere else or else we will fall apart econmically within the next 50 years.

I watched a show about how France changed some of its social policies and geared it toward working families and now birthrates amongst native French families has increased. Yes, native French families, so it's not the immigrant birthrates that are skewing the numbers. We need to follow suit in my opinion.

Of course, this is not to say Iggy's the guy that will come through, but I'm addressing the sentiment I've seen thrown around on this thread about why would someone want to pay for someone else's children.

The answer is - because your own economic future ALSO depends on it.

Edited April 1, 2011 by BC_chick

[BubberMiley]

Nothing about people working there needing to be licensed.

"ECE IIs and ECE IIIs need to have approved post-secondary training in early childhood education. Generally an ECE II has an approved degree or diploma program in early childhood education. An ECE III has an approved degree or diploma plus an approved Continuing Education certificate."

[BubberMiley]

What is exactly wrong with the very wealthy having to pay for education?

They do. Through taxation.

[GWiz]

"ECE IIs and ECE IIIs need to have approved post-secondary training in early childhood education. Generally an ECE II has an approved degree or diploma program in early childhood education. An ECE III has an approved degree or diploma plus an approved Continuing Education certificate."

And all that to get some of the LOWEST paying, and most hectic, jobs available anywhere in the civilized world...

[M.Dancer]

"ECE IIs and ECE IIIs need to have approved post-secondary training in early childhood education. Generally an ECE II has an approved degree or diploma program in early childhood education. An ECE III has an approved degree or diploma plus an approved Continuing Education certificate."

Yes....so no licence is required, merely a community college course in advanced baby sitting.

[cybercoma]

What is exactly wrong with the very wealthy having to pay for education?

They already do. What's the point of a highly invasive needs test when progressive taxation already takes care of it?

[BubberMiley]

Yes....so no licence is required, merely a community college course in advanced baby sitting.

THe ECE diploma is a license to practice child care. In BC, the ECE licence must be renewed every year. Other provinces don't require renewal of the license.

Your interpretation of what they do as "advanced babysitting" demonstrates you simply have no respect for the field of child care. There's no arguing with that.

[M.Dancer]

THe ECE diploma is a license to practice child care.

No, it is a diploma.

In BC, the ECE licence must be renewed every year

I thought you said you could only find manitoba....which isn't a license either...feel free to show where individuals are licenced