Tories to increase immigration levels for election year

[Hal 9000]

OK, in your opinion, should a woman be required to work or go to school to get free daycare? If so, how many hours per week?

You must have missed this WCR.

[Hal 9000]

Have you at all listened to Mulcairs proposal? He's talking about 1 million daycare positions across the country which will cost 15/day. Of course the taxpayer will have to come to the party with topping up the actual cost. He has worked out that the women returned to the workforce will return 1.75 for each taxpayer dollar. Now, I don't suggest I can confirm it will work exactly as projected, but the basics make sense. I.m sure he has access to actuarial s who can make the calculations. What if they are wrong and we only get dollar for dollar? Will you still be freaked out? Don't confuse yourself with a bunch of loaded questions.

So, maybe you can do the math on how much that comes to per day, per year for the taxpayer....and how much Mulcair expects back.

[On Guard for Thee]

So, maybe you can do the math on how much that comes to per day, per year for the taxpayer....and how much Mulcair expects back.

Do you have trouble reading?

[WestCoastRunner]

If a single parent or a partner of a married couple wants to return to school for an education or to enter an employment contract whether it is an entry level agreement or otherwise, they should have access to universal daycare. The benefits will be realized many many years down the road. We just need for our leaders to have the vision to realize this.

[Hal 9000]

If a single parent or a partner of a married couple wants to return to school for an education or to enter an employment contract whether it is an entry level agreement or otherwise, they should have access to universal daycare. The benefits will be realized many many years down the road. We just need for our leaders to have the vision to realize this.

First off, this isn't an answer to the question, i suppose you won't answer it though. Secondly, now we're opening this up for anybody to go to work or school - not just low income? Remember, there are only 1,000,000 spots.

Sorry!

Edited November 17, 2014 by Hal 9000

[On Guard for Thee]

So, maybe you can do the math on how much that comes to per day, per year for the taxpayer....and how much Mulcair expects back.

15 bucks a day, one and three quarter dollars per tax dollar spent return on investment.

Edited November 17, 2014 by On Guard for Thee

[Hal 9000]

15 bucks a day, one and three quarter dollars per tax dollar spent return on investment.

So, the short answer is no, you haven't done the math!

[On Guard for Thee]

So, the short answer is no, you haven't done the math!

No I didn't do the math. Tom Mulcair did. Maybe pay a little more attention to other than what you post. Your posts may make more sense that way.

[Hal 9000]

I know the economics of it. And, it's a dog. If you people just want to throw money at free day care - fair enough, but stop pretending...or believing others that it is a money maker (or saver), it's just not!

As I said earlier, you'd get better results raising minimum wage 1 dollar and supplementing a per child rate and giving the low income people no income tax. They earn money, they spend money, they pay no income tax, we have a reduction in welfare claims and we don't get stung with the tax burden. That's a win/win.

[On Guard for Thee]

I know the economics of it. And, it's a dog. If you people just want to throw money at free day care - fair enough, but stop pretending...or believing others that it is a money maker (or saver), it's just not!

As I said earlier, you'd get better results raising minimum wage 1 dollar and supplementing a per child rate and giving the low income people no income tax. They earn money, they spend money, they pay no income tax, we have a reduction in welfare claims and we don't get stung with the tax burden. That's a win/win.

What hell does raising minimum wage to for someone who can't work because they have to stay home with their child? I can't somehow believe you can't understand this.

[Hal 9000]

What hell does raising minimum wage to for someone who can't work because they have to stay home with their child? I can't somehow believe you can't understand this.

The same way it's always been done.

If a person won't go to work for 13/14$ per hour and possible tips and zero taxes, what makes you think they'll go to work for 10$p/h -15$ daycare (and taxes) when they're getting money for being stay at home moms?

[Hal 9000]

Here's some fact's;

You're not gonna bring the lower class up to to the middle class by taxing the middle class, you can only bring the middle class down. Secondly, you're not gonna get people off welfare if minimum wage isn't much better. Third, the economy will better off investing with all the lower income working people than simply hoping a few will get off welfare.

[jacee]

I think Hal's problem is he suddenly realized

that getting people off welfare

means putting women to work

and kids in child care.

Making a better life for a family is a man's job.

Women without a man should stay home in extreme poverty and make porridge.

IE, he's madly backpedalling and making it up as he goes.

Have I got that about right Hal?

.

[Hal 9000]

What a ridiculous comment! You and OGfT are adding nothing to this topic and so choose to drag another thread into the gutter with senseless insults. I've asked you people questions about the issue, how it might work and if you've worked the numbers - nothing but insults.

[Thinkinoutsidethebox]

Why would Canada be in trouble without imigrants?

[Keepitsimple]

It's what I recall from a presentation a few years back. I may have the single mom stat wrong, but the interesting thing to me was the 3 year or less turnover. While not specifically stated that way, the Ontario regional caseload profile stats support the majority are short term users. Very few are long term. Interesting stuff.

Caseload profiles

Perhaps a little interesting....but you should stop making stuff up and posting it as fact. Your own caseload profiles show that about 30% of the cases were "sole support" - some could be single Dads. Single people were the most predominant. Your original claim was that single Moms made up 80% of all welfare recipients. In a statistic unrelated to welfare, 80% of single parent households are headed by women.

From your own link:

The below graph reflects the family composition breakdown of our current caseload. Singles represent the greatest demographic on our caseload by a large majority, 61%, more than double the size of the next largest group, sole support clients at 30%. As these two groups combined comprise of more than 90% of our caseload, couples and two-parent families then represent a very small cohort of our caseload, less than 10% combined.

Edited November 17, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

Argus, I understand the line of thinking you're using, and it could very well help people - anything free will. My issue is that it's a system that's ripe for abuse and can never be self-sustainable. You simply cannot pay $800-1000 per month per child and expect that the mother will earn enough (or save us enough) to counter set that cost.

But I'm not approaching this from the perspective of helping individuals. I'm speaking of a society in which you can reduce the number of workers caring for children by 75% or more. And you're continuing to make the error of doing a one on one comparison. If we go by what I said, which is that instead of 10 women caring for 10 kids we have 2 women caring for ten kids, then five women are working for every daycare worker. Will five women working be able to contribute more than $1000 a month of production to our economy? I would say most certainly.

Now I do agree that at minimum wage of about $1600 gross per month income it often isn't economically viable on an individual level to pay $1000 a month in child care. But I'm not even sure where those costs come from. If we figure five or six kids per day care worker earning $12hr that implies wage costs of about $20 per day per child. Granted you have ongoing costs for power and heat and such, but it seems to me reducing the costs is quite doable in terms of government incentives for which it expects to earn back taxes from working mothers.

In addition, of course, and going back to the actual topic of this thread, better daycare is one of the prime motivating factors in young middle and low income mothers who might want to have more children. Thus it would help increase our low birth rate, which some believe (erroneously) justifies high immigration.

[Argus]

How did they control borders in medieval times ? During the Roman era ? Babylon ?

I think that's what the legions were for...

As a matter of fact, if you wanted to be a Roman citizen, serving for 25 years in the legions was about the only way a foreigner could do so.

[Keepitsimple]

But I'm not approaching this from the perspective of helping individuals. I'm speaking of a society in which you can reduce the number of workers caring for children by 75% or more. And you're continuing to make the error of doing a one on one comparison. If we go by what I said, which is that instead of 10 women caring for 10 kids we have 2 women caring for ten kids, then five women are working for every daycare worker. Will five women working be able to contribute more than $1000 a month of production to our economy? I would say most certainly.

I think your thinking is valuable as a part of the solution. Call it Community Moms or whatever. Maybe they're out there already - along with the referral services that should be looking for these nanny-type people in the various communities.

[Argus]

No, but I assume you do know what a woman makes on welfare, and you do know what daycare costs and you do know what type of job and pay scale these women would be facing and you do know what taxes they might return to the system (approx.)...right? If you know these answers, then know the economics don't work... and the sociological aspect is working against the system as well.

First of all, you appear to be using a minimum wage baseline. That's fundamentally wrong as minimum wage is, by definition, the very least they could make. Daycare helps women earning $100,000 a year too, you know. I have a friend who had two kids in daycare and was earning almost that much, and it was still a strain on her family to pay for 2 kids in day care at the same time. This, btw, was a woman who said she wanted 5 kids before she had any. Having gone through it, 2 was plenty for her, and the time and money were important factors.

So we know that on a macro scale lots of these mothers earn way more than minimum wage. Second, I'm looking at this on a macro policy level as in the government issuing financial incentives to get women off welfare, and to get women who are sitting at home with a child out back into the work force. It will also, of course, help encourage families to have more kids, which will help to address our low birth rate. France has actually had considerable success in this regard through family friendly policies.

[Argus]

Why would Canada be in trouble without imigrants?

There's very little evidence it would be, actually.

[Argus]

I think your thinking is valuable as a part of the solution. Call it Community Moms or whatever. Maybe they're out there already - along with the referral services that should be looking for these nanny-type people in the various communities.

I like the idea of informal community child care, but don't think it will work on a large scale in this day and age. Parents are much less trusting of strangers than they were a generation ago, and people don't tend to know their neighbours very well at all any more. So government would have to get involved in terms of licensing and inspecting and approving, which brings up the cost considerably and would act as a disincentive to local mothers looking to provide child care to their neighbours' kids.

[cybercoma]

I know the economics of it.

Clearly you don't, since the vast majority of literature points to a substantial return on public investment for quality early childhood education programs. Not only can it set up children to be more productive and successful in school, but it also lowers the risk that they will engage in risky and criminal behaviours which add to the social expense of not having a child care program. Further still, the workforce accounting was simplified by Argus, but you've completely disregarded that without providing any substantive rebuke.

You have absolutely no understanding of the economics of it at all, further proven by your suggested course of action which does nothing to ensure that there is any sort of return on the investment.

[Michael Hardner]

I think that's what the legions were for...

As a matter of fact, if you wanted to be a Roman citizen, serving for 25 years in the legions was about the only way a foreigner could do so.

Your answer is partial, and not satisfying anyway. Citizenship wasn't required to live in Rome was it ?

[bush_cheney2004]

Your answer is partial, and not satisfying anyway. Citizenship wasn't required to live in Rome was it ?

Not at all.....one could live the dream in Rome as a slave !