Topic Importance in 2015 Election

[DFCaper]

Check the numbers in Harper's plan and see how much a low income single parent with one child will receive compared to a two parent family with one from income splitting. Completely backasswords to how it should work.

Most single and low income parents in my area currently receive subsidies that make daycare cost less than $15 a day. The NDP policy will financially help the upper classes more than the poor. It is "less" fair than the Conservative plan. A lot more expensive as well.

I find it odd that suddenly only conservative policies are judged from the perspective of the poor, but nobody else is.

[cybercoma]

The 15$ a day nonsense as you call it actually helps people who need it. The cons income splitting is totally retrograde. But normal for Harper.and previous cpc ideas.

Why have a policy that helps everyone with children when you can have a policy that helps only married people with disparate earnings?

[TimG]

Why have a policy that helps everyone with children when you can have a policy that helps only married people with disparate earnings?

The Conservative policy has multiple measures that help all types of family arrangements. i.e. a 60% increase in the UUCB, an increase in the tax deductions for daycare and the income splitting tax credit. What makes no sense is a expensive policy that will only help a small minority of parents lucky enough to win the 'daycare space lottery' - especially when the parents that end up winning these precious spaces tend to be upper middle class and technically don't need the subsidy.

[webc5]

Ops I meant to say more attacks.

[cybercoma]

The Conservative policy has multiple measures that help all types of family arrangements. i.e. a 60% increase in the UUCB, an increase in the tax deductions for daycare and the income splitting tax credit. What makes no sense is a expensive policy that will only help a small minority of parents lucky enough to win the 'daycare space lottery' - especially when the parents that end up winning these precious spaces tend to be upper middle class and technically don't need the subsidy.

Oh, so now you're really concerned about there not being enough daycare spaces, but really don't want to do anything to address the financial barrier to access. What a contradiction. Nice try. The only thing you care about is paying as little taxes as possible. Don't pretend your arguments here have anything to do with better access to childcare for parents.

[Keepitsimple]

Oh, so now you're really concerned about there not being enough daycare spaces, but really don't want to do anything to address the financial barrier to access. What a contradiction. Nice try. The only thing you care about is paying as little taxes as possible. Don't pretend your arguments here have anything to do with better access to childcare for parents.

Several things are at play here - and perhaps this is an area that creates space between the views from the Left and the Right.

1) Parents should plan for a family - if you can't afford to raise a child reasonably well, don't have one - or a second - or more.

2) Families are important to sustain populations. Governments should provide some level of support to allow them increased financial flexibility to make choices they make on behalf of their children.

3) A one-size-fits-all unionized "universal" daycare system.....it's open to debate as to whether outsourcing the care of toddlers to a unionized regimen is good for arguably the most important years of a child's life. I realize that's a topic unto it's own but my gut tells me it should be a last option for parents - not a first.

[TimG]

Oh, so now you're really concerned about there not being enough daycare spaces

No - I am stating a fact: when governments give stuff away they must ration the supply. This also creates a system where the well off/well connected get access to the limited supply before the less well off/less connected. If you really cared about barriers to access you would not support a universal daycare policy because it will inevitably become a benefit for people who don't really need it. Giving cash to poorer parents via the UCCB is the best way to ensure that all poorer parents benefit from the system. Edited November 3, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

The big topics for this election will be Duffy, Brazeau, Walin, and all the other major Harper failures.

That's fluff. It's not the least bit important to most Canadians.

[Argus]

The 15$ a day nonsense as you call it actually helps people who need it. The cons income splitting is totally retrograde. But normal for Harper.and previous cpc ideas.

What makes you think middle class people don't need assistance? You think they're all driving around in limos?

[Argus]

Check the numbers in Harper's plan and see how much a low income single parent with one child will receive compared to a two parent family with one from income splitting. Completely backasswords to how it should work.

Low income singles with one child don't pay any taxes as it is.

[Argus]

Apparently Jim Flaherty disagrees with you.

We'll never know give given how the program was reworked after its initial announcement.

[Argus]

Most single and low income parents in my area currently receive subsidies that make daycare cost less than $15 a day. The NDP policy will financially help the upper classes more than the poor. It is "less" fair than the Conservative plan. A lot more expensive as well.

It will not help the upper classes at all given the cutoff. But thanks for reaffirming my general belief that to the NDP the middle class ARE the upper class, a group to be milked mercilessly at every opportunity.

[Argus]

Why have a policy that helps everyone with children when you can have a policy that helps only married people with disparate earnings?

They have both.

[cybercoma]

They have both.

Right. They have policies that help EVERYONE plus policies that give additional help to well-off married couples with disparate incomes.

Maybe you want the government spending money (or slashing its revenues) by providing for those who are well off, but if the government is going to offer help to people, one would think they would be offering it to those most in need.

[TimG]

well-off married couples with disparate incomes.

The NDP proposes to give away $12000/year to well off couples who are able to grab one of the small number of subsidized spots.

The Conservatives plan to give a maximum $2000 tax credit to couples with a stay at home parent - couples who are not necessarily rich. This is much less than the $8000/year that wealthy two income couples can already deduct for child care.

Why are you OK with the NDP giving away $12K a year to rich couples but have a problem with the Conservative 2K/year tax credit? Seems like you are making an ideological argument rather than a rational one.

Edited November 3, 2014 by TimG

[Argus]

Right. They have policies that help EVERYONE plus policies that give additional help to well-off married couples with disparate incomes.

Maybe you want the government spending money (or slashing its revenues) by providing for those who are well off, but if the government is going to offer help to people, one would think they would be offering it to those most in need.

What government has ever offered money without an eye to politics and votes?

[On Guard for Thee]

If you check the CD Howe numbers they indicate that 85% of Canadian families will see no benefit from income splitting, and that 40% of the money that flows from this program will end up in the pockets of single income families who already earn in excess of 125K Plus the thing will cost an estimated 2.7 billion. Harper is shelling out a lot of money for not so many votes but I guess he's getting desperate.

[TimG]

If you check the CD Howe numbers they indicate that 85% of Canadian families will see no benefit from income splitting.

The CD howe institute has had no time to evaluate the Conservative plan which is not simple income splitting but a tax credit with a cap. This completely changes the dynamics of the policy and shifts the benefits to the middle class and away from the wealthy.

The NDP plan, OTOH, is just a give away to the rich.

Edited November 3, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

I get the sense that Harper can't avoid sending a message that reinforces some conservative moral preference for maintaining the traditional single income nuclear family above all others.

[peoples advocate]

The Liberals will claim that Harper hates women's rights - abortion, prostitution, health care, they'll argue that marijuana is good for everyone (tax wise), and that Harper doesn't care about the climate.

The Conservatives will argue that the economy is good, jobs are good and a strong foreign policy is important.

Come now justice minister Peter Mackay has solved the prostitution problem forever with his bill , Did he not ? oh right.......

[cybercoma]

What government has ever offered money without an eye to politics and votes?

So just sit back and ignore it?

[peoples advocate]

Come now justice minister Peter Mackay has solved the prostitution problem forever with his bill , Did he not ? oh right.......

I am glad that Harper is not taking lottery money from people that can not afford it. Oh right they do but if you watch their television commercials there is a disclaimer , Sure you need the Hubble telescope to see it but it is there .

And I am sure Mr Harper loves the health care and if he or his family get very ill I am sure the Mayo clinic is where he will head OH you were talking about ours.

[DFCaper]

I get the sense that Harper can't avoid sending a message that reinforces some conservative moral preference for maintaining the traditional single income nuclear family above all others.

I don't believe he is showing a preference as much as not discriminating against, like the NDP plan or the Liberal Plan (If undoing things while doing nothing is a plan)

I am sure Income splitting will be also very helpful to Immigrant families. Is that a bad thing as well?

[peoples advocate]

Several things are at play here - and perhaps this is an area that creates space between the views from the Left and the Right.

1) Parents should plan for a family - if you can't afford to raise a child reasonably well, don't have one - or a second - or more.

2) Families are important to sustain populations. Governments should provide some level of support to allow them increased financial flexibility to make choices they make on behalf of their children.

3) A one-size-fits-all unionized "universal" daycare system.....it's open to debate as to whether outsourcing the care of toddlers to a unionized regimen is good for arguably the most important years of a child's life. I realize that's a topic unto it's own but my gut tells me it should be a last option for parents - not a first.

The problem is parents can plan all they want and then since they are both usually working with no benefits [ Harper job creation ] they end up pay cheque to pay cheque. They are always chasing their tails. Just one more thought is it not in the best interest to help parents after all we are bringing in foreign workers and I think they are costing untold millions .

We hear oh no we will have a workforce shortage but wait we can fill them from other countries so you are right lets not assist our own lets open the gates.

[overthere]

I know I might have missed some.

Gee, I wonder if the economy will be on anybodys mind?

You know, the thing that pays for everything?