Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

[msj]

I love this story: nothing makes a conservative's head explode like a woman choosing to not stay at home and work for free.

The cries for fairness are particularly funny: life isn't fair, you're not the PM, Harper could have used the same benefit if he so wanted so so sad, too bad - no reimbursement for Laureen.

Not sure why I'm supposed to not mind a chef or a maid but a nanny or two somehow crosses a line.

Only in the mind of a conservative who thinks a woman's role is to look after the children.

But thanks for cutting the GST on tampons, CPC, sure shows your love for the female vote.

[jacee]

So if we elect a single male or female as PM, will they have to hire an escort to fulfill the roles of the PM's spouse?

They'd hire someone to do planning and prep for official occasions, for sure.

.

[jacee]

He's paid $350k a year and is given free housing, food, etc.

Most Canadians get under $89k a year, pay for housing, food and clothing, and have to pay for child care as well.

Most Canadians did not run on a platform of "Real change". Wait, Harper didn't rape Canadians at every turn-donating all proceeds from his hockey book to veterans is but one example-so I guess "Real change" is exactly what happened.

What did Harper's hairstylist and makeup artist and piano tuner cost?

Will we be cutting Trudeau's hours to a normal 40 hr week so he can assume his half of child care duties?

[Boges]

They'd hire someone to do planning and prep for official occasions, for sure.

.

Provide some citation that the partner of the PM has a job description that the country can't do without, and does it for free. In so much as if the PM didn't have a spouse, someone would have to be hired.

[Boges]

I love this story: nothing makes a conservative's head explode like a woman choosing to not stay at home and work for free.

The cries for fairness are particularly funny: life isn't fair, you're not the PM, Harper could have used the same benefit if he so wanted so so sad, too bad - no reimbursement for Laureen.

Not sure why I'm supposed to not mind a chef or a maid but a nanny or two somehow crosses a line.

Only in the mind of a conservative who thinks a woman's role is to look after the children.

But thanks for cutting the GST on tampons, CPC, sure shows your love for the female vote.

Doesn't look like you've been following the issue. The opposition is the hypocrisy of said PM.

[Smallc]

Doesn't look like you've been following the issue. The opposition is the hypocrisy of said PM.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. The problem is that some of you seem to be unable to understand the difference between two issues.

[Boges]

There's nothing hypocritical about it. The problem is that some of you seem to be unable to understand the difference between two issues.

I see a politician denying Canadians tax relief for child care while getting his childcare covered by the taxpayer. Hypocrisy to me.

[Moonlight Graham]

How do you know he doesn't need it? The fact that other PMs with children have had it seems to disprove your point.

He's already a millionaire plus he's earning in the top 1%.

[Moonlight Graham]

If Sophie's required ... working for free ... we can suck up her child care costs.

.

How does she work for free? She isn't the "first lady" like in the US, she isn't the husband to a head of state, only head of government. She may be required to meet some dignitaries from time to time, host some people at her residence from time to time like any swanky spouse. Now, if she does actually work why not pay her? That would be more fair to all PM wives instead of subsidizing only the ones who have young children.

What did Laureen Harper do day to day?

[Smallc]

He's already a millionaire plus he's earning in the top 1%.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities that befit his position.

[overthere]

You can't compare the circumstances of normal people to this.

But you can compare it to statements made publicly by Trudeau regarding child care and the wealthy, which would inlucde himself.

Do wealthy people in the private sector get taxpayer funded child care?

[Smallc]

But you can compare it to statements made publicly by Trudeau regarding child care and the wealthy, which would inlucde himself.

Do wealthy people in the private sector get taxpayer funded child care?

I'm sure some get childcare from their employer by virtue of their position.

[overthere]

Harper's kids were quite a bit older and less in need of constant minding.

Really?

Harpers children were 6 and 9 when he became PM. Trudeaus children are 8, 6 and 2. Why exactly do you think Harpers children needed less care and love from their parents than Trudeaus?.

I suspect the opposite is true, if Trudeau Jr duplicates the attitude his father had for his kids. It left at least one yearning for the love and approval of everybody in the country. Having 24 hour nanny care allows one the freedom to never be home, just like Grandpa did..

Edited December 2, 2015 by overthere

[Wilber]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities that befit his position.

Lousy optics considering what he campaigned on.

[Martin Chriton]

I can sort of see the point whether or not childcare should be accepted as a 'perk' of being a PM and that's some thing to be debated but bringing the UCCB cheque into it is not really relevant to the discussion. One is a government handout to everyone which Trudeau said is not needed equally and should not be given equally and the other is one of the many benefits provided to a prime minister, and prime minister only. It's not like he said he wouldn't take nannies on taxpayer dime and then did.

He spent the campaign saying he had more than enough money to support his children and others in the 200k+ bracket could do so as well.

If he believes that childcare should be covered in his case, then clearly there are exceptions to his campaign assertion that everyone at 200k+ can pay for it themselves. And in that case, it's worth looking at how the tax laws can be restructured to enable private employers to (tax) efficiently offer similar benefits.

For those saying the PM role is special, the job is important, but again, there are more demanding jobs (by time) than PM and some of these jobs often require decades of work on a career prior.

To demonstrate, considering the following two scenarios.

Scenaro 1: Single parent family income at $200,000 and no kids

Parent Income: $200,000

Parent Taxes: $72,157

Scenaro 2: Single parent family income at $200,000, with kids, and a nanny 20$/hr @ 40hrs a week = $41600 /yr

Parent Income: $200,000

Parent Taxes: $72,157

Nanny salary: $41600

Nanny Taxes: $6,172

Total taxes: $78329

-------

The government is making an extra $6,172 in taxes in scenario #2 vs #1. And possibly a lot more if the nanny was taken off unemployment. A combined tax rate of around 65% for the income the nanny finally sees.

I don't see the need for the government to try to profit off families with children. A deduction to help bring the double tax down in scenario #2 seems perfectly reasonable - it doesn't need to get all the way to #1.

In my view Justin should either pay for it himself OR fix the tax laws for others at 200k+ with children.

(Tax numbers from https://simpletax.ca/calculator)

Edited December 2, 2015 by Martin Chriton

[Smallc]

Lousy optics considering what he campaigned on.

He didn't campaign on what benefits the PM gets.

[Martin Chriton]

He didn't campaign on what benefits the PM gets.

Again, he campaigned on 200k+ earners and suggested those in that group can pay for it themselves.

[Wilber]

He didn't campaign on what benefits the PM gets.

Make excuses for him if you want but what he doing is the exactly opposite of what he campaigned on for persons in his income bracket.

It won't break the country but he is a politician and it is a dumb move politically. Hypocritical to boot.

[msj]

He's already a millionaire plus he's earning in the top 1%.

Yes, so he can pay taxes on his earnings.

Lets hope that this chef/maid/nanny thing is considered a taxable benefit (though I doubt it is in this case).

In which case, I just think it's part of the pay package.

Some CEO's earn millions and don't worry about haggling over $100,000 specifically for the nanny.

Another is the head of a country so the pay package ends up looking different.

But as they say: same same.....

[overthere]

I expect Trudeau will mention this promise about the wealthy/child care benefits in his throne speech. Who was it here that said the throne speech is just the same as campaign promises/platform? It will be in the speech agenda right after he reaffirms that we'll see $25K refugees by Xmas.

[Smallc]

Who was it here that said the throne speech is just the same as campaign promises/platform? It will be in the speech agenda right after he reaffirms that we'll see $25K refugees by Xmas.

I've already told you that the December promise does not appear in the platform.

[msj]

Make excuses for him if you want but what he doing is the exactly opposite of what he campaigned on for persons in his income bracket.

It won't break the country but he is a politician and it is a dumb move politically. Hypocritical to boot.

So you're saying that Trudeau will not pay any tax at the rate of 33% like he has proposed?

You're also saying that Trudeau will receive the UCCB after he has cancelled it and replaced it with his enhanced (or whatever he is calling it) CTB for which he will not be eligible as his income will be too high?

You're also saying that Trudeau is not going to donate the UCCB that he has received to charity?

[dialamah]

I'm torn on this. On one hand, it does seem hypocritical for him to claim that 'rich families' don't need extra help for their child-raising costs, and then have his nanny costs paid for him. On the other hand, do nannies reasonably fall under the umbrella of 'necessary' services for the family of heads of state?

Since most people can't afford housekeepers and maids, why should the PM household have those services for free - shouldn't his wife be able to take care of those kinds of household chores? Isn't this the same basis people are objecting to the nannies? Was Mulroney the only PM who hid the nanny cost within overall household budget? Did Harper and his family pay a nanny out of pocket?

[Moonlight Graham]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits, privileges, and responsibilities that befit his position.

Which are completely arbitrary. Is free nanny care written in the constitution?

You seem to think the position should be a swanky affair akin to Canadian royalty-lite. I'm completely against that. Obviously there's unavoidable benefits, but he should otherwise live as closely to the regular populace as possible. The PM will do a better job deciding child care benefits when he actually has to pay for them himself. If I could do a do-over, I'd never give the PM a huge swanky 35-room mansion to live in for free either, I'd give him a decent 2-story with a nice dining room to host guests...whatever is needed to do his job (and I'd make him pay some modest rent). If he has to host anything larger on occasion, there's many banquet halls available around Ottawa.

We have a PM that has far too much political power and a senate and other politicians (not too mention a great many other public servants) who are far too entitled, often on the tax payers dime. I'm done with it.

[jacee]

Provide some citation that the partner of the PM has a job description that the country can't do without, and does it for free. In so much as if the PM didn't have a spouse, someone would have to be hired.

Ah ... But since he has a/spouse, she's expected to do the work for free AND pay for her own child care while she's doing it?

Do you even hear yourself?

.