Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

msj · December 3, 2015

Nah, let's say the nannies interface with Trudeau's hair and face in a habitual way.....

Disgusted Don · December 3, 2015

You know I'm not embarrassed easily! And to answer the Duffy trial comment - I was impressed that a politician was actually being held accountable for his actions.......How about the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal! Who was held accountable for that? Our leadership should be held to a higher standard. Good on the Conservatives for being held accountable! I'm tired of same old lies and deception. This is just evidence of things to come! Hang onto your seats - this is going to be a very costly term!

Argus · December 3, 2015

The difference is that I consider it a necessary expense for a Prime Minister and "First Lady" to require help when they have three children.

Lots of terribly busy people have children. Should they all get government paid nannies?

Argus · December 3, 2015

I have plenty, but I'm not giving out personal info. You know that.

And your experience in child care?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Argus · December 3, 2015

They can hire/not hire whoever they want, within the budget.

It's their house.

No, in fact, you cannot. When an MP or a Senator takes office they have a budget, and they can spend that budget on certain goods and staff. They can hire administrative assistants, for example, or speechwriters. But those people are prohibited from undertaking personal tasks for the politicians in question. They are there to do government work, not personal work. The same goes for the PM. He is still using government money to pay for people to provide personal services. It is misuse of expenses the same as so many senators are accused of.

Argus · December 3, 2015

Well, with that hair I'm going to guess the taxpayer paid hair stylist is gone.

There never was a taxpayer paid hair stylist.

Smallc · December 3, 2015

There never was a taxpayer paid hair stylist.

No we just paid for Harper to drag her around. If Trudeau were doing even that you'd be complaining.

Boges · December 3, 2015

Liberal Toronto Star comes down on Team "Pay for your Own Nannies"

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2015/12/02/trudeau-should-pay-for-nannies-himself-editorial.html

Trudeau would have been wise to spare himself this grief, and he knows it. He now plans to adjust his staff complement so that the two nannies — designated “special assistants” and “secondary caregivers” – can be kept on the government payroll without being seen as additional hires. But he would have been wiser to set a better example from the get-go, and a precedent for future leaders, by paying the nanny freight himself. As Prime Minister, he is paid $334,800 a year, and is wealthy in his own right.

drummindiver · December 3, 2015

That's ridiculous.

There are only two nannies. They are not working 24 hrs every day, except if the Trudeaus are both away perhaps.

Nannies work regular hrs/WK, have days off, holidays ... you know ... Labour regulations.

Sigh ... you dinosaurs know nothing about child care, just blather on.

$15/hr, 35-40 hr WK ...about $30,000/yr each.

Does the foolishness ever stop?

.

First, the hypocrisy is the main point, dollar amount secondary.

All reports stated they received less on night shift, so I take it in fact they are there 24 hours a day as are most live-in nannies.

If you've ever had a job, you'd know you get paid for vacation.

If you are paid $20/hr, it is costing your employer around $27/hr as they pay for comp etc.

So, it's costing less than I quoted, but a site more than you did.

Regardless, he campaigned that millionaires don't need $160 a month, but gifts himself thousands a month?

You're right, the foolishness never ends.

Edited December 3, 2015 by drummindiver

Martin Chriton · December 3, 2015

Regardless, he campaigned that millionaires don't need $160 a month, but gifts himself thousands a month?

His childcare benefit is ~100 times the $160/mo benefit he said was too excessive (my math was earlier in this thread).

dialamah · December 3, 2015

His childcare benefit is ~100 times the $160/mo benefit he said was too excessive (my math was earlier in this thread).

If he drops two other household staff, how much is his benefit then?

Smallc · December 3, 2015

His childcare benefit is ~100 times the $160/mo benefit he said was too excessive (my math was earlier in this thread).

I don't think he said anything about services for the head of government at the official residence.

Martin Chriton · December 3, 2015

If he drops two other household staff, how much is his benefit then?

I would expect him to pay for his childcare at 200k+ or help fix the laws for others at 200k+ such that we're not double taxed at 60-70% on childcare dollars up to a reasonable limit.

If they don't need those other household staff then they shouldn't have them. He isn't a king.

I don't think he said anything about services for the head of government at the official residence.

We've gone over this a few times now, in his position at PM he is within the 200k+ group that he said wouldn't need childcare. Many at 200k+ work extremely hard -- much harder then he will as PM in aggregate.

I realize the Liberal talking points seem to be folks at 200k+ are lucky, greedy, stupid, lazy, etc. But that doesn't apply to anyone I know at 200k+, everyone I know at that threshold hold works extremely hard; often for decades

Smallc · December 3, 2015

I don't have any talking points or negative things to say about people tha make $200K or more. What I do have a problem with is mischaracterizing what Trudeau obviously said/meant. I have also have a problem with the lack of acknowledgment of historical precedents and situational realities in this case.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Smallc

Martin Chriton · December 3, 2015

I don't have any talking points or negative things to say about people tha make $200K or more. What I do have a problem with is mischaracterizing what Trudeau obviously said/meant. .

I don't think his statements have much ambiguity.

I have also have a problem with the lack of acknowledgment of historical precedents and situational realities in this case.

The problem is he made this a campaign issue. He ran on cutting benefits and raising taxes on 200k+. If he really believed what he said, he should do what he expects the rest of us at 200k+ to do.

If he wants to go with precedents, leave income splitting, UCCB, and tax rates at 200k+ alone.

eyeball · December 3, 2015

So how will all this bear on a national daycare program? Will the numbers we're hearing re wages, hours, income thresholds etc give us an outline of what to expect that daycare program to look like?

bush_cheney2004 · December 3, 2015

Yes...all Canadian families deserve two full time care givers with full benefits as Mr. Trudeau has set a new standard...for rich people.

waldo · December 3, 2015

Yes...all Canadian families deserve two full time care givers with full benefits as Mr. Trudeau has set a new standard...for rich people.

a new standard? How does it compare to... per the DailyHowler, no less: Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year (2012)... having twenty-six cabin crewmembers on Air Force One, along with FIVE (5) chefs! In the White House theatre, two projectionists sleep in in order to remain on duty at all times, should a First Family member or guest fancy a film... a residence staff of butlers, maids, chefs, maître d’s, elevator operators, florists, curators, carpenters, electricians, and plumbers.

Boges · December 3, 2015

The Butler was a good movie.

bush_cheney2004 · December 3, 2015

Maybe Trudeau figures he is actually saving money by not living in the PM residence money pit. There is cheap...and then there is cheaper !

drummindiver · December 3, 2015

I realize the Liberal talking points seem to be folks at 200k+ are lucky, greedy, stupid, lazy, etc. But that doesn't apply to anyone I know at 200k+, everyone I know at that threshold hold works extremely hard; often for decades

"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more of it I seem to have." Stephen Leacock.

dialamah · December 3, 2015

I don't think his statements have much ambiguity.

The problem is he made this a campaign issue. He ran on cutting benefits and raising taxes on 200k+. If he really believed what he said, he should do what he expects the rest of us at 200k+ to do.

If he wants to go with precedents, leave income splitting, UCCB, and tax rates at 200k+ alone.

Nobody has a problem with JT having household staff - housekeeper, maids, chef, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc. Just the nannies seem to be a problem. So, if he drops a gardener and a maid and he and Sophie and kids spends weekends gardening and housecleaning, to enable him to hire two nannies instead and stay within the current household budget, what's the difference? He's giving up some perks in order to obtain other ones he figures more important. This is called "setting priorities", and is a strategy available to any family of any income.

Unless you simply want to find fault, of course, in which case keep on biatching about the "nannies". Maybe he'll fire them, and simply re-purpose existing staff to 'interface' with the kids on a regular basis, and you can rest easy knowing JT didn't hire any nannies.