Trudeau Children's Nannies Being Paid for by Taxpayers

[Keepitsimple]

He made a promise - that's what's wrong - a very public one - he said rich people like himself and Mr. Harper don't need the childcare bonus and he would donate his to charity. But first chance he gets - his child care is being paid for. Now....I don't necessarily think he personally made the decision to have them paid by the taxpayers - probably that was a decision by his financial advisers - but the cat's out of the bag so he should apologize for an "administrative slip-up", pay back the money - and move on a little bit wiser. Failing to do so just adds to the "arrogance" narrative that was so blatant back when he charged charities for speaking fees while collecting an MP's salary.

[socialist]

We paid for Mulroney's nannies too ... But he lied and misled people about it.

It is clear that there are expectations of public appearances, etc by the wife of the PM, but she gets no pay. I think it's reasonable that their child care costs are covered.

.

You should have brought this up when it supposedly happened......the 1980s.

[waldo]

He made a promise - that's what's wrong - a very public one - he said rich people like himself and Mr. Harper don't need the childcare bonus and he would donate his to charity. But first chance he gets - his child care is being paid for. Now....I don't necessarily think he personally made the decision to have them paid by the taxpayers - probably that was a decision by his financial advisers - but the cat's out of the bag so he should apologize for an "administrative slip-up", pay back the money - and move on a little bit wiser. Failing to do so just adds to the "arrogance" narrative that was so blatant back when he charged charities for speaking fees while collecting an MP's salary.

cabinet made the decision in line with the Official Residences Act as "special assistants at the prime minister's residence"... performing domestic as well as childcare duties/paid between $15-20 dollars per hour. The promises you speak to were in regards to the UCCB and income-splitting policies of the Harper Conservative government. Be vigilant... keep watch... ensure those equivalencies are, per promise, provided to charities.

the 'charging charities' talking point has been so done over: the Parliamentary ethics commissioner was approached to ensure paid speaking events were allowed... when orchestrated SunNews coverage raised its head, Trudeau did offer to return fees paid to the charities in question. Imagine that when the charities refused to accept reimbursement... one profiled case had the charity head interviewed stating that they more than got their "money's worth", more than meeting their expectations. Imagine that.

[capricorn]

I don't necessarily think he personally made the decision to have them paid by the taxpayers - probably that was a decision by his financial advisers - but the cat's out of the bag so he should apologize for an "administrative slip-up", pay back the money - and move on a little bit wiser.

It would not serve him well to claim he did not know his staff/advisers made the decision to hire the nannies under the Official Residences Act as "special assistants at the prime minister's residence". It would imply he doesn't know what's going on in his administration. On another tack, if it is believed he knew of the arrangement, it would imply to some that he is looking for loopholes in order to claim expenses he should not be entitled to.

[Smeelious]

Another weapon of mass distraction, IMO

I think there are some considerations here though:

a) If I hire a nanny they wouldn't have to be vetted by the RCMP

If I go to Paris to discuss putting solar panels on my roof I can leave my kids with Grandma...Can JT? I suppose in either case they'd have an RCMP escort...

c) Does the PM hiring someone make them federal employees?

[msj]

Do they even pay rent or are they given free housing too (at 24 Sussex or whatever swanky place they're staying now)?

I would assume that the "free rent" would be calculated and included in the nannies incomes as a taxable benefit.

Or maybe Trudeau deducts room and board from their pay.

[Smallc]

I don't have a problem with the housing, he can even have a cleaner and a person to keep the grounds kept since 24 Sussex is a public building (if/when he lives there). For a millionaire who gets paid big bucks, the free live-in nanny is a little ridiculous, since it doesn't have much if anything to do with the actual job.

The precedent was set with Trudeau the first and Mulroney. Why should Justin be any different?

[fred68]

Mulroney had his nanny money, and so does Trudeau. I would like my PM to concentrate on all the promises he's made, rather than worrying about who's babysitting his kids tonight. It's an expense that quite honestly, is more than fully justified and needed.

[Martin Chriton]

It's an issue because Justin used this as a wedge issue in the election. He asserted millionaires (defined as 200k+ incomes) don't need tax payer assistance and then has an exception *only* for him.

For those trying to justify this because it's a 24/7 job -- it's is still NOT fair. Many jobs in the ‘1%’ require 24/7 commitment – often for *decades* to reach that level. In my case, I worked 16-18 hours a day seven days a week for two decades to reach my current income level (it’s above the 200k threshold). The path to become PM is often much shorter with less *overall* work.

I also don’t believe the PM job is truly 24/7 -- notice how much time PMs or presidents have for vacations, campaigning or fundraisers – quantitatively the workload is lower than many ‘millionaires’ -- who will get NO support for their children.

Almost everyone I know at the 200k+ level took many personal sacrifices to get there. To pay for childcare (daycare or nanny), income is taxed at your personal rate and then taxed by the childcare provider (double taxed). It seems perfectly reasonable to provide some tax relief for those above 200k+ to at least have a tax deduction for the childcare expenses – this would allow them to continue to invest in their career and also provide a job opportunity for a childcare provider. The money would still be taxed just not taxed twice. You can keep it revenue neutral by raising the overall upper bracket. Kids are required for future of the economy.

As an aside, the optics for nannygate could get worse for Justin. It will be interesting to see if he covers the nanny bill for campaign and/or fundraiser events. Justin should but he has been unethical so far.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Martin Chriton

[Smallc]

For those trying to justify this because it's a 24/7 job -- it's is still NOT fair. Many jobs in the ‘1%’ require 24/7 commitment – often for *decades* to reach that level.

Where did he say that their employer couldn't pay for their child care?

[Moonlight Graham]

The precedent was set with Trudeau the first and Mulroney. Why should Justin be any different?

Why not?

He's part of the 1% top earners, he doesn't need it. Start a new precedent, let's not subsidize the wealthy, especially something unrelated to the PM's job.. Paying for Justin's jet rides around the world to go to international meetings makes sense, but this doesn't.

[Smallc]

He's part of the 1% top earners, he doesn't need it.

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

[jacee]

So you would support the proposal to send Laureen Harper a half million or so in back pay for the way she was exploited for ten years by Canadian taxpayers?

It is only reasonable, as you point out.

Who paid for their child care?

Did Harper claim vaguely that housekeeping staff sometimes "interfaced" with the children ... like Mulroney did?

.

[jacee]

There was an itemized list of Trudeaus speakng enagements on the CBC website, payments made while he was also paid by Canadians as an MP. Now the list has vanished, to be replaced by a page apologizing for 'technical difficulties'.

One thing that worked out in a heartwarming way.... is that Justin repaid the expenses he charged to the taxpayers while attending those paid speaking engagements while also an MP. It is wonderful to think that he and Mike Duffy have that in common. It brings us together as a nation.

I'm not a fan of public employees making private money on government time, but many do use their own time for private businesses. It's not an issue unless there's an appearance of possible conflict of interest.

That was the line in question for Trudeau's activities, not the fact of making private money.

.

[ReeferMadness]

Honestly, who cares? This is much ado about nothing.

[Martin Chriton]

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 told us he doesn't need it! He asserted during the election that those with incomes greater than 200k+ didn't need it. His job is easier than others at 200k+.

Where did he say that their employer couldn't pay for their child care?

It's logistically challenging for many (especially smaller) employers to do this. Some employers that run daycare facilies get business tax deducations. Others might not have the scale to run their own facilities. For at home nannies or offsite childcare I expect tax situations become more challenging.

Clearly he sees value in having childcare covered in his case, for an income above 200k+, and if so, structuring the tax code such that others at 200k+ can have childcare without double taxation * seems equitable.

* double taxation = tax paid by family needing childcare on income + tax paid by childcare provider on the same income

[jacee]

You have a cite on that?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25332-trudeau-childrens-nannies-being-paid-for-by-taxpayers/?p=1120883

Brian Mulroney was asked by a television interviewer if taxpayers would pay for ''nannies'' for his three children as they did for Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, when he was prime minister.

"No, no," Mulroney replied.

The Canadian Press reported again in November of that year that Mulroney's chief of staff, Fred Doucet, denied the family employed a government-paid nanny while Mulroney was opposition leader, saying

the woman was actually a maid who "interfaces with the children in a habitual way."

Edited December 2, 2015 by jacee

[fred68]

Honestly, who cares? This is much ado about nothing.

Sadly the far right doesn't have too much to attack Trudeau on right now, so they attack this. The National Post actually has two of its top three headline stories on this. I guess they've decided that they'll try and be the new Sun News Channel, and beat off The Rebel before it gets too big. Looks like it's back to being the old National "neocon" Post again.

[Smallc]

He told us he doesn't need it! He asserted during the election that those with incomes greater than 200k+ didn't need it. His job is easier than others at 200k+.

His job is easier? On what planet? He didn't need it because he wasn't the active executive of a country.

[jacee]

Why? Can you name other types of public servants, or any other jobs, who are given live-in nannies for free?

Do they even pay rent or are they given free housing too (at 24 Sussex or whatever swanky place they're staying now)?

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

.

[Martin Chriton]

Honestly, who cares? This is much ado about nothing.

It's interesting because of the hypocrisy.

Childcare is expensive even with a 200k+ income. Justin is asking folks in this range to <1> lose income splitting, <2> lose UCCB, and <3> take a higher marginal tax rate -- and then make exceptions for himself.

Moving to the US @ 200k+ gives you income splitting, some level of tax deductions for child care, +50-60% higher gross pay (in some fields such as tech/sw dev). I moved to the US many years ago, it’s definitely not going to be any easier to move back after these changes! :angry:

His job is easier? On what planet? He didn't need it because he wasn't the active executive of a country.

Note that I’m not saying easier than all at 200k+, just that there are harder jobs in the 200k+ bracket.

For PM, you need little executive experience and experience is often seen as a detriment. It is more demanding on time than the average job, but as I noted in my original post PMs/Presidents often have time for fundraisers, campaigning, and vacations. Clearly, there are others in 200k+ that work longer hours at the job they’re paid to do, I know folks that literally work 16-18 hours a day seven days a week.

[jacee]

He made a promise - that's what's wrong - a very public one - he said rich people like himself and Mr. Harper don't need the childcare bonus and he would donate his to charity. But first chance he gets - his child care is being paid for. Now....I don't necessarily think he personally made the decision to have them paid by the taxpayers - probably that was a decision by his financial advisers - but the cat's out of the bag so he should apologize for an "administrative slip-up", pay back the money - and move on a little bit wiser. Failing to do so just adds to the "arrogance" narrative that was so blatant back when he charged charities for speaking fees while collecting an MP's salary.

So ... we're going to start paying his wife when her presence is required ?

We're getting off cheap just paying her child care expenses!

.

[The_Squid]

He's the PM of the country.... he gets a few more perks than the average Joe.... what a shocker.

I'm sure Harper could afford a car.... he was still driven around in a limo.

Edited December 2, 2015 by The_Squid

[fred68]

So ... we're going to start paying his wife when her presence is required ?

We're getting off cheap just paying her child care expenses!

.

Beautifully said. People are just whining about losing their cheques because some were going to the rich. This just makes the far right look bad.

[Smallc]

I'm sure Harper could afford a car.... he was still driven around in a limo.

If I recall, Harper had a makeup artist on staff.