msj Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 So who did he get laid off then? So is that the new angle of attack? From wasting our tax dollars to laying off staff... wow, just wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) He can't afford the time to take care of his kids? Nice father! And if he dawdles with his kids then he is not right to be PM because he isn't devoting 24/7 blah blah blah.... Just can't win with the partisans I guess. Edited December 2, 2015 by msj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 The US first lady doesn't get a salary or nannies. Neither does the British PMs wife. This is Canada. If the UK and US lied to you and told you to invade a ME country, would you? Ok, don't answer that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 That will take the wind out of those sails... Why am I reminded of Brian Mulroney and those who worshiped him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 I don't understand the difference either. This is just an attempt to stick something to Trudeau. You don't understand? You know, the whole Senate thing was not over senators sticking bagsful of money into their pockets. It was about them using their budgets to pay personal expenses. This is exactly the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Trudeau is doing nothing different than any other PM in regards to the management of household. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 Why am I reminded of Brian Mulroney and those who worshiped him? Why am I reminded of the people that could do nothing but spew venom at Harper? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 You don't understand? You know, the whole Senate thing was not over senators sticking bagsful of money into their pockets. It was about them using their budgets to pay personal expenses. This is exactly the same thing. 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. This is not bag fulls of money - it is a transparent agreement at fair market value. The reason I don't like the conservative's types on this issue is not so much the sexism on display, although I do understand that complaint. I want to be able to vote for as many candidates to be my PM as possible (even though I don't get a direct vote). It is hard enough to become PM without having penny pinching twits going off over something as immaterial as this. Otherwise we end up with politicians just like my city council - a bunch of old, retired, men. Or we end up with childless pricks such as myself running the show. Either way not the kind of balance I want so I'm fine with the nannies. But the bribery of senators has to stop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 You're the one bragging about all your experience. So far I'm not seeing any.I have plenty, but I'm not giving out personal info. You know that.And your experience in child care? Minimal I suspect. But this is all just partisan bickering anyway. There is no increase in staff, just different allocation of responsibilities. Maybe Justin will mow the lawn. Lol . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) You don't understand? You know, the whole Senate thing was not over senators sticking bagsful of money into their pockets. It was about them using their budgets to pay personal expenses. This is exactly the same thing. No it turns out it isn't at all.It's just about them prioritizing and allocating their budget differently - less for housework, more for child care. No big deal at all. Conservatives are really scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for mud to throw. They look pretty silly picking on children. Sour grapes, I say. . Edited December 2, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) So who did he get laid off then? They can hire/not hire whoever they want, within the budget.It's their house. Who did Harper hire/lay off when he arrived? Is that all you have to complain about now? Pretty weak. Lol . Edited December 2, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 2, 2015 Report Share Posted December 2, 2015 (edited) So is that the new angle of attack? From wasting our tax dollars to laying off staff... wow, just wow. A logical question. five plus two does not equal five. Edited December 2, 2015 by Wilber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Trudeau is doing nothing different than any other PM in regards to the management of household. Dude, yes he is. He campaigned on not doing what every other PM did. What don't you understand? Ok wait, he's a liar. So maybe he really isn't doing anything differently. Edited December 3, 2015 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Dude, yes he is. He campaigned on not doing what every other PM did. What don't you understand? Ok wait, he's a liar. So maybe he really isn't doing anything differently. I have not heard or read of any comment by Trudeau on this issue. If he has commented, please direct me to the cite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) I have not heard or read of any comment by Trudeau on this issue. If he has commented, please direct me to the cite. He said he didn't need child care subsidy. Kind of all over his campaign rhetoric. Edited December 3, 2015 by drummindiver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummindiver Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Liberals try to make this into nothing, yet I've heard Duffy comments for years now. So, Duffy paid 90k back. Trudeau, after saying people like himself shouldn't get $160 a month child tax credit. What does he give himself instead?Two nannies at an average of $15./hr considering $20 max and $11/hr min(which is illegal) The lower end is for night shift. Nannies twentyfourseven. So what does it cost? 30($ X two nannies) X24(hrs in a day) X30(days in a month)= $21,600 X 12(months in a year) = $259,200 He is charging the Canadian taxpayer $259,200 a year on child care. Kind of a big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 The money isn't really the issue, to me anyway, it's the hypocrisy. http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//full-comment/robyn-urback-the-issue-with-trudeaus-nannies-is-not-one-of-undue-entitlements-but-glaring-hypocrisy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Even the hypocrisy is a mundane as a mass shooting these days. For me it's the duh factor - that fact somebody missed something that was so obviously guaranteed to inflame. Good thing we're not talking about a crew running a nuclear power plant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Liberals try to make this into nothing, yet I've heard Duffy comments for years now. So, Duffy paid 90k back. Trudeau, after saying people like himself shouldn't get $160 a month child tax credit. What does he give himself instead? Two nannies at an average of $15./hr considering $20 max and $11/hr min(which is illegal) The lower end is for night shift. Nannies twentyfourseven. So what does it cost? 30($ X two nannies) X24(hrs in a day) X30(days in a month)= $21,600 X 12(months in a year) = $259,200 He is charging the Canadian taxpayer $259,200 a year on child care. Kind of a big deal. 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? . Edited December 3, 2015 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm thinking nannies aren't going to be making 130K a year but that isn't the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 I'm thinking nannies aren't going to be making 130K a year but that isn't the point. You are quite right, they don't. And I agree about the Trudeau hypocrisy. He was foolish to make that sanctimonious comment. But the ridiculous nastiness about nannies and children here is way over the top. Dragging them into partisan mudslinging is disgusting. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Chriton Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) 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? . I've already explained this a few times on the thread, but let me do it yet again.... since some folks have trouble with basic math and/or tax law. 20/hr @ 40 hrs/week @ 52 weeks/yr = $41600/nanny For two nannies that is $83200/yr Now if someone at 200k+ gross income wanted to hire two nannies, they'd have to use *post-tax* money, pre-tax the $83200 becomes $83200/0.47=$177021 benefit. That is, if you make a $377021 salary, you'd lose $177,021 gross to cover the two nannies ($93810 in taxes by parent, .$83200 in gross to nanny, for which there is another $12344 in taxes from or so from the nannies -- bringing the total tax rate on the nanny dollars to 60%) I also didn't include employer contributions for CPP/EI which is another $5000-$10000 IIRC, total beneft therefore likely close to $190k) Notice how his 190k nanny benefit is getting very close to his 200k+ salary threshold at which it just so easy to pay for childcare! LOL. Edited December 3, 2015 by Martin Chriton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 Unh ... No. Nannies don't make that much. Are you daft? $30-35k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Chriton Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) Unh ... No. Nannies don't make that much. Are you daft? $30-35k At 15$/hr it's up to a ~140,000 benefit At 20$/hr it's up to a ~190,000 benefit I pay my nanny equivalent to $24 CAD/hr and $36/hr CAD for overtime, albeit I live in the US not Canada. I didn't include any overtime/weekend hours in my calculations -- there would likely be some. It's possible his total childcare benefit will be as high as $200-250,000/yr. Edited December 3, 2015 by Martin Chriton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msj Posted December 3, 2015 Report Share Posted December 3, 2015 A logical question. five plus two does not equal five. Well, with that hair I'm going to guess the taxpayer paid hair stylist is gone. And with that charisma, the makeup artist too.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.