Child Care

[Argus]

Most parents know the best child rearing is accomplished at home where the child receives full support of the parents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, the parents can quit work and stay home all day with the child. Great idea.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact is that two full incomes are not always necessary. Both parents often work not to survive but to maintain a lifestyle level they could not hold with one. I work for the public service. Many, many of my colleagues have both parents working for the government making good incomes. They don't need both those incomes except that they want the two cars, the cottage, and the big house.

Now let me see if I get the Liberal plan properly. I have a colleague who earns $70k per year. His wife earns $50k per year. They have a big, expensive house, a boat, a car, a mini-van, and regularly take vacations abroad.

I have to pay taxes to subsidise their daycare? Why, exactly?

If she stayed home with kids well, they'd have to sell the boat, which, btw, chugs gas by the gallon, according to him, stop taking vacations abroad for a while, maybe downsize to a smaller house, and hey, maybe he'd have to take the bus occassionally. Quelle horreur!!

[Guest eureka]

To judge by the calibre of the responses to this, Leafless is just a generation from disproving his theory of the stimulation. I take it that the many dissenters from actual daycare are those who never experienced it and were so stimulated by their stay-at-home parents that they are so easily taken in by Harper's plan to give their money to those who may actually want March Breaks in Florida rather than daycare.

The Liberals have been urging daycare for a long time, Argus, and have been delivering on the promise for the last couple of years. It has taken this long because provinces would not cooperate.

shoop, I understand tax credits very well. However, we are not talking of tax credits but money for a select group of the population that may or may not choose to spend it on daycare. This does amount to government collecting taxes and returning a depreciated amount to people who may or may not use it for daycare - most won't since many will still not be able to afford care and there will be no spaces for them if they could. Also, many more would consider that new "toys", like paying down the SUV loan are more important than care for their children.

This is not a Family Benefite scheme but a deliberate atempt to prevent daycare from being developed unless it is through Private Enterprise - the WalMart variety as someone mentioned earlier. WalMart only in the size of the business facilities that would be built but still unaffordable for those who really need it.

[shoop]

The tax credits are for business to supply daycare spaces.

Who are you to decide what daycares should look like? There should be freedom to provide daycare spaces that fit the best wishes of the parents, with regulation ensuring that standards of care are met.

What are you saying about people paying down the SUV loan? People will leave their children without care in order to make an extra payment on their vehicle? That would actually be neglect and bring them under criminal prosecution.

Martin was totally right when he said this election is about different sets of values. People who value their ability to make decisions about their lives rather than leaving it in the hands of the state have a very clear choice in front of them.

shoop, I understand tax credits very well. However, we are not talking of tax credits but money for a select group of the population that may or may not choose to spend it on daycare. This does amount to government collecting taxes and returning a depreciated amount to people who may or may not use it for daycare - most won't since many will still not be able to afford care and there will be no spaces for them if they could. Also, many more would consider that new "toys", like paying down the SUV loan are more important than care for their children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Leader Circle]

To judge by the calibre of the responses to this, Leafless is just a generation from disproving his theory of the stimulation. I take it that the many dissenters from actual daycare are those who never experienced it and were so stimulated by their stay-at-home parents that they are so easily taken in by Harper's plan to give their money to those who may actually want March Breaks in Florida rather than daycare.

The Liberals have been urging daycare for a long time, Argus, and have been delivering on the promise for the last couple of years. It has taken this long because provinces would not cooperate.

shoop, I understand tax credits very well. However, we are not talking of tax credits but money for a select group of the population that may or may not choose to spend it on daycare. This does amount to government collecting taxes and returning a depreciated amount to people who may or may not use it for daycare - most won't since many will still not be able to afford care and there will be no spaces for them if they could. Also, many more would consider that new "toys", like paying down the SUV loan are more important than care for their children.

This is not a Family Benefite scheme but a deliberate atempt to prevent daycare from being developed unless it is through Private Enterprise - the WalMart variety as someone mentioned earlier. WalMart only in the size of the business facilities that would be built but still unaffordable for those who really need it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Makes entirely no sense eureka!

Putting the kids behind your SUV payment?? Glad you're not my parent!

LOL. The Liberal mind at work!

[The Honest Politician]

To praphrase a now mouldering but once allegedly great Canadian political leader: Why should I look after your kids?

This is help, not taking over the job. It is, as someone described it, a "toddler bonus" on top of the baby bonus and other government tax breaks parents get. Put it all together and I think it's a fairly significant help to parents. But you are right, this does not completely eliminate the need of parents to look after their kids.

So instead of using the money to create more daycare spaces for average or below average income families, it should be given to the individual who may use it to buy bread, or clothes for their child, or they may use it to buy crack.

Children of parents who are themselves dysfunctrional are the children that need the most help. I have listened to 25+ years of horror stories of what some of my mothers students have had to deal with at home. I have friends who grew up in dysfunctional violent homes. Sometimes school/daycare is the safest place to be.

The simple fact of the matter is, the children who need the Govt. daycare the most , will be the ones who do without under the CPC plan.

[Guest eureka]

You should drop the who are you style of "debate," shoop. It gets you nowhere and detracts from the argument you are not makung anyway by saying it. Who am I? I am one who is thinkking about what is needed and, strangely (?) most child care advocates seem to be thinking the same way - as Rona Ambrose found out when she tried to tangle with them.

This does not have a damn thing to do with choice. It is about providing daycare where it is needed as against giving a present to families with children. A present that denies daycare to the needy since it reduces any anount that would go into creating spaces and, for those that do not need, or want, care, it is your money they will be given.

And, for you and Leafless, there are very many who will use it for car payments or holidays. There will be those who do not want day care spaces: there will be those whose priorities are not their childrens' socialization or education. There are many like that in all classes as you would be aware if you had a connection with education.

[shoop]

Hmmm, thanks for re-inforcing my point. Same dictatorial Liberals trying tell the uneducated mass of Canadians what is best for them.

Seriously though, have you been drinking or something? You usually don't spell this strangely or question the words you have spelled correctly.

Yeah, I think Rona Ambrose. She will do a much better job as minister of social development than Ken Dryden.

You should drop the who are you style of "debate," shoop. It gets you nowhere and detracts from the argument you are not makung anyway by saying it. Who am I? I am one who is thinkking about what is needed and, strangely (?) most child care advocates seem to be thinking the same way - as Rona Ambrose found out when she tried to tangle with them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[err]

Unless anyone disagrees that the parents obviously know what's best for their child (moreso than Paul Martin himself) rather than the government, the CPC's plan for childcare is the best.  It puts money in the hands of the parents, so they may decide where their children go and it puts  money in the hands of childcare facilities, instead of some bloated bureaucracy that's more concerned about government handouts than caring for children.

I don't see how your argument that if "parents know best" that this somehow leads to "the CPC's plan being the best.... ". No logic was presented to support your line of thinking... there is no data, no poll, no logic at all in what you've presented...

I think that you'll find that a lot of people will prefer non-profit, government run facilities whose prime purpose is not extracting money from taxpayer's pockets (whether directly, or through taxes).,,,,Just as MOST Canadians prefer our government run medicaire over a private system like they have in the USA.

And then there's the "purchasing power" of billions of dollars verses lots of installments of $25.... which, incidentally will help someone who can already afford daycare, but isn't enought to help most people put their kids into a daycare... so maybe they can buy diapers with it, or put it towards their Ontario Healthcare premium.... Because it won't help most people afford daycare....

A government run day care can be run much less expensively than can a private one, given the same level of service, as the private centre will demand a considerable profit. Profit that comes from either charging more money for the same service, or by providing less money's worth of service for the same invoiced amount....

[err]

Hmmm, thanks for re-inforcing my point. Same dictatorial Liberals trying tell the uneducated mass of Canadians what is best for them.

The CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians, unless it about telling Canadian women they cant have abortions, or that homosexuals can't marry each other, or that it is ok to hate homosexuals.....

[sharkman]

I think that you'll find that a lot of people will prefer non-profit, government run facilities whose prime purpose is not extracting money from taxpayer's pockets (whether directly, or through taxes).,,,,Just as MOST Canadians prefer our government run medicaire over a private system like they have in the USA. 

And then there's the "purchasing power" of billions of dollars verses lots of installments of $25....  which, incidentally will help someone who can already afford daycare, but isn't enought to help most people put their kids into a daycare... so maybe they can buy diapers with it, or put it towards their Ontario Healthcare premium.... Because it won't help most people afford daycare....

A government run day care can be run much less expensively than can a private one, given the same level of service, as the private centre will demand a considerable profit.  Profit that comes from either charging more money for the same service, or by providing less money's worth of service for the same invoiced amount....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that you'll find that a lot of people will prefer the government give them the money and let them decide how best to use it. Under the Liberal plan you only get a benefit if you stick your kid in a gov. daycare. Dryden himself says only 1 in 7 women do that. That means the Liberals plan leaves 86% out in the cold.

Nice hate speech on the CPC by the way, you're much more intolerant than you claim they are. you claim the CPC dictates to Canadians, this plan of the Liberals is them doing to us in daycare.

[err]

I think that you'll find that a lot of people will prefer the government give them the money and let them decide how best to use it.  Under the Liberal plan you only get a benefit if you stick your kid in a gov. daycare.  Dryden himself says only 1 in 7 women do that.  That means the Liberals plan leaves 86% out in the cold. 

The government program under discussion is "child care" I thought... not "general tax refunds", etc... We don't elect governments to give us our money back as their top priority... we elect them to provide us with services that as individuals, we cannot provide adequately.

The governement can provide a much better health care system than either you or I could with the amount of money that we put into health care out of our own paycheques.... That is a given... So would we be better off paying $100 less per month in deductions and have absolutely no public health care.... With that $100 per month, could you keep your family healthier and safer, and promise a longer life than with our health care system.... I think not....

We can extend this logic to a state-run child-care system that will provide many people in need with child-care assistance. The CPC plan provides nobody with child-care assistance.... not even enough for one day per week in daycare.... So the CPC's plan is a plan where nobody really wins.... whereas with a state-run system many hundreds of thousands would get real assistance... enough to allow them to take a full-time job....

Nice hate speech on the CPC by the way, you're much more intolerant than you claim they are. 

Just calling a spade a spade.... If I have described hatred that I have seen (eminating from CPC policy direction), don't blame me for stating candidly what I have witnessed.....

[Riverwind]

We can extend this logic to a state-run child-care system that will provide many people in need with child-care assistance.

Unlike healthcare, most people are perfectly capable of taking care of their own kids. in fact, having one parent staying at home is the best solution for kids - daycare should only be used a last resort. therefore any gov't program should start by encouraging people to stay at home. harper's plan to allow spouses to average out their income would go along way to meeting this objective - the additional 1200 is icing on the cake.

what most people forget is the need for two incomes is driven entirely by a desire to enjoy a higher standard of living. most people could choose to have one parent stay at home but are not willing to make the sacrifices in terms of christmas gifts, vacations, extra curricular activities, etc. we should not be taxing people who choose to accept a lower standard of living in order to care for their kids to pay for people who believe that having kids should involve no sacrifices.

[Argus]

To judge by the calibre of the responses to this, Leafless is just a generation from disproving his theory of the stimulation. I take it that the many dissenters from actual daycare are those who never experienced it and were so stimulated by their stay-at-home parents that they are so easily taken in by Harper's plan to give their money to those who may actually want March Breaks in Florida rather than daycare.

Given your slavering adulation of every pearl of wisdom which drops from Paul Martin's tongue you are hardly a poster who can credibly claim to having more thoughfull responses to political speech. I don't doubt that when Martin announces his newest placebo on crime today you'll be cheering and howling about the second coming once again.

The Liberals have been urging daycare for a long time, Argus, and have been delivering on the promise for the last couple of years. It has taken this long because provinces would not cooperate.

Of course. we all know that you despise provincial governments, and that so far as you are concerned all problems in Canada come from the evil and selfish nature of provincial governments. Why, they all hate children as much as the conservatives, don't they!? Of course it would take 12 years of desperate entreaties from the noble Liberal party to persuade them to take billions in cash!

shoop, I understand tax credits very well. However, we are not talking of tax credits but money for a select group of the population

That would be 46% of the population, right? Of course, the money would also go to the 54% who use daycare... .so, by "select group" you mean all parents with young children, right?

that may or may not choose to spend it on daycare. This does amount to government collecting taxes and returning a depreciated amount to people who may or may not use it for daycare

How is it possible you still don't understand that a tax credit means the government does not collect the money at all? It is Martin's plan which has the government collecting money, then "processing" it, which no-doubt means quite a few of those bucks will stick to bureacratic fingers, and more to greasy Liberal fingers, then paying it to the provinces to "process" which means they get to slice off a few pieces, then them paying it out to officially unionized daycare centres.

All Harper's plan does is remove the two governments as intermediaries, thus easing processing costs.

- most won't since many will still not be able to afford care and there will be no spaces for them if they could. Also, many more would consider that new "toys", like paying down the SUV loan are more important than care for their children.

Yes, we can't trust parents to spend money on their children. They'll probably all go out and buy drugs and booze! Children should all be taken away from their parents at birth and raised by the state!

It's not just the conservatives and provinces who are evil! So are parents! Oh God, I hope Paul Martin saves us from these evil people!!

[Kula]

My wife works at a semi-private daycare. It costs over $30 a day per child without any Govt assistance.  That can get very expensive. I don't see how $25 a week fixes  that problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mmmmm hmmmm. And if the government runs childcare in this country what will it cost taxpayers? $100 a day, $200 a day? The gun registry has now cost almost 1000 times what was originally targeted by the Liberals. I have no reason to believe the corrupt and inept Liberals will be able to do any better with childcare.

I am a strong believer in allowing people to make decisions. I also believe I can spend my money more responsibly than the government... especially the Liberal government. I also think it is insulting to assume state run day care can raise children better than parents.

Give the parents the money to spend. It's called choice, something we should have in a democracy.

Kula

[Argus]

To praphrase a now mouldering but once allegedly great Canadian political leader: Why should I look after your kids?

This is help, not taking over the job. It is, as someone described it, a "toddler bonus" on top of the baby bonus and other government tax breaks parents get. Put it all together and I think it's a fairly significant help to parents. But you are right, this does not completely eliminate the need of parents to look after their kids.

So instead of using the money to create more daycare spaces for average or below average income families, it should be given to the individual who may use it to buy bread, or clothes for their child, or they may use it to buy crack.

Children of parents who are themselves dysfunctrional are the children that need the most help.

Another one who longs for the days of Orwell. Yes, take the children away from parents completely! Parents can't be trusted to raise children! They must be raised by the government! Only the government has the wisdom and nobility, the intelligence and sense of responsibility to properly look after our children!

Where do you people come from? I mean, were you raised in creches or did you all simply have rotten parents?

[Argus]

A government run day care can be run much less expensively than can a private one, given the same level of service, as the private centre will demand a considerable profit.  Profit that comes from either charging more money for the same service, or by providing less money's worth of service for the same invoiced amount....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe on your planet, but I haven't yet figured out where that is. Nothing the government does in this country is less expensive or as efficient as what the private sector does. Government run daycare centres suffer from the same bureacratic mindset as, for example, schools. A certain type of personality makes a great teacher, or daycare worker. But schools now attract people who want to make a good salary, be comfortable and secure, have lots of holidays, and yet, have no particular skill, talent or abilities. The results are obvious; enormous expense, but lousy product. A caring young person can easily look after kids, but we'll soon see daycare workers needing a masters in early childhood education just to get in the door, and of course, that means they'll have to get big, fat salaries. We'll have the finest daycare facilities around, but only a fraction of the population will be able to use them without us going bankrupt.

[shoop]

Again spreading lies and ignorance.

Getting back on topic. It seems that you are admitting the Liberals are wrong in this case, but it is justified because of your inaccurate portrayal of CPC policies on other issues.

The CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians, unless it about telling Canadian women they cant have abortions, or that homosexuals can't marry each other, or that it is ok to hate homosexuals.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Chimera]

What seems to be missing from this debate, from mpov, is that the people who cannot afford daycare (the ones the Liberals say the plan would benefit most), would likely not even be able to use the gov't daycare. My reasoning is this - lower paying jobs are generally not m-f 9-5. These parents will be working shift, and unless the gov't daycares are open 24-7 (a VERY expensive proposition), no benefit will come to these people.

Now, $100/month will not solve the problem either, but as a future parent, it would be my choice.

[Guest eureka]

Sparhawk, I do not think you are right about two income families. I would say that the majority of those do it to survive not to gain a higher standard of living. I have pointed in other discussions to the reality of the decline in family incomes that has ocurred under both Liberal and Conservative governments and that the increases are because of two working.

There has been a huge increase in part-time and minimum wage jobs that requires two incomes to maintain any standard.

As an American single mother activist said recently: "There has been an increase in job creation. I should know; I have three of them."

[Guest eureka]

If one in seven women do not use daycare, what does that mean? Could it be that many of them do not have children of the age to need the care? Could it also be that many of them cannot afford daycare? Could it also be that there is no daycare available?

There is an urgent need that can be addressed by government action as Quebec has demonstrated. The need can not be addressed by giving the money for the programme to those who will not use or do not need, the facilities.

And, Argus, it is not about tax credits. It is about wrongly diverting moneys. You might start paying attention tho the arguments instead of the desperate polemics.

[shoop]

Eureka, the other proposals the CPC have made towards changing the way Canadians are taxed support your conclusion directly. Splitting of income will lower the need for people to have a double-income family for solely economic reasons.

Sparhawk, I do not think you are right about two income families. I would say that the majority of those do it to survive not to gain a higher standard of living. I have pointed in other discussions to the reality of the decline in family incomes that has ocurred under both Liberal and Conservative governments and that the increases are because of two working.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

Hmmm, thanks for re-inforcing my point. Same dictatorial Liberals trying tell the uneducated mass of Canadians what is best for them.

The CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians, unless it about telling Canadian women they cant have abortions, or that homosexuals can't marry each other, or that it is ok to hate homosexuals.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or that we should put young people in jail and give them criminal records for the rest of their lives because they possessed a gram of marijuana. Surely even CPC supporters would agree that Harper's finally crossed the line by opposing something as benign as decriminalization. But hey, when someone thinks the 1920's approach of decriminalizing alcohol and criminalizing marijuana is logical, they're irrational anyway. But I will concede that he'd have made a fine Prime Minister in 1925.

The Liberals, NDP and BQ, as well as two thirds of the Canadian population favour decriminalization but CPC knows better and believes jail time "will teach 'em". Nope, CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians.

[Chimera]

Hmmm, thanks for re-inforcing my point. Same dictatorial Liberals trying tell the uneducated mass of Canadians what is best for them.

The CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians, unless it about telling Canadian women they cant have abortions, or that homosexuals can't marry each other, or that it is ok to hate homosexuals.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

or that we should put young people in jail and give them criminal records for the rest of their lives because they possessed a gram of marijuana. Surely even CPC supporters would agree that Harper's finally crossed the line by opposing something as benign as decriminalization. But hey, when someone thinks the 1920's approach of decriminalizing alcohol and criminalizing marijuana is logical, they're irrational anyway. But I will concede that he'd have made a fine Prime Minister in 1925.

The Liberals, NDP and BQ, as well as two thirds of the Canadian population favour decriminalization but CPC knows better and believes jail time "will teach 'em". Nope, CPC would never try to dictate what's best for Canadians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Holy off-topic Batman!!!

[sharkman]

Don't you see, Chimera? These day care kids that smoke weed need a second chance!

[wellandboy]

This is actually a decent debate in recent memory on an important issue. The institutionalization of daycare by the government is a scary prospect however.

Norman bringing decriminalization of pot into this discussion is just ...well ...sad.