Parents will blow childcare cash on beer & popcorn

[Riverwind]

In fact, the Tory proposal goes some way to redressing the anomalies in the tax and legal systems which discourage marriage, or at least two people living together.

This issue is not whether it encourages people to get or stay married. The issue is does it encourage people to stay home and take care of their own kids. On that score it fails because a two income family making 30K each/year will get more benefit from this plan than a one income family making 60k/year .

[August1991]

The best way to handle this is to work out a dollar amount and issue a daycare chit that is accepted by whomever you want to provide daycare.  Handing out dollars is silly and would lead to abuse ala beer and popcorn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Shakey, you raise one good question but in my mind, there in fact two questions here.

First, should we as a society take from rich people (with or without children) and give to poor people with children?

Second, if so, when we give to poor people, should we give cash or should we give in kind (chits, vouchers and so on up to organizing the day care service)?

----

I am a little astonished that everyone is so quick to say yes to the first question. No one in Canada seems to argue the contrary. Worse, no one seems to have an idea of how much we should give, or how to define "rich" or "poor".

As to the second question, I can only answer by repeating the famous four ways to spend money: your own money for yourself, your own money for someone else, someone else's money for yourself, someone else's money for someone else.

When a government sets up a day care network, it is spending money the fourth way. (Ugh.) Your chit idea is sort of the third way.

If we are looking for bang-for-buck, we would be best to just give the moms (sorry to be sexist) the money and let them use it as they best see fit. My mom was as frugal as could be with the baby bonus cheque. Believe me, she is miles away from gun registries and INA bottled water - let alone beer and peanuts.

----

As to the popcorn/beer remark, there are broader issues.

If we have bad parents, there are provincial child protection agencies but a bad parent is often better than an indifferent bureaucrat. Is the State the best way to deal with bad parents?

In any case, the extreme cases are a separate issue. The vast majority of parents care tremendously for their children. (FTA is an eloquent example.) Their kids are life itself. We should not bias their choice about day care, making home care only a luxury for the rich.

I think that it is unwise for a society to put all its eggs in one basket, particularly for something as critical as children.

As a society, we should reward independence. (The Left has appropriated this idea and calls it empowerment.)

To find a childcare system that works, you must go further to the left.

You seem enamoured with the Quebec day care system, and probably the CBC. So, read this CBC report about Quebec's system.

[cybercoma]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

It is taxable on the lower income spouse so people with higher incomes will have more clawed back.

Ironically, the tory approach actually screws single income families because giving income to the lower income spouse reduces the tax credit the higher income spouse gets. The net result is single income families will likely see the bonus taxed at the highest marginal rate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it ironic that they can tax the taxes they're giving out?

[August1991]

In fact, the Tory proposal goes some way to redressing the anomalies in the tax and legal systems which discourage marriage, or at least two people living together.

This issue is not whether it encourages people to get or stay married. The issue is does it encourage people to stay home and take care of their own kids. On that score it fails because a two income family making 30K each/year will get more benefit from this plan than a one income family making 60k/year .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk, you tell me: who is more deserving? A single mother earning 60,000 a year or a couple earning each 30,000?

But Sparhawk, please compare comparables. (It makes sense to me that someone earning 60,000 a year is worth more in paid employment than someone earning 30,000.) The Liberal proposal creates an incentive to keep everyone in the paid workforce and send their children to day care. To pick an extreme example, a single mother earning minimum wage has an incentive to send her children to day care. That's a bad use of resources.

My main point though was that the current tax/child benefit/legal systems (and the Liberal proposal) create incentives to live alone. Financially, the single mother has no interest in getting married and the couple has every reason to separate.

In truth, governments wade into these issues at their peril. There are many unintended consequences awaiting us all.

[Renegade]

First, should we as a society take from rich people (with or without children) and give to poor people with children?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say definately not. If parents think find it too expensive to have kids why then do they opt to have kids? The choice to have kids is theirs alone so the fiscal responsibility should be theirs alone. This is true regardless if parents are rich or poor.

[err]

Am I the only one who found the *popcorn* side of the issue really quite strange? I have spent my fair share on beer, but why popcorn? Was that code for weed? 

I suspect you CPC types know what it really stands for... Child Porn... It almost rhymes with popcorn.... Maybe you should attack from this angle....

[err]

Answer: The state is providing parents with an option for childcare, options are good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is an option that involves the following: I will tax you and use the money to build a house. Now, you have the option of eithering living in the house I have built for you or using your after-tax money to build your own house that you prefer.

That's a strange definition of "option".

Come on August... you can do better than this sham of a pathetic analogy...

Why don't you change the "house" in your analogy to a "service", which is what the proposed Childcare is.... let's say it's a "hospital", "grocery store", "hardware store", or something along that line..... Then the argument is clearly in favour of the government-run option....

[Guest eureka]

I wonder how many participanrs know or have contact with those that the Liberal and NDP plans are aimed at. We don't get most of those on here though there have been a couple who did not stay. They likely did not stay because they do not care to listen to the tales of all their faults.

I have no personal experience with the need for daycare. I do see frequently people who do. The Conservative plan will do nothing for them: they will be just a little less destirute. Certainly they will not be able to afford daycare or any type of care any more than they can now. And, they will laugh at the pious claims of personal responsibility and parental choice. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, need to work but can't because they have to stay home with children: children who do not enjoy the advantages of socialization through their parents taking them to hockey practices or what have you.

It goes with the equally discriminatory credit for enrollment in sports. There again, there are vast numbers of people who cannot afford to enroll their kids in anything and would have little or no taxable income anyway.

Daycare is not about the state raising children. It is about providing for their future; their health; and their education. It is about giving them a chance in life.

[August1991]

Answer: The state is providing parents with an option for childcare, options are good.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is an option that involves the following: I will tax you and use the money to build a house. Now, you have the option of eithering living in the house I have built for you or using your after-tax money to build your own house that you prefer.

That's a strange definition of "option".

Come on August... you can do better than this sham of a pathetic analogy...

Why don't you change the "house" in your analogy to a "service", which is what the proposed Childcare is.... let's say it's a "hospital", "grocery store", "hardware store", or something along that line..... Then the argument is clearly in favour of the government-run option....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

err, new housing is a possible example for State provision. Child care is a terrible example.

There is no question that a parent can provide child care at much less cost than the State ever could.

err, you often argue that profits cause higher costs. Well, I don't know if you've ever changed a diaper but here's a new conception of "profit". Profit is the difference between the pleasure of a happy kid less the hassle/smell of changing a diaper. The State has to pay people to change a diaper. Bay Street lawyers do it for nothing, if the diaper is on their own kid.

There's more. Parents know best how to change their kids' diapers because they change so many of them. No State employee would ever gain such knowledge.

----

Grocery store? Health care? Hardware store? Look, err, let's leave the public/private debate for another thread. (I spent time in the Soviet bloc before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall so I have practical experience with State-provision of such services - not their theoretical provision.)

For the moment, we are discussing how we as a society should help families with young children. In this, let's be pragmatic.

----

Final thought.

By taking money from rich families and giving it to poor families with children, we are creating incentives for poor families to have children.

In fact, our tax system encourages rich people not to have children. They are better off with no kids. Poor people, on the other hand, are better off to have kids.

[pharmer]

Pharmer-To find a childcare system that works, you must go further to the left.

August1991- You seem enamoured with the Quebec day care system, and probably the CBC. So, read this CBC report about Quebec's system.

As previously mentioned in this thread, a national childcare program will not (at least not in the near future) be available to every family. This is a program in it's infancy

and requires time for it to become self-sustainable. The immediate focus of any new program is on low-income families urban centers where the need is the greatest.

Perhaps, since it is/has been used as a vote-grab during election(s) the demand for spots will be high initially due to many Canadians, who do not actually require childcare (ie. their family income is too high), seeking spots in the program. Although this is a positive situation, it's a good thing when Canadians use the programs

their government provides, the consequences are that many families will be turned away.

You may ask; Why then should we provide a program that is so selective?

The answer, in brief, is the oppurtunity it provides for families that have a NEED for the program. The important result of the Quebec childcare program is that it has

provided relief for low-income families that would not be able to support themselves without this social program.

The article that August referred from the CBC depicts the situation in rural Quebec. A national childcare program (and Quebec's program also) is focused on high need regions (urban centers) where the program will be most widely used.

This does touch on another important issue which is the need for health, education and childcare to become more community based. There are unmet needs in rural communities and certainly the goal of any national program should be to reach all Canadians.

Rome wasn't built in one day

http://www.medicc.org/medicc_review/1104/p...spotlight2.html

[lovecanada]

Time after time NOONE with any party mentions that low income families already get a huge break in daycare! Low income/single parents pay maybe 22% of the cost of daycare. (I paid $350 a monthtwelve years ago for a dayhome, single parents/low income were paying $80 a month). I on the other hand because I am married, in a stable relationship and work, pay the FULL price! How is that fair? I personally love the Conservative program, only it's too late for me. Any new parents should love it!

[justcrowing]

Time after time NOONE with any party mentions that low income families already get a huge break in daycare! Low income/single parents pay maybe 22% of the cost of daycare.  (I paid $350 a monthtwelve years ago for a dayhome, single parents/low income were paying $80 a month). I on the other hand because I am married, in a stable relationship and work, pay the FULL price! How is that fair? I personally love the Conservative program, only it's too late for me. Any new parents should love it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I have heard on the news and read in the papers - parents love Harper's plan which gives them choices. Also, it is fair to all working parents. Even Sheila Copps endorses it and she is more NDP than she is a Liberal.

[Canuck E Stan]

Daycare is not about the state raising children. It is about providing for their future; their health; and their education. It is about giving them a chance in life.

You're full of it Eureka.

It is about the state raising children.

Daycare will not provide for their future;their health;and their education.

The parent will do that.

And it not about giving them a chance in life.We are talking about children under the age of six,what they want is attention,a happy home environment and a hell of a lot of love.

Give the young adult his first job if you want to give anyone a chance in life.

These are our children,they are not dogs or cats to be placed in human kennels to be trained.

People who have children are generally young and the experience can be overwhelming for the first five years,especially if there is more than one child.

Stress on marriage,time constraints,relationship building,sacrifices,financial commitments,all take their toll on everyone in the new family.

Society will do their earnest to take care of those that need the help, but allow us to control that what is most important to us,our children by giving some help to the family.

Harper's plan can be implemented today while your child is still under six.

We don't have to wait years for a Liberal plan to get started.

We have waited 12 years just to get to this point.

This whole daycare thing is new to Canadian society and much has to be worked out.

We can start with Harper's plan and build up from there.

[err]

There is no question that a parent can provide child care at much less cost than the State ever could.

But if inexpensive homecare comes with the price of a lost income necessary to pay for the home, then it is actually more expensive.

err, you often argue that profits cause higher costs.  Well, I don't know if you've ever changed a diaper but here's a new conception of "profit".  Profit is the difference between the pleasure of a happy kid less the hassle/smell of changing a diaper.  The State has to pay people to change a diaper.  Bay Street lawyers do it for nothing, if the diaper is on their own kid.

There's more.  Parents know best how to change their kids' diapers because they change so many of them.  No State employee would ever gain such knowledge.

August... I've changed hundreds of diapers for all of my children. You don't need a pre-med degree to do so. It is not difficult at all.

However, the daycare issue is about daycare, not "giving parents choice", or "giving parents money"... In our society, in most families, both parents have to work to support a certain expected standard of living. For many families life is a real struggle, having to balance a desire to stay home with the children or go to some degrading job just to be able to afford milk and new socks and underwear for the kids. It is these families, who are most in need, that we should aspire to provide assistance.

$25/week won't pay for one single day of daycare (in most of Canada). It might come as some relief to many, but it certainly will not afford daycare for any but those who can pretty much afford it already.

----

Grocery store?  Health care?  Hardware store?  Look, err, let's leave the public/private debate for another thread. 

Isn't this what we're talking about.... publicly provided daycare as opposed to a 'tax break for those with children'

(I spent time in the Soviet bloc before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall so I have practical experience with State-provision of such services - not their theoretical provision.)

Hey everybody, August is a "world traveller" so her opinion must be better than everybody else's....

The USSR was bankrupted by playing the USA's cold war game. That's where their money went, rather than into their infrastructure.... That explains their failure more that all other reasons combined...

By taking money from rich families and giving it to poor families with children, we are creating incentives for poor families to have children.

In fact, our tax system encourages rich people not to have children.  They are better off with no kids.  Poor people, on the other hand, are better off to have kids.

$25/week to have kids... no thanks... I thought you used to fancy yourself as knowing something about economics.... but not real-world I guess ???

It amazes me, some of the things that come out of your mouth.... "Rich people are better off with no kids".... Perhaps if your kids are financial "investments", your statement might have some merit on paper... but people don't usually have kids as investments.... there's other reasons that money can't buy....

[err]

From what I have heard on the news and read in the papers - parents love Harper's plan which gives them choices.  Also, it is fair to all working parents.  Even Sheila Copps endorses it and she is more NDP than she is a Liberal.

That's right... On the CPC website, all the parents love it... and same with all the parents who wrote into the National Post.... So it must be universally accepted....

[August1991]

It amazes me, some of the things that come out of your mouth.... "Rich people are better off with no kids".... Perhaps if your kids are financial "investments", your statement might have some merit on paper... but people don't usually have kids as investments.... there's other reasons that money can't buy....

And it amazes me how Leftists quickly argue "it's not about money; it's about people."

Sorry, but 25$ to some people matters.

Hey everybody, August is a "world traveller" so her opinion must be better than everybody else's....

Good point; you're right. I like this forum because posters' reputations are based on their arguments, not their personal claims.

In our society, in most families, both parents have to work to support a certain expected standard of living. For many families life is a real struggle, having to balance a desire to stay home with the children or go to some degrading job just to be able to afford milk and new socks and underwear for the kids.

Yes. And taxes play an important part of their lives.

The reason many ordinary working Canadians must send their kids to day care is because they pay so much tax and have little money for other solutions. In Quebec, if you can find it, day care costs 7$ per day. On the other hand, taxes are such that you have to work to pay rent.

This is madness.

----

Look, err. I think we might agree. We probably both want young kids to have a decent chance in life. How to make that happen?

[Leader Circle]

It amazes me, some of the things that come out of your mouth.... "Rich people are better off with no kids".... Perhaps if your kids are financial "investments", your statement might have some merit on paper... but people don't usually have kids as investments.... there's other reasons that money can't buy....

And it amazes me how Leftists quickly argue "it's not about money; it's about people."

Sorry, but 25$ to some people matters.

Hey everybody, August is a "world traveller" so her opinion must be better than everybody else's....

Good point; you're right. I like this forum because posters' reputations are based on their arguments, not their personal claims.

In our society, in most families, both parents have to work to support a certain expected standard of living. For many families life is a real struggle, having to balance a desire to stay home with the children or go to some degrading job just to be able to afford milk and new socks and underwear for the kids.

Yes. And taxes play an important part of their lives.

The reason many ordinary working Canadians must send their kids to day care is because they pay so much tax and have little money for other solutions. In Quebec, if you can find it, day care costs 7$ per day. On the other hand, taxes are such that you have to work to pay rent.

This is madness.

----

Look, err. I think we might agree. We probably both want young kids to have a decent chance in life. How to make that happen?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is August, err doesn't come here to contribute, he comes here to stir shit & play the devil's advocate.

And what do we know here about feeding the trolls?

[err]

Look, err. I think we might agree. We probably both want young kids to have a decent chance in life.  How to make that happen?

Paul Martin's plan is "daycare", and Harper's is "tax relief"... two completely different goals...

I would profess that the government has the capability of providing more "daycare solutions" for more people than a small tax return for those with small children... a return that will not increase accesibility to daycare for as many people as the Liberal or NDP solutions will....

I would also suggest that it be targetted to those who need it the most. If you'll remember Brian Mulroney's "Wealty Banker's Wife" commercials, where, in order to justify his cancellation of the family allowance benefit, Mulroney presented commercials of the wealth woman deciding whether to buy chocolates or perfume with her monthly cheque... And based on the "outrage" of the "rich people freeloading", Mulroney cancelled the family allowance cheque that many poor families needed.

This is a perfectly parallel situation where the CPC is championing the exact opposite postion from Mulroney's Progressive Conservative party. This contradiction itself raises many questions..... The way I see it, Harper's fiscal policy is closer to Liberal than Conservative..... which is what they'd need to get elected, so they could impement their social conservative policies.....

[FTA Lawyer]

First, should we as a society take from rich people (with or without children) and give to poor people with children?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would say definately not. If parents think find it too expensive to have kids why then do they opt to have kids? The choice to have kids is theirs alone so the fiscal responsibility should be theirs alone. This is true regardless if parents are rich or poor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Renegade,

No problem...quit taxing the ever-living hell out of me and I'll raise my kids famously without a damn bit of government benevolence...but don't take 40% of what I earn and then tell me that I make too much money to qualify for the fabulous Big Brother Day Care Program so have fun paying the bills...and by the way, don't complain because its your own fault for having kids in the first place. :angry:

FTA

[bigroy]

A question about the Tories' plan: is there an income cut off? Or will anybody with a kid under six get the money?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tell this to separated moms with kids.

In most cases Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to the separated dad. Remember, it's the parent with the lower income that gets the 1200 dollars - which will be the dad - because with the child support, the mom's income is most often higher than the dad's. She's not taxed on child support income ... but it's still income.

In most cases, Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to dads who've left their families.

And, no separated mom has to be reminded that the dad only has to pay her the amount of child support that is ordered by the court.

So, the money for his children, will go into his new family unit - assuming he's remarried which most are.

Just ask separated moms, how often the kid's dads give more money to the mom, than the amount ordered by the courts.

Harper - some policy wonk - emphasis on the "wonk."

bigroy

p.s. - the only parent getting the money without clawback is the parent who is in the middle-high income bracket - that's what Harper said - middle&high income brackets only get it without clawback.

[bigroy]

Tell this to separated moms with kids.

In most cases Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to the separated dad. Remember, it's the parent with the lower income that gets the 1200 dollars - which will be the dad - because with the child support, the mom's income is most often higher than the dad's. She's not taxed on child support income ... but it's still income.

In most cases, Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to dads who've left their families.

And, no separated mom has to be reminded that the dad only has to pay her the amount of child support that is ordered by the court.

So, the money for his children, will go into his new family unit - assuming he's remarried which most are.

Just ask separated moms, how often the kid's dads give more money to the mom, than the amount ordered by the courts.

Harper - some policy wonk - emphasis on the wonk

[Renegade]

Renegade,

No problem...quit taxing the ever-living hell out of me and I'll raise my kids famously without a damn bit of government benevolence...but don't take 40% of what I earn and then tell me that I make too much money to qualify for the fabulous Big Brother Day Care Program so have fun paying the bills...and by the way, don't complain because its your own fault for having kids in the first place. :angry:

FTA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

FTA, I agree. Let's lower taxes and let people spend THEIR money on whatever the hell they want to, or have as many kids as they want to support.

To be fair, did you not make the decision to have kids knowing full well you were being taxed at 40%? And didn't you decide to have kids anyway?

[Renegade]

Tell this to separated moms with kids.

In most cases Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to the separated dad. Remember, it's the parent with the lower income that gets the 1200 dollars - which will be the dad - because with the child support, the mom's income is most often higher than the dad's. She's not taxed on child support income ... but it's still income.

In most cases, Harper's giving 1200 dollars a year to dads who've left their families.

And, no separated mom has to be reminded that the dad only has to pay her the amount of child support that is ordered by the court.

So, the money for his children, will go into his new family unit - assuming he's remarried which most are.

Just ask separated moms, how often the kid's dads give more money to the mom, than the amount ordered by the courts.

Harper - some policy wonk - emphasis on the wonk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What absolute nonsense!!! The parent paying child support (presumably the dad) does not get to deduct child support payments unless they separated prior to 1997 and have a court ordered support payment. So for everyone who separated after 1997, for the reciepient, the child support payment is not even reported as income. As far as parents who separated before 1997, how many do you think have kids who are young enough to qualify for childcare? Do the math.

[normanchateau]

The problem is August, err doesn't come here to contribute, he comes here to stir shit & play the devil's advocate.

And what do we know here about feeding the trolls?

Yes, Err is obviously a troll. The evidence is perfectly clear. Err doesn't support Harper and anyone who doesn't support Harper is a troll, not to mention morally inferior, illogical, violently opposed to honesty, in favour of corruption and worthy of being banned from mapleleafweb. The best CPC strategy is to ignore CPC nonsupporters and talk exclusively to supporters. Great idea!

[sharkman]

Yes, Err is obviously a troll.  The evidence is perfectly clear.  Err doesn't support Harper and anyone who doesn't support Harper is a troll, not to mention morally inferior, illogical, violently opposed to honesty, in favour of corruption and worthy of being banned from mapleleafweb. The best CPC strategy is to ignore CPC nonsupporters and talk exclusively to supporters.  Great idea!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey normie how's it going? Still campaigning hard for the Liberals I see. Good for you! One thing though, I've seen you slip up a time or two and think I might be able to help you. When discussing politics, it's best not use terms or strategies that give away your identity. Like for instance, 'strategized voting'. You don't want people to realize you're not just some Typical Canadian and then discount your comments. Don't be afraid to dumb it down a little. Hey, you're talking with people that don't know how to spend their own money, after all. Remember, win at all costs, and keep up the good work!