Parents will blow childcare cash on beer & popcorn

[normanchateau]

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I must say I'm sincerely flattered that you think I'm campaigning for the Liberals. Suggests at the very least that I sound somewhat convincing. I would never suspect that you are campaigning for Stephen Harper. Mostly because of how unconvincing you are...

And I seriously doubt that I would ever use a term like "strategized voting". I much prefer the term "strategic voting".

[FTA Lawyer]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, but what I'm saying at this point is that if I get to choose between me paying to raise other people's kids via a state-run daycare program or me getting some of my previously taken money back so that it makes it easier for me to raise my own kids, I pick the second option...that's why the Conservatives will get my vote.

It's one thing to help low-income people who cannot help themselves...it's another thing altogether to provide childcare to families who choose to put both parents into the workplace, while snubbing the families that choose to keep one parent at home.

And obviously we are of the same mind in responding to the "popcorn and beer" comment that started this thread...the government should not be in the business of telling parents how to raise their children...we're quite capable of making our own spending decisions / choices with our own money.

FTA

[Biblio Bibuli]

And obviously we are of the same mind in responding to the "popcorn and beer" comment that started this thread...the government should not be in the business of telling parents how to raise their children...we're quite capable of making our own spending decisions / choices with our own money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, FTA!

It's preposterous having to enroll my 7 foot tall kid in a hockey or figure skating club, if I want to take adventage of Harper's $500 tax credit, just because there is no basketball club for kids where I live.

Although ... she WOULD look impressive doing tripple axels and such.

In Richmond BC where the average child's height is under 5 feet tall I can see lots of ping-pong and jockey sports clubs spreading.

[shoop]

What have the Liberals proposed to deal with the growing problem of childhood obesity? Let me guess, government-run and sponsored fat camps. Parents would definitely be in the bad for blowing *this* tax break on beer/popcorn.

I agree, FTA!

It's preposterous having to enroll my 7 foot tall kid in a hockey or figure skating club, if I want to take adventage of Harper's $500 tax credit, just because there is no basketball club for kids where I live.

Although ... she WOULD look impressive doing tripple axels and such.

In Richmond BC where the average child's height is under 5 feet tall I can see lots of ping-pong and jockey sports clubs spreading.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Renegade]

Yes, but what I'm saying at this point is that if I get to choose between me paying to raise other people's kids via a state-run daycare program or me getting some of my previously taken money back so that it makes it easier for me to raise my own kids, I pick the second option...that's why the Conservatives will get my vote.

Between the two choices presented, I would have to agree that the perferable solutions is one that lets parents control the funds. But the best solution of all would be to just not tax people (both parents and non-parents) so highly and let them decide what to do with their money without government subsidies or interference. Unfortunately none of the parties has the courage enough to propose such a policy, and all parties busy figuring out how to best spend to buy votes.

It's one thing to help low-income people who cannot help themselves...it's another thing altogether to provide childcare to families who choose to put both parents into the workplace, while snubbing the families that choose to keep one parent at home.

My point was not to discriminate based upon the employment status of the parent. The point was that any of the childcare schemes discrimminate against those without children and those who's children are beyond childcare age, as they have already borne the burden of childcare expenses.

And obviously we are of the same mind in responding to the "popcorn and beer" comment that started this thread...the government should not be in the business of telling parents how to raise their children...we're quite capable of making our own spending decisions / choices with our own money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I couldn't agree more. I'm a parent myself so if the government wants to give me back of the money it forcibly took from me, I'll take it, but I would much prefer a solution where it didn't take the money to begin with.

[Biblio Bibuli]

What have the Liberals proposed to deal with the growing problem of childhood obesity? Let me guess, government-run and sponsored fat camps. Parents would definitely be in the bad for blowing *this* tax break on beer/popcorn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Note to Stephen: "Physician heal thyself butterball".

[Guest eureka]

Childcare and Early childhood education are inextricably linked and there have been many studies to show the need for that. Interestingly, both the Left and the Right have supported the need for childcare in the past. The Left for mostly ideological reasons and the Right for commercial reasons.

That is what makes the present argument somewhat redundant as it has all been gone over in the past. In fact, it has been studied to death. The refrain that children are best cared for by mothers in their homes is cynical in the extreme since it is quite impossible when more than 65% of Canadian mothers are in the workforce and a substantial percentage of those who are not desperately need to be but cannot for financial reasons.

In 1986, the Task Force on Childcare reported after a few years of study and in 1987, there was the Report of the Special Committee on Childcare. Both reccommended vastly increased support to subsidized daycare and the provision of many more daycare spaces as well as the construction of new facilities.

The Mulroney government introduced legislation to do this but later killed it. It also killed the Baby Bonus promising instead to direct the money to programmes for the elimination of child poverty. We all know what happened to that promise and how child poverty increased dramatically in the following years.

The Liberals, following Mulroney did not bring this childcare need back to public discourse until a couple of years ago.

This whole discouse seems to me to be a non-argument. Whether it is better for children to be cared for at home is moot. It might be for some but not for others and therein lies the argument for choice. The choice is inextricably wrapped up in the economic realities. Unless we restructure the economic system, there is a serious need for more, much more, government supported daycare and with it much more support for Early Childhood education.

There are some things that can be done to try to get the best of both. Things that seem to have been dropped from the discorse in the appeal to voters. There could be greater flexibilty in working hours: more support for Emplyer Assisted Plans and centres, as a couple of ideas that used to be heard but are not so prevalent now.

There are arguments for the Baby Bonus type of proposal of the Condervative. One is that Canada is the only country in the West that does not have this type of return since Mulroney ended it. Not much of an argument in my opinion inless it is accompanied by the facilitation of care and of other types of tax credits and support for the poor.

[shoop]

So you are opposed to the government providing incentives that encourage children to become more physically active? Perhaps if you relied a little less on the sarcasm your posts wouldn't be so difficult to understand...

Note to Stephen: "Physician heal thyself butterball".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Biblio Bibuli]

So you are opposed to the government providing incentives that encourage children to become more physically active? Perhaps if you relied a little less on the sarcasm your posts wouldn't be so difficult to understand...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you find Mark Steyn or Ann Coulter's sarcasm "difficult to understand"?

Do we have a humorless Liberal sneaking amongst us? Or gasp ... an NDPer?

[shoop]

I find both Steyn and Coulter to be incredibly annoying and childish.

I have no problem with humour if it makes sense, and is truly *funny*. Your sad attempt was neither... ps, take a look at my history of posts here. Pretty obvious that I support neither the NDs nor the Liberals.

Do you find Mark Steyn or Ann Coulter's sarcasm  "difficult to understand"?

Do we have a humorless Liberal sneaking amongst us? Or gasp ... an NDPer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Canuck E Stan]

There are some things that can be done to try to get the best of both. Things that seem to have been dropped from the discorse in the appeal to voters. There could be greater flexibilty in working hours: more support for Emplyer Assisted Plans and centres, as a couple of ideas that used to be heard but are not so prevalent now.

Eureka,your wish has been granted.

CPC Childcare

# In addition, we will help employers and communities create child care spaces in the workplace or through cooperative or community associations by establishing a Community Childcare Investment Program worth $250 million a year.

# Under the Community Childcare Investment Program, employers who create new childcare spaces for their employees, or for the wider community in collaboration with not-for-profit organizations, will be eligible to receive a credit of $10,000 per space. This program will create 25,000 new spaces per year, or 125,000 over the next five years.

# The tax credit will be designed to ensure that small businesses and rural communities will be able to access it as well as larger companies and cities.

[Guest eureka]

Unfortunately, Canuck, it does not seem to be quite so simple. There have been such programmes in the past yet EAP's did not reach more than 4% of all childcare spaces in Canada - that suggests government involvement is needed not just credits. And, do they mean tax credits? If so, the amount probably cuts out many employers.

Further does it mean that the amount grows to 1,250,000 annually. If not, the numbers do not compute. I was also well aware of the promise but don't believe it. Allied to massive tax cuts and other promised giveaways, the money simply will not be there.

Then, what do they mean by Community facilities that is different than the Liberals are promising? And where is the flexobility in work times and days that are required to make it work. Can you see a Conservative government enacting the kind of progressive legislation that is needed?

That should have read $1,250,000,000 annually!

Edited December 13, 2005 by eureka

[Guest eureka]

The question of greater or less developmental benefit is worth examining. If you are a CPC supporter - or other type of non-thinker- it is apparently de riguer to speak of the benefit of exclusively home reared infants. Magically, this benefit seems to disappear at the age of six or so when regular schooling begins.

Ignored is the reality that exclusive home rearing may actually be detrimental to both mother and child. It is a very isolating experience for both: removed from human interaction for much of every day. It most certainly does not assist the socializing process in the child.

Further, this kind of in-home rearing is a very recent development in human affairs. Always, in the past, there was society around even in the wealthier countries.

In France, some 80% of children have pre-schooling and care or neighbourhood programmes: some other countries come close. In Canada, I think but have not checked, it is about 15/20%.

[Canuck E Stan]

I was also well aware of the promise but don't believe it.

I believed the Liberal promise 12 years ago, stupid me. I don't need daycare now.

Your attitude about rejecting this proposal is just as stupid. This proposal is a start.

You stated this is what you want and the Conservatives are offering it, but you don't want it from them.

It has to come from the Liberals.

Guess what? Liberals aren't even offering this to you as an option.

The Conservatives will have to deliver or they will get bounced.

And I will be first in line to bounce them.

[Guest eureka]

I did not say that it is what I want: it is a part of a possible answer only. It also requires funding that the Conservatives cannot supply without not delivering their other payment promises. As has been said, the costing is left out of Harper's scripts and he can expect the others to crucify him over that later at the opportune time.

And, what is so differnt than the Liberals are promising when they talk of creating daycare spaces. That may equally be community driven: possibly more si since they also talk of building the infrastructure.

You say you have been waiting through 12 years of Liberal inaction. I did point out that the commissions on this delivered their reports fairly early in the Mulroney years and that the Mulroney legislation - withdrawn and abandoned, was to have put the reccomendations in place by 1994. So, we are looking at about twenty years almost and Mulroney removing the revenues from the federal coffers to pay for the plans.

I think you might drop the partisanship on an issue that affects the future every bit as much as healthcare does.

Where are the Conservatives on the other considerations I have mentioned?

[cybercoma]

The question of greater or less developmental benefit is worth examining. If you are a CPC supporter - or other type of non-thinker- it is apparently de riguer to speak of the benefit of exclusively home reared infants. Magically, this benefit seems to disappear at the age of six or so when regular schooling begins.

Ignored is the reality that exclusive home rearing may actually be detrimental to both mother and child. It is a very isolating experience for both: removed from human interaction for much of every day. It most certainly does not assist the socializing process in the child.

Further, this kind of in-home rearing is a very recent development in human affairs. Always, in the past, there was society around even in the wealthier countries.

In France, some 80% of children have pre-schooling and care or neighbourhood programmes: some other countries come close. In Canada, I think but have not checked, it is about 15/20%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And here comes the liberals butting into things that are none of their business. Tell you what, if YOU don't agree with home rearing, don't do it. Let other parents do what they feel is best for their children.

Also,

If you are a CPC supporter - or other type of non-thinker...

This is incredibly ignorant and uncalled for.

[err]

And here comes the liberals butting into things that are none of their business.  Tell you what, if YOU don't agree with home rearing, don't do it.  Let other parents do what they feel is best for their children.

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it....

The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"...

[cybercoma]

And here comes the liberals butting into things that are none of their business.  Tell you what, if YOU don't agree with home rearing, don't do it.  Let other parents do what they feel is best for their children.

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it....

The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Be paid for it? By their employers you mean? Because the government is just giving them their money back to help them raise their children.

[justcrowing]

Found this while scouring various newspapers online ....

Police raid closes daycare

Web posted on Tuesday, 13 December 2005

A daycare in Vernon has been ordered shut down after police found marijuana and guns inside the facility. RCMP raided the French Roots daycare in connection with an undercover investigation into street level drug dealing. A 27 year old resident of the home is charged with numerous offenses. After finding out what police seized from the licensed daycare residence, the Interior Health Authority ordered the operator to shut it down, even though police say there is no evidence she knew of the illegal activities allegedly going on inside the home. The daycare won't be allowed to reopen until authorities are assured the health and safety of the children are protected.

http://w3t.org/?u=fiu

[err]

And here comes the liberals butting into things that are none of their business.  Tell you what, if YOU don't agree with home rearing, don't do it.  Let other parents do what they feel is best for their children.

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it....

The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Be paid for it? By their employers you mean? Because the government is just giving them their money back to help them raise their children.

Parents who have the luxury of affording to stay home with their children shouldn't be paid to do it.. just because they don't need to or want to put their children in daycare.... The daycare monies should be put into daycare for those who need it....

And when you think about it, the government is not really "giving them their own money back" in most cases as you would suggest. Usually the payment's component part will primarily be taken from "other people's money".... The majority of taxpayers do not have children under 6.

Now that you bring it up, you might find yourself in a hypocritical situation. I do believe you voiced a negative opinion about giving your money to welfare people on other threads. If it is ok to give it to people with children, but not the subset of people on welfare who have children... you have a dilemna.... a hypocritical position....

Even without the welfare argument, you are taking money from richer people and giving it to poorer people......

[Montgomery Burns]

There seem to be a few concerns with a Quebec-style childcare system. Perhaps the defintion of a social program should be revisited briefly;

http://www.answers.com/topic/social-security

So, in short, a social program is designed to deliver services to citizens who have "a deficiency in income"--see above link for a more comprehensive defintion.

Therefore a childcare system should cater to the families who NEED two incomes to sustain themselves (ie. putting food on the dinner table not subsidizing their summer home on the lake). The Quebec system does just that.  Yes there aren't enough spots for all families to qualify, but there is a means test (based on net family income) which determines which families NEED the program. The program is available to the families who need it the most which fits the definition of a social program.

As previously stated, Mr Harper's suggestion, although attractive in the short term, does nothing to address the problems that low-income families face.

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

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...-childcare.html

A clear outline of the Quebec model-

http://www.childcarecanada.org/pt98/pq/pq.html#top

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do any of your links mention that 7000 Quebec daycare workers went on strike the first year and held up the taxpayers for a huge pay raise?

[justcrowing]

And here comes the liberals butting into things that are none of their business.  Tell you what, if YOU don't agree with home rearing, don't do it.  Let other parents do what they feel is best for their children.

If they can afford to rear their own children at home, good for them, but they shouldn't expect to be paid for it....

The whole daycare issue is about providing the means for more people who need to, to be able to go to work. It isn't about a "general tax break for parents"...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Be paid for it? By their employers you mean? Because the government is just giving them their money back to help them raise their children.

Parents who have the luxury of affording to stay home with their children shouldn't be paid to do it.. just because they don't need to or want to put their children in daycare.... The daycare monies should be put into daycare for those who need it....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wrong - our daughter-in-law stayed at home when her children were little and they certainly did not have a high wage on one salary. She took in 3 kids to help pay the bills and we subsidized them financially a whole lot. Why should she not be subsidized by the government - is it only because one uses daycare where entitlement is granted? What about equality? To say that stay at home moms have luxury of staying home is incorrect but the children had the luxury of having mom at home. Many stay at home Moms do not have luxury other than that they are with their children and there for them in need and love and care.

[err]

Do any of your links mention that 7000 Quebec daycare workers went on strike  the first year and held up the taxpayers for a huge pay raise?

Your assumption that they daycare workers were wrong to go on strike is not supported by any argument.... How much were they making... were they underpayed ??? If so, then good for them. Unlike the CPC crowd, I think it's a good thing when people are paid what they're worth...

[Montgomery Burns]

Do any of your links mention that 7000 Quebec daycare workers went on strike  the first year and held up the taxpayers for a huge pay raise?

Your assumption that they daycare workers were wrong to go on strike is not supported by any argument.... How much were they making... were they underpayed ??? If so, then good for them. Unlike the CPC crowd, I think it's a good thing when people are paid what they're worth...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If they were underpaid, as you claim (but offer no proof), who held a gun to their head and forced them to take the job?

What you are saying is that every single worker must be paid "what they're worth" and all Canadians must be forced to pay more money for goods and services to justify this.

You can buy your groceries at Safeway and pay for their bloated salaries (and benefits) to push groceries across a scanner for $17/hr - because that requires a university degree and is physically demanding and dangerous work!

I will continue to buy most of my groceries elsewhere.

[Montgomery Burns]

I think its very funny that anyone would get worked up over that statment.  Seems pretty minor to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for letting us know what you think about Canadian parents--which apparently is not too much.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well seeing as though I am a Canadian parent to 4 children I think I can have3 my say. Please tell me that you haven't procreated?

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}>

If you want to spend your money on beer and popcorn, so be it. 99% of us other parents are responsible.