FTA Lawyer Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I repeatedly hear from various critics that the $1,200 child care payment will scarcely pay for a month of daycare for many Canadians...so we need to have the type of national programme as proposed by the Liberals in the last election. The question I have is, how much money per child under six would the Liberal programme cost? And as a follow-up, you people understand that the Federal Government only has money when it takes it from us in the first place right? "Government money" is actually YOUR money that never made it into your bank account...your employer skimmed it off (I'd say the top, but really, it's the middle and part of the bottom too) before you ever saw it. Somehow, we think that if the service is being provided to us by the Feds that it is free...it's a glorious "social programme" that costs nothing and helps everyone... If it takes the average Canadian $10,000 per child to provide childcare, then it will take the Feds at least that...even if we assume zero beauraucracy. And that $8,800 difference is made up by...you guessed it...US!! Now, I get that social programmes are a way to redistribute wealth, to make sure we don't get an ultra rich and ultra poor polarity in society, but I guess I'm saying enough is enough. The programming that I get in exchange for the amount of taxes I pay is ridiculously insufficient, and if I don't want to burden the state with raising my kid, then why should I pay for everyone else's childcare as well as my own? Right now I get $0 in government assistance for childcare (oops, I lied, my wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit)...under the Liberal plan I would get $0...under the Conservative plan I get $1,200.00 to use as I see fit to raise my kids. I am not an unenlightened red-neck who wants to stamp out the unfortunate of society, but can anyone make the case to me for why I should want national daycare that does nothing for me but uses my tax dollars over getting some of my own tax dollars back? And PLEASE...I really don't want a "Conservatives rule" vs. "Liberals suck" vs. "NDP will bankrupt us all" bunch of crap. I really want someone to, in a non-partisan way, make the case for why I should not be happy with the proposed $1,200 per kid. FTA P.S. My $1,200.00 in Ralphbucks is going into RRSP and RESP...not beer and popcorn...and no-one has convinced me that wasn't a great idea! Long live King Ralph! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenWhiteandPink Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 My biggest problem with it is that it provides no help to the parents that need it, and that the parents that don't need it, don't deserve to receive it. Why should a parent on social assistance who has no intention on working, get $100 dollars a money for child care, they don't work!! They can take care of their own children can't they!! Maybe they can use the money to to give a 11-12 year old neice $5 while they go out in bingo, or playing VLT's (Harper did say parents can use the money however they want!) While a parent/parents that work (or want to work) and provide for their families (and in return pay taxes which helps cover the cost of a child care program) get only enough money to pay 1/10th of the cost. Even worse the spouse with the lower income has to claim the money on their income and pay taxes on it. An then there is the other arguement that a parent (the mother being this parent of course ) should have the choice to stay home and take care of their child. Like $1200 a year will actually allow a working family to forgo a second income. At the very least the conservatives should require parents submit receipts and claim childcare when they file their income taxes to show that the money was actually used for child care, then a rebate could be given to parents. (And yes I know the above can already be done, but I'm suggesting the conservatives broaden the rules to allows a higher claim amount and greater refund amountsand crieteria) PS My wife is pregnant and due July7th, and we can use a extra $100 a month (or $70 I guess after she files taxes in 2007), but seeing how it is my money that the Conservatives are handing out, I would rather see it spent on a program that allows parents to work, and provide for their families, than a on program that encourages social assistance reciptants not to work and get pregnant to collect another $100 a month! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 How much child care will $100 a month buy. At $20.00 an hour with no benefits. That is five hours for one child. Maybe one person can take care of 5 children. That means the $100.00 would pay the wages for one worker for one morning for five children. Now we also have to lease a safe facility, equip it, insure it, heat it, light it, phones, computer, regulate it, manage it, administer it, promote it and evaluate it. How much money would it take to provide the government provided spaces? I would not say that $1200.00 a year will be the major fix but at least parents will receive it. National childcare program sounds like a waiting list. Hey at least after the last government we should have a good system of calculating the size of the waiting list. Tax credits are more likely to provide the maximum amount of new spaces by leveraging new investment. Quantity should be our first goal. If we can’t access it, what is the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Most parents just would rather pay less taxes I'm sure. Handing back your own money makes no sense, really its a good way to tax something twice. Just cut everyone's taxes by $1200 and everyone will be much more happy. Especially me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamStranger Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Is it true Prime Minister Harper would tax the $100 a month after he gives it to you?? If so... why?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I repeatedly hear from various critics that the $1,200 child care payment will scarcely pay for a month of daycare for many Canadians...so we need to have the type of national programme as proposed by the Liberals in the last election.The question I have is, how much money per child under six would the Liberal programme cost? And as a follow-up, you people understand that the Federal Government only has money when it takes it from us in the first place right? "Government money" is actually YOUR money that never made it into your bank account...your employer skimmed it off (I'd say the top, but really, it's the middle and part of the bottom too) before you ever saw it. Somehow, we think that if the service is being provided to us by the Feds that it is free...it's a glorious "social programme" that costs nothing and helps everyone... If it takes the average Canadian $10,000 per child to provide childcare, then it will take the Feds at least that...even if we assume zero beauraucracy. And that $8,800 difference is made up by...you guessed it...US!! Now, I get that social programmes are a way to redistribute wealth, to make sure we don't get an ultra rich and ultra poor polarity in society, but I guess I'm saying enough is enough. The programming that I get in exchange for the amount of taxes I pay is ridiculously insufficient, and if I don't want to burden the state with raising my kid, then why should I pay for everyone else's childcare as well as my own? Right now I get $0 in government assistance for childcare (oops, I lied, my wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit)...under the Liberal plan I would get $0...under the Conservative plan I get $1,200.00 to use as I see fit to raise my kids. I am not an unenlightened red-neck who wants to stamp out the unfortunate of society, but can anyone make the case to me for why I should want national daycare that does nothing for me but uses my tax dollars over getting some of my own tax dollars back? And PLEASE...I really don't want a "Conservatives rule" vs. "Liberals suck" vs. "NDP will bankrupt us all" bunch of crap. I really want someone to, in a non-partisan way, make the case for why I should not be happy with the proposed $1,200 per kid. FTA P.S. My $1,200.00 in Ralphbucks is going into RRSP and RESP...not beer and popcorn...and no-one has convinced me that wasn't a great idea! Long live King Ralph! I'm definitely there with you! As a taxpayer, why should I shoulder the PADDED expenses of a National Childcare when they charge double the amount of regular childcare among competitors? That is why parents who don't qualify for subsidies shun away from the public-funded daycares now, because of the ridiculous rate they charge. Of course, parents wanting a home environment is another story. And I don't even have any children of my own. And running a daycare as a home-based business, I have to help (I pay my taxes), financially support my competition which already have the full endoresment/support by the government AND enjoys the monopoly of a segment (subsidised parents) to boot! Why do people have children if they cannot afford to raise them? Some like to have it both ways...mothers want to have a career at the same time wanting to have children, which they end up demanding taxpayers to support! I never had anything to do with their decision to have children. No one consulted me. Why do I have to pay for their decision? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Why is it that every government program has to be criticized on the basis that those who need it, can't get it? Specifically, the complaint with Harper's program (vs. the Lib's) was that a national daycare program would allow mother's (some anyway) to have the entirety of their childs daycare covered, whereas Harper's program only covered a few bucks a day (in other words under the Lib's plan a few received full daycare and under the Tories everyone received a little daycare). My question is why does every government program have to target the .5% of the population that represents the most underprivileged. The proverbial single parent with 5 kids from the father who died on the way to the hospital while the 5th child was being born, and the 3rd boy has cerebral palsy requiring constant supervision, all the while mom has no education, no drug plan, and is working 2 night-jobs with no parental support from her own family. I'm not trying to make fun of the situation, it just seems that alot of the criticism tends to deal with the fact that any government support program doesn't help this gal out, and my response is I don't think you can devise any scheme that will be everything to everyone. Try to create a plan which provides the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people is all you can ask for. By this measurement Harper's program is better, not because its a panacea for our child-rearing woes, but because everyone gets something out of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Under the Liberal plan, parents would still pay for child care. I can't believe how many times I've said this on this forum, yet most of you choose to ignore it. The Liberal plan was to create flexible spaces throughout the country, following the QUAD principles (Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmental). This doesn't mean it is free. It means that it is available. $1200 is all well and good, but if there is no one to take care of the kids there is no benefit to working families. The actual amount of money committed by each party is virtually the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Here's a question from the libertarian quarter -- what are "conservatives" doing introducing new entitlement welfare programs in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I repeatedly hear from various critics that the $1,200 child care payment will scarcely pay for a month of daycare for many Canadians...so we need to have the type of national programme as proposed by the Liberals in the last election.The question I have is, how much money per child under six would the Liberal programme cost? And as a follow-up, you people understand that the Federal Government only has money when it takes it from us in the first place right? "Government money" is actually YOUR money that never made it into your bank account...your employer skimmed it off (I'd say the top, but really, it's the middle and part of the bottom too) before you ever saw it. Somehow, we think that if the service is being provided to us by the Feds that it is free...it's a glorious "social programme" that costs nothing and helps everyone... If it takes the average Canadian $10,000 per child to provide childcare, then it will take the Feds at least that...even if we assume zero beauraucracy. And that $8,800 difference is made up by...you guessed it...US!! Now, I get that social programmes are a way to redistribute wealth, to make sure we don't get an ultra rich and ultra poor polarity in society, but I guess I'm saying enough is enough. The programming that I get in exchange for the amount of taxes I pay is ridiculously insufficient, and if I don't want to burden the state with raising my kid, then why should I pay for everyone else's childcare as well as my own? Right now I get $0 in government assistance for childcare (oops, I lied, my wife gets $18.00 per month from the Child Tax Benefit)...under the Liberal plan I would get $0...under the Conservative plan I get $1,200.00 to use as I see fit to raise my kids. I am not an unenlightened red-neck who wants to stamp out the unfortunate of society, but can anyone make the case to me for why I should want national daycare that does nothing for me but uses my tax dollars over getting some of my own tax dollars back? And PLEASE...I really don't want a "Conservatives rule" vs. "Liberals suck" vs. "NDP will bankrupt us all" bunch of crap. I really want someone to, in a non-partisan way, make the case for why I should not be happy with the proposed $1,200 per kid. FTA P.S. My $1,200.00 in Ralphbucks is going into RRSP and RESP...not beer and popcorn...and no-one has convinced me that wasn't a great idea! Long live King Ralph! *standing ovation* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Why shouldn't you be happy with a new government entitlement? Should I REALLY have to explain that to a "conservative?" I guess I should -- conservatives tend to campaign like fiscal libertarians but govern like socialists, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 My biggest problem with it is that it provides no help to the parents that need it, and that the parents that don't need it, don't deserve to receive it. Why should a parent on social assistance who has no intention on working, get $100 dollars a money for child care, they don't work!! They can take care of their own children can't they!! Maybe they can use the money to to give a 11-12 year old neice $5 while they go out in bingo, or playing VLT's (Harper did say parents can use the money however they want!) While a parent/parents that work (or want to work) and provide for their families (and in return pay taxes which helps cover the cost of a child care program) get only enough money to pay 1/10th of the cost. Even worse the spouse with the lower income has to claim the money on their income and pay taxes on it. An then there is the other arguement that a parent (the mother being this parent of course ) should have the choice to stay home and take care of their child. Like $1200 a year will actually allow a working family to forgo a second income. At the very least the conservatives should require parents submit receipts and claim childcare when they file their income taxes to show that the money was actually used for child care, then a rebate could be given to parents. (And yes I know the above can already be done, but I'm suggesting the conservatives broaden the rules to allows a higher claim amount and greater refund amountsand crieteria) PS My wife is pregnant and due July7th, and we can use a extra $100 a month (or $70 I guess after she files taxes in 2007), but seeing how it is my money that the Conservatives are handing out, I would rather see it spent on a program that allows parents to work, and provide for their families, than a on program that encourages social assistance reciptants not to work and get pregnant to collect another $100 a month! Somehow I highly doubt a cabinet of ministers made up of Mike Harris era people are going to allow people on social assistance to bank off the federal government and not work. Regardless, welfare is not federal jurisdiction and has nothing to do with the point. In fact, childcare shouldn't have anything to do with the federal government either as far as I'm concerned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Under the Liberal plan, parents would still pay for child care. I can't believe how many times I've said this on this forum, yet most of you choose to ignore it. The Liberal plan was to create flexible spaces throughout the country, following the QUAD principles (Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmental). This doesn't mean it is free. It means that it is available. $1200 is all well and good, but if there is no one to take care of the kids there is no benefit to working families.The actual amount of money committed by each party is virtually the same. If parents would still pay for childcare, how much are they going to pay? Right now, parents who are not qualified for any subsidies....meaning, those who have to pay the whole amount...have to pay DOUBLE the rate of what is normally charged by their competitors. Parents who used to be subsidized...and had suddenly found themselves no longer qualified (meaning, they had improved their financial situation and are no longer dependent on the system) find that they either have to pay the ridiculous padded amount or remove their child from his familiar environment, friends and caregiver. This system is crippling and counter-productive! Instead of encouraging and supporting parents to become independent...they are penalized for it! It encourages people to become dependent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenWhiteandPink Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 SamStranger Posted Today, 09:29 AM Is it true Prime Minister Harper would tax the $100 a month after he gives it to you?? If so... why?? Yes this true , and as for why who knows? I guess they and guessing upper income earning spouses don't need as much money for child care. Or the Conservatives are finding a creative way of double taxing Canadians on their own money. cybercomasaidRegardless, welfare is not federal jurisdiction and has nothing to do with the point. In fact, childcare shouldn't have anything to do with the federal government either as far as I'm concerned. Yes welfare is a provinical jurisdiction, but the child tax benefit if issued by the federal government. Welfare + CTB per child(up to $350 a child) + a extra $!00 a month for "child care" or what ever they want, is a strong incentive to have parents stay on welfare and have more children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fixer1 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 The $100 per month per child under 6 is not supposed to be a pay all, for the costs of day care. Remeber these kids have parents who are also responsible for contributing to the day care needs of there children. It is a method to help ease the costs of having young preschool chilren. It also is not the whole plan of the CPC childcare issue. The tax breaks for employers to setup daycare at the workplace will cover much of its total cost, so this will be something that many will do and make it a perk of the business. Those firms who want to keep young talent etc will want to do this and in that event it will benefit even the lower less sought after employees as well. Now, while I will admit $100 per month is not much, it probably represents about $400 per month per child of the liberals plan, where one level of government gives to another level, who will then disperse it to the municipal level etc. This will go directly to the enduser and the tax break for companies setting up daycare spaces is directly in their benefit. I do not know about the rest of the world but I think the conservative plan is the best. Also le me say it will not benefit me in any way as I am long past the age where I would have children, but yes I would consider my company using the tax incentives for providing workplace child care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I really want someone to, in a non-partisan way, make the case for why I should not be happy with the proposed $1,200 per kid. Can't help you with that, sorry. I don't think the federal govt should be involved in day care as some sort of social beneift/program. In fact , the feds shouldn't be involved at all and ity has zero to do with partisan politics. Simply put, having children is a matter of personal choice. I chose to have mine, and I accept all that comes with that choice- and that includes some financial sacrifice. I don't see any reason why my government or fellow citizens should subsidize my personal choices. I am willing to help pay for child care for those who are in tough situations not of their choosing: single parents, welfare people and so on. Otherwise - no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankAbroad Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 having children is a matter of personal choice. I chose to have mine, and I accept all that comes with that choice Oh, how I wish that more people were as responsible a parent as you are! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Harper's plan doesn't address the lack of daycare spaces available to parents. Because such a large number of women now have careers, the market (particularly the housing market) has adjusted to the two-income-family norm and made it very, very difficult for a family to subsist on one income without living in poverty. This has been a dramatic social change that has been happening gradually since the 70s so that, now, whether or not you agree with the idea of daycare, it's a reality. Many people would love to be able to have one parent stay home with the kids but it has simply become unaffordable for a lot of people. So, because it's impossible to regulate the market and impossible to force women to not work, we are left with two scenarios: improve daycare options or continue with the situation where it is almost impossible for people to have children because of either financial or infrastructure (i.e., no daycare spaces available) constraints. To that, you could say: You can't have kids? That's your problem. Which it is, but it's also everybody's problem for two reasons: one, like bunnies, they're going to have kids anyway; two, if nobody has kids, we're going to have a hell of a time keeping ourselves afloat when we're all retired. So in answer to your question, I'm opposed to Harper's plan because it doesn't address the core need, which is the need for more spaces. In terms of the financial assistance it provides, it helps, but after the taxes have been paid, it's not going to suddenly be affordable to have a parent stay home. The problem that exists will still exist, and the birth rate will continue to decline. And besides, since when are social programs supposed to benefit everyone? They're there to fill a need; if there's no need, there's no need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I like the plan because it treats everyone equally. I don't like the Liberals/NDP plans because it will only be available to people making the lowest of incomes and it does nothing to address care for the children of people that work afternoons or midnights. It fails to serve more than it actually helps. Harper's $1200 per year will not solve all. But among the big three parties it is the closest to the 'universal' child-care that's been promised us. However, I'd rather see taxes reduced to the point where a one income household can get ahead in the world again. It has been all the new social programs, extensions to social programs we have and the taxation required to pay for it all that has put us all in this situation in the first place. Spending that much more will only serve to put families in the hole further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Don't forget too that aside from this $1200 help from the government, there's still that Fitness sschool/sports assistance to be doled out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fellowtraveller Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Harper's plan doesn't address the lack of daycare spaces available to parents. Because such a large number of women now have careers, the market (particularly the housing market) has adjusted to the two-income-family norm and made it very, very difficult for a family to subsist on one income without living in poverty. This has been a dramatic social change that has been happening gradually since the 70s so that, now, whether or not you agree with the idea of daycare, it's a reality. Many people would love to be able to have one parent stay home with the kids but it has simply become unaffordable for a lot of people. So, because it's impossible to regulate the market and impossible to force women to not work, we are left with two scenarios: improve daycare options or continue with the situation where it is almost impossible for people to have children because of either financial or infrastructure (i.e., no daycare spaces available) constraints. To that, you could say: You can't have kids? That's your problem. Which it is, but it's also everybody's problem for two reasons: one, like bunnies, they're going to have kids anyway; two, if nobody has kids, we're going to have a hell of a time keeping ourselves afloat when we're all retired. So in answer to your question, I'm opposed to Harper's plan because it doesn't address the core need, which is the need for more spaces. In terms of the financial assistance it provides, it helps, but after the taxes have been paid, it's not going to suddenly be affordable to have a parent stay home. The problem that exists will still exist, and the birth rate will continue to decline. An besides, since when are social programs supposed to benefit everyone? They're there to fill a need; if there's no need, there's no need. Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm not suggesting that women or families or couples have children or not have children. I am suggesting that if they choose to have children, and because they are nominally adults, citizens should also understand that they have some difficult choices to make. They may not be able to own a large home, or own a home at all. They may not have two fancy cars, or any car at all. Both of their careers may well be adversely affected. Those are all choices and potential consequences of having children, and there is nothing whatsoever new or recent in that reality. What is 'new' is the expectation that all those lovely material things in life are some sort of entitlement, and that government involvement is required to make them happen. It's another manifestation of the rampant selfishness we have taught ourselves, the willingness to assign blame and responsibility to anybody but ourselves. I don't want the government in my bedroom, or in my nursery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTA Lawyer Posted February 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 I really want someone to, in a non-partisan way, make the case for why I should not be happy with the proposed $1,200 per kid. Can't help you with that, sorry. I don't think the federal govt should be involved in day care as some sort of social beneift/program. In fact , the feds shouldn't be involved at all and ity has zero to do with partisan politics. Simply put, having children is a matter of personal choice. I chose to have mine, and I accept all that comes with that choice- and that includes some financial sacrifice. I don't see any reason why my government or fellow citizens should subsidize my personal choices. I am willing to help pay for child care for those who are in tough situations not of their choosing: single parents, welfare people and so on. Otherwise - no. I can't really argue with you on that. FTA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm not suggesting that women or families or couples have children or not have children. I am suggesting that if they choose to have children, and because they are nominally adults, citizens should also understand that they have some difficult choices to make.They may not be able to own a large home, or own a home at all. They may not have two fancy cars, or any car at all. Both of their careers may well be adversely affected. Those are all choices and potential consequences of having children, and there is nothing whatsoever new or recent in that reality. What is 'new' is the expectation that all those lovely material things in life are some sort of entitlement, and that government involvement is required to make them happen. It's another manifestation of the rampant selfishness we have taught ourselves, the willingness to assign blame and responsibility to anybody but ourselves. I don't want the government in my bedroom, or in my nursery. Your point is that families will just have to submit to poverty in order to have kids (something they didn't have to do before--my dad supported four kids in middle-class splendour and got a new car every five years with a factory job--so yes, it's a new thing). That's fine, but it isn't going to help the consistently declining birth rate, which is a problem for all of us. Not wanting to raise kids in poverty is not selfishness--it's kind of the opposite. It's not a matter of assigning blame or responsibility; it's recognizing that a problem exists and dealing with it. And helping to create daycare spaces doesn't put government in the nursery any more than creating public schools does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicksey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm not suggesting that women or families or couples have children or not have children. I am suggesting that if they choose to have children, and because they are nominally adults, citizens should also understand that they have some difficult choices to make. They may not be able to own a large home, or own a home at all. They may not have two fancy cars, or any car at all. Both of their careers may well be adversely affected. Those are all choices and potential consequences of having children, and there is nothing whatsoever new or recent in that reality. What is 'new' is the expectation that all those lovely material things in life are some sort of entitlement, and that government involvement is required to make them happen. It's another manifestation of the rampant selfishness we have taught ourselves, the willingness to assign blame and responsibility to anybody but ourselves. I don't want the government in my bedroom, or in my nursery. Your point is that families will just have to submit to poverty in order to have kids (something they didn't have to do before--my dad supported four kids in middle-class splendour and got a new car every five years with a factory job--so yes, it's a new thing). That's fine, but it isn't going to help the consistently declining birth rate, which is a problem for all of us. Not wanting to raise kids in poverty is not selfishness--it's kind of the opposite. It's not a matter of assigning blame or responsibility; it's recognizing that a problem exists and dealing with it. And helping to create daycare spaces doesn't put government in the nursery any more than creating public schools does. How about just taxing them less instead of taking more, filtering it through our politicians and a bureaucracy, and then giving fractions of it back? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted February 7, 2006 Report Share Posted February 7, 2006 Because that doesn't create more daycare spaces, and that won't be enough money to allow one parent to quit their job. 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.