All Opponents of $1,200 per child under 6...

Hicksey · February 8, 2006

The difference is, $25 a week before taxes isn't going to create daycare spaces. For many people, it's not money that is the issue. They have plenty of money to spend on daycare. They just can't find a space.

What about people that don't work 9-5? That work midnights and afternoons? Daycare does nothing for them.

BubberMiley · February 8, 2006

Okay, so let's have a daycare system that includes the off hours.

Hicksey · February 8, 2006

Okay, so let's have a daycare system that includes the off hours.

For a lot of Canadians, those are our work hours. Not off hours. That includes a large part of the auto sector.

Wilber · February 8, 2006

The difference is, $25 a week before taxes isn't going to create daycare spaces. For many people, it's not money that is the issue. They have plenty of money to spend on daycare. They just can't find a space.

If money is not an issue why do they need mine?

BubberMiley · February 8, 2006

Again, I'm arguing against the subsidies and for the daycare program.

Hicksey · February 8, 2006

The difference is, $25 a week before taxes isn't going to create daycare spaces. For many people, it's not money that is the issue. They have plenty of money to spend on daycare. They just can't find a space.

If money is not an issue why do they need mine?

Very good question indeed.

BubberMiley · February 8, 2006

Very good question indeed.

SO we're all on board. Dump the subsidy and bring in a proper daycare program that actually addresses the problem.

Hicksey · February 8, 2006

Very good question indeed.

SO we're all on board. Dump the subsidy and bring in a proper daycare program that actually addresses the problem.

The real question is: can we afford that?

Wilber · February 8, 2006

Very good question indeed.

SO we're all on board. Dump the subsidy and bring in a proper daycare program that actually addresses the problem.

It's still a subsidy, but one that benefits double income families more than single income families.

geoffrey · February 8, 2006

Very good question indeed.

SO we're all on board. Dump the subsidy and bring in a proper daycare program that actually addresses the problem.

It's still a subsidy, but one that benefits double income families more than single income families.

Or people should just raise their own kids perhaps? And that much less in tax.

Drea · February 8, 2006

The real reason women went to work en masse was to fulfill their feminist ideologies and to acquire materialistic things including housing sooner.

Yah! Women really suck eh.

We should harvest their eggs and kill them if they want to do something other than raise children. After all they are simply baby making machines and should never think they could be anything else.

The reason women are not having children is it because it is beneath them to do so as their careers are more important.

Damn women! Out there making money, haveing power and prestige! It's sickening I tell you.

This whole topic of public daycare is nonsense and the only reason government wants to take from everyones wallet to support it certtain ways is because of the extra two wage earner income tax revenue it generates.
The bottom line is your children are your responsibility.

Even the ones born to (gasp!) feminists? Or should they be "taken away" and raised by stay-at-home Moms, and "Father, who (of course!) knows best"?

I say take them away -- They wanted a career, not children and should not be allowed to raise them -- lousy, power hungry feminists that they are.

Ruined the world I tell you.

As if!

Cheers Leafless -- must be tough going through life hating women in power. :blink:

Drea -- a career woman with a 12 year old, A honours, Air Cadet, paper delivering son.

Renegade · February 8, 2006

I repeatedly hear from various critics that the $1,200 child care payment will scarcely pay for a month of
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.

If your asking to be convinced that the Liberal proposal is in your self-interest than it is no contest. No doubt the Conservative plan is in your best interest. But is it fair? In my view neither the Liberal nor the Conservative plan should be adopted. They are both subsidies one direct and to a broad target, the other indirect to a narrow target.

The Conservative daycare proposal is a subsidy which contravenes their philosophy of self-reliance. In my view it was simply an election ploy, albiet a successful one.

In the end I agree with those who feel that if it is your kids then it should be your financial responsiblity, and the government should have no business redistributing income from everyone else to those who choose to raise kids.

BubberMiley · February 8, 2006

The real question is: can we afford that?

If you look at it as a means to raise the birth rate and provide kids with adequate care, can we afford not to?

geoffrey · February 8, 2006

The real question is: can we afford that?

If you look at it as a means to raise the birth rate and provide kids with adequate care, can we afford not to?

We could curb immigration, which I view as a plus. Thats the only positive I see in this.

If people paid less taxes, there would be less poverty. That still remains my view on the matter.

BubberMiley · February 8, 2006

In the end I agree with those who feel that if it is your kids then it should be your financial responsiblity, and the government should have no business redistributing income from everyone else to those who choose to raise kids.

Are you opposed to public schools? Because they've worked out very well for our country and, one could argue, contributed greatly to its overall wealth.

geoffrey · February 8, 2006

In the end I agree with those who feel that if it is your kids then it should be your financial responsiblity, and the government should have no business redistributing income from everyone else to those who choose to raise kids.

Are you opposed to public schools? Because they've worked out very well for our country and, one could argue, contributed greatly to its overall wealth.

Public schools are important, I'd rather not have more hooligans hanging around then already are.

But, teaching isn't something every parent can do. Every parent should be able to raise their own kid for a few years.

Renegade · February 8, 2006

In the end I agree with those who feel that if it is your kids then it should be your financial responsiblity, and the government should have no business redistributing income from everyone else to those who choose to raise kids.

Are you opposed to public schools? Because they've worked out very well for our country and, one could argue, contributed greatly to its overall wealth.

If it were up to me I wouldn't have funded public schools the way they are today. Either the parents should fund their kids education, or the public education should be considered an "investment" which should be repaid.

betsy · February 8, 2006

Feminism. The single-income family is no longer the norm. Two-income families have more money, so they're willing to pay more to get that dream house, etc. It's supply and demand, the market has reacted, and single-income families just can't compete.

What do you mean by "compete?" Why is there a "competition"?

Are you talking about "Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" syndrome?

I'm talking about the market, which is inherently a competition. For example, couple A and couple B place competitive bids for their dream house. Couple A has two incomes and couple B has one, so couple A is obviously in a better competitive position to buy the house. When two-income families become the norm and people are bidding what they can afford to pay on houses, the cost of buying a house rises to the point where it is very difficult for a single-income family to compete. (The market has a natural tendency to drift towards what people can afford--that's why house prices go up when interest rates go down.)

So Couple B cannot afford the house. Then what's stopping them from getting a house they can afford?

Yes there are developers who targets a certain up-end clientele....but if it's not within one's reach, then they've got to face reality. Live within your means.

I'd love to live in an ocean-front with manicured lawns and minimum 5 bedrooms ensuite in a posh neighborhood....but that ain't gonna happen for me in this lifetime. Unless I rob a bank or de-fraud an elderly.

Yes, two-income families is the norm....but you'll be surprised to know how flexible they are as far as needing a daycare goes! Oh yeah, a lot of couples have mastered the art of working out a schedule.

Btw, for those who got 12 year old and plus kids....imagine them earning a nice allowance from mom and dad by babysitting their siblings after hours! A lot of parents only need befaore and after care.

Public-funded care charge 7 dollars per hour minimum...even if mom only needs 30 minutes of care.

betsy · February 8, 2006

You can say those people shouldn't breed and we should just leave it up to immigration to support us all when we're retired but, first, that isn't realistic (they're going to breed anyway) and second, is that the kind of society we want? People should be able to have families. And the private sector hasn't done its job of providing daycare spaces or providing most people with a wage that supports a family, because there are very few of either to go around.

With the Liberal-thinkers way of doing it, there is no doubt that in the end, we won't just be looking up to future immigrants to supports us all...we'll be begging them to.

We're creating a climate of dependency! Suddenly, the help we give had become an "entitlement". A lot are exploiting the system....those who truly deserves help are getting nicked by it!

We already have welfare!

Child allowance!

Food Bank!

Subsidized housing!

Subsidized daycare!

Healthcare!

And probably other things I've never heard about!

We're talking basics here. It is covered. Of course they won't have the same standard of living as any working person has....but that's the point. The one who has a better standard of livingis working his butt off!

We can't keep supplying everything to everyone...especially as you say, they're breeding like rabbits!

betsy · February 8, 2006

Betsy, I've been doing some reading about the state of child care in Alberta, and I can't blame you for being discouraged. Alberta is dismal in comparison to the rest of the country.
Go to http://www.childcarecanada.org/ and check out the short paper on trends and analysis, or click on the long paper on Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2004 - you can download a synopsis of each province. With 51,700 mothers with children under the age of 2 in the paid workforce, and 44,500 mothers with children under the age of 5 in the paid workforce, there are only about 33,000 available full time regulated child care spaces in the province. And only 10,614 children qualify for subsidy. Staff are paid embarrassingly low, and fees are higher than here in Manitoba.

One thing that Alberta does have that I found interesting is the Kin Child Care Funding, which provides parents with subsidies to pay non resident blood relatives to care for their kids if they are working nontraditional hours.

I used to be with a public-funded agency that place children in homes. The adminstration gave thmeselves a big fat raise....care-providers didn't get any. They've lost a lot of care-providers from that move.

One thing I know is that they have a hard time filling up spaces from these homes....careproviders are grumbling. That was years ago.

I've been talking to careproviders who work for the same agency. Nothing has changed. They still are grumbling from not having children to fill up their spaces. Some are forced to take out ads as private careproviders just to fill up the spaces. In my area, there's no shortage of spaces for years!

I know that a lot of parents are not happy with government funded agencies. Most complain that they charge too high. Which is true. Now, in desperation, I heard they've lowered their price a bit.

Some parents just simply don't like an institutionalized environment. They specisfically want a home setting.

I know that these agency had kicked out a client I referred to them when she was still a student (single mom trying to enter the workforce), because she's found a job but got awful casual hours that they cannot accomodate.

This single mom mentioned above is the typical example of the type of people ought to be helped by public-funded agencies. Now, she quit her job and just stays at home.

Melanie_ · February 8, 2006

Betsy, the problems you are talking about are part of the system Alberta has chosen. That doesn't have to be the way child care is delivered; much better models exist.

Geoffrey, I believe some businesses will take advantage of the tax benefits, and I'm not opposed to this at all. But I doubt they will fill the need the way a coordinated effort from a provincial government could. Many small businesses may only have a handful of employees who need child care, and it won't be worth it to them to set up a centre; large businesses like those I mentioned earlier would have to set up too many centres in too many jurisdictions with different regulations and standards. Most parents would rather have their child care in their community, anyway, rather than in an industrial park or in a strip mall downtown. Locating centres in schools works very well, and is certainly more convenient when kids are in that half day kindergarten year.

Leafless, June Cleaver was a myth. Get over it.

Spike22 · February 8, 2006

What's wrong these days is the economy and women working.

In the 1950's the majority of women stayed home raised the kids themselves and children grew up spending time bonding and being nurtured with their parents (yes mom primarily). Now it is mom that has to fling the kids off to daycare then zoom to work and then after a tiring/stressful day pick up kids and cook supper (some frozen shit that can be slapped on a plate in 15 minutes) great life huh? Then after the kids hate the supper you heated up it is dishes, help with homework or playtime for 5 minutes, bath and then you drop dead from exhaustion - sorry hubby no sex tonight or ever because I'm too tired.

Total time spent with kids 3 hours from sun up until bedtime.

Time at daycare 8+ hours.

Then to top this off you pay a huge amount of salary on daycare and then clothing for work to impress the boss. What is wrong with this picture?

Black Dog · February 8, 2006

Can I ask you an honest question BD? This is not mean to be disrespectful.
But is there any point at which you think people are responsible for themselves and that more government programs is not the answer?

What makes you think the two concepts are mutually exclusive? Clealry, you don't have a problem with government programs: we've etablished that with your support of Harper's childcare plan. All this talk of personal responsibility is a red herring: we're really just quibbling over what government plan is best.

What's wrong these days is the economy and women working.
In the 1950's the majority of women stayed home raised the kids themselves and children grew up spending time bonding and being nurtured with their parents (yes mom primarily). Now it is mom that has to fling the kids off to daycare then zoom to work and then after a tiring/stressful day pick up kids and cook supper (some frozen shit that can be slapped on a plate in 15 minutes) great life huh? Then after the kids hate the supper you heated up it is dishes, help with homework or playtime for 5 minutes, bath and then you drop dead from exhaustion - sorry hubby no sex tonight or ever because I'm too tired.

Total time spent with kids 3 hours from sun up until bedtime.

Time at daycare 8+ hours.

Then to top this off you pay a huge amount of salary on daycare and then clothing for work to impress the boss. What is wrong with this picture?

I'll tell you what's wrong: the father. Maybe if that lazy sofd got off his fat ass and helped out with the kids and the house work instead of loafing around watching TV and then excpecting some action, the kids and everyone would be better off.

betsy · February 8, 2006

In the end I agree with those who feel that if it is your kids then it should be your financial responsiblity, and the government should have no business redistributing income from everyone else to those who choose to raise kids.

Are you opposed to public schools? Because they've worked out very well for our country and, one could argue, contributed greatly to its overall wealth.

Speaking of public schools....our standard had gone lower! Classrooms are bloated. Highschool students could hardly spell!

Is that the blueprint for this national childcare?

betsy · February 8, 2006

Betsy, the problems you are talking about are part of the system Alberta has chosen. That doesn't have to be the way child care is delivered; much better models exist.
Geoffrey, I believe some businesses will take advantage of the tax benefits, and I'm not opposed to this at all. But I doubt they will fill the need the way a coordinated effort from a provincial government could. Many small businesses may only have a handful of employees who need child care, and it won't be worth it to them to set up a centre; large businesses like those I mentioned earlier would have to set up too many centres in too many jurisdictions with different regulations and standards. Most parents would rather have their child care in their community, anyway, rather than in an industrial park or in a strip mall downtown. Locating centres in schools works very well, and is certainly more convenient when kids are in that half day kindergarten year.

Leafless, June Cleaver was a myth. Get over it.

I am not from Alberta. I know that that doesn't have to be the way...but the reality is that's how it is for some if not most! It's the amount of bureacracy that's killing it!

They've just mentioned on CTV.newsnet about 3 days ago that a study of Quebec childcare showed that children and parents are stressed out. It's not as rosy as they want it to be. They only broadcast it once.

I was trying to find that particular report in their archive but couldn't find it.

It'll end up just like the gun registry boondagle...only a whole lot more expensive! The money wasted will be astronomical!