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

[Hydraboss]

Why do we need a national daycare program at all???

If it is designed to make DC affordable for the "working poor" why not just allow for welfare to take care of it. Are people too embarrased to collect welfare, and therefore we need the fed's and provincial governments to have a seperate system? If the "single mom with three kids" needs assistance to be self-sufficient, then fine. But the welfare system can pay the DC provider directly.

Of course, the key to keeping the anti-welfare state crowd happy is to lower taxes so that people that don't require the system don't fund the "bunny-rabbit effect". Canada already has an over-bloated, unaccountable welfare system, so what's a couple billion more. At least this way, there would not be the need for another government "division" that has as many employees and consultants as recipients.

Take care of your kids, they're YOUR responsibility. No, really, they are. Read the instruction manual.

[geoffrey]

Why do we need a national daycare program at all???

If it is designed to make DC affordable for the "working poor" why not just allow for welfare to take care of it. Are people too embarrased to collect welfare, and therefore we need the fed's and provincial governments to have a seperate system? If the "single mom with three kids" needs assistance to be self-sufficient, then fine. But the welfare system can pay the DC provider directly.

Of course, the key to keeping the anti-welfare state crowd happy is to lower taxes so that people that don't require the system don't fund the "bunny-rabbit effect". Canada already has an over-bloated, unaccountable welfare system, so what's a couple billion more. At least this way, there would not be the need for another government "division" that has as many employees and consultants as recipients.

Take care of your kids, they're YOUR responsibility. No, really, they are. Read the instruction manual.

Thats my theory too, but all I hear is that women are entitled to have their children in daycare funded by the government, otherwise is some kind of discrimination.

[BubberMiley]

Thats my theory too, but all I hear is that women are entitled to have their children in daycare funded by the government, otherwise is some kind of discrimination.

Discrimination? Who’s talking about discrimination? You pulled that one out of your ass.

And this has nothing to do with “entitlement” either. I don’t think that anyone is “entitled” to daycare; I think that government is obligated to take initiatives that are for the betterment of the country as a whole and that pay dividends in the end. So I’m not in favour of it for the parent’s benefit; I’m in favour of it for the country’s benefit.

That’s also why I’m in favour of public education. Though Betsy’s comment that “Speaking of public schools....our standard had gone lower!” makes me agree that graduates could display better literacy, it’s advantageous for the country as a whole that kids be well educated (i.e., It pays dividends in the end). So you could make the argument that parents should be responsible for their own kids and not expect society to educate them, but that wouldn’t be to our collective advantage.

Just the same with daycare. If it’s increasingly difficult and almost impossible to raise kids in a single-income home without subjecting them to poverty, kids are either going to be poor (bad) or people aren’t going to have kids (bad for everyone—we need kids).

That’s why the only logical answer is to create more daycare spaces (and again, it’s not about parent’s lack of money to pay for daycare so much as it’s about the lack of available spaces). Anyone denying that is letting their personal ideology trump the greater good of the country.

[SamStranger]

I think the idea behind the $1200 is amazing. But... the money itself won't do much, especially if they tax it

You know what else is interesting... in the 2004 election harper perposed a silimilaur plan, but instead of 1200 a year it was $2000 a year all at once each january... that plans sounds much better, why did he can it?

[betsy]

I think the idea behind the $1200 is amazing. But... the money itself won't do much, especially if they tax it

You know what else is interesting... in the 2004 election harper perposed a silimilaur plan, but instead of 1200 a year it was $2000 a year all at once each january... that plans sounds much better, why did he can it?

Maybe because now he's also offering the fitness incentive bonus?

[betsy]

I think this was the study that was mentioned on CTV.Newsnet.

The following is an excerpt from the report.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM QUEBEC'S UNIVERSAL CHILDCARE PROGRAM?

C.D. Howe Institute

Feb 2006

Study on the results of childcare in Quebec

________________________________________

Several measures we looked at suggest that children were worse off in the years following the introduction of the universal childcare program. We studied a wide range of measures of child well-being, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social and motor skills. For almost every measure, we find that the increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children. For example, reported fighting and other measures of aggressive behaviour increased substantially. Our results are consistent with evidence from the National Institute of Child Health and Development Early Childcare Research Network (2003), showing that the amount of time through the first 4.5 years of life that a child spends away from his or her mother is a predictor of assertiveness, disobedience, and aggression.

Furthermore, we find that several important measures of well-being show

parents to be worse off. The survey data showed that mothers of the children in daycare were more depressed, as indicated by the significant rise in their depression scores relative to the average. The quality of their parenting practices declined, as measured by responses to questions on consistency, hostile or ineffective parenting, and "aversive interactions.” They also reported a significant deterioration in the quality of their relationship with their partners, as measured by mothers’ reports of their satisfaction with their spousal relationship on a scale from one to 11.

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_25_english.pdf

[Renegade]

And this has nothing to do with “entitlement” either. I don’t think that anyone is “entitled” to daycare; I think that government is obligated to take initiatives that are for the betterment of the country as a whole and that pay dividends in the end. So I’m not in favour of it for the parent’s benefit; I’m in favour of it for the country’s benefit.

I'm not really convinced that it is in the country's benefit, afterall, the children will be cared for anyway. Is Quebec which provides subsidized childcare any better off than other provinces? If so, by what measure?

To turn your argument around, perhaps it is in the country's benefit to encourage more parents to stay home and look after their children. To that end, perhaps they shoudl tax childcare to make it prohibitively expensive so that more parents are encouraged to stay home.

Just the same with daycare. If it’s increasingly difficult and almost impossible to raise kids in a single-income home without subjecting them to poverty, kids are either going to be poor (bad) or people aren’t going to have kids (bad for everyone—we need kids).

I'd be just fine with people having no or less kids. Who says we need kids?

[betsy]

Here's another interesting article regarding Quebec National Childcare.

When Quebec first unveiled its subsidized daycare program, few could have foreseen some of the eventual problems. Increased subsidies mean increased government control. "The system is designed for a nine-to-five, full-time environment," says epidemiology professor Robert Platt, who is president of the McGill Daycare's board of directors. He adds that this does not reflect the needs of students or faculty.

Besides scheduling, the government restricts the number of placements available. Currently, the McGill Daycare has limited slots for children under two-and-a-half years old. The SSMU daycare offers no spaces for children under 18 months. Most smaller, home-based operations don't even offer infant care. The government also determines other elements of the services offered. In some cases, they have attempted to cut back on the quality of service by increasing the number of children per educator. So far, the McGill Daycare has resisted those measures, but the increased expense must be absorbed by parents.

http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/37/14/daycare/

Please take note of this:

In some cases, they have attempted to cut back on the quality of service by increasing the number of children per educator.

[BubberMiley]

To turn your argument around, perhaps it is in the country's benefit to encourage more parents to stay home and look after their children. To that end, perhaps they shoudl tax childcare to make it prohibitively expensive so that more parents are encouraged to stay home.

I'd be just fine with people having no or less kids. Who says we need kids?

Encouraging more parents to stay home and look after their children would be great, but the amount of money required to make up even 25% of a second income would be outrageously expensive and, therefore, prohibitive.

Actually we do need kids to maintain the society, otherwise we'll have a total economic collapse in 30 years. We could boost immigration dramatically to make up for it, but I would prefer a society where it's economically feasible for people to have children. I think most people would agree with me on that.

[Renegade]

Encouraging more parents to stay home and look after their children would be great, but the amount of money required to make up even 25% of a second income would be outrageously expensive and, therefore, prohibitive.

Actually it wouldn't cost anything. Just make childcare more expensive and then it becomes more ecomically beneficial for someone to stay home instead of working.

Just to be clear, I'm not actually advocating increasing childcare cost. I'm just pointing out that if you stated benefit is the betterment of society, an economically punitative measure may also "better" society.

Actually we do need kids to maintain the society, otherwise we'll have a total economic collapse in 30 years. We could boost immigration dramatically to make up for it, but I would prefer a society where it's economically feasible for people to have children. I think most people would agree with me on that.

We don't need economic intervention to insure that people will have kids. Nature has done that for us by giving people sexual urges. Its worked for all of human history and will continue to work quite well. If economically we actually need more people we can make that up with immigration. It is hard to understand why the taxpaying population at large should be forced to subsidize what is essentially your "preference" for a domestically grown population.

[BubberMiley]

Actually it wouldn't cost anything. Just make childcare more expensive and then it becomes more ecomically beneficial for someone to stay home instead of working.

How does making one thing more expensive make another thing more economically beneficial? That just makes both options unaffordable.

[Hicksey]

Can I ask you an honest question BD? This is not meant 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.

Well, yes and no. I support Harper's plan because of the three options presented its the one that is the fairest to all parents and gives all parents a helping hand, as small as it may be. I only support Harper's plan because its the fairest presented so far in my eyes. However if we are to start such a programme, I think weighing the program toward single parent/income families is the way to go so they are the prime beneficiaries. Under the other 3 plans only people that can afford the child care to begin with really benefit whereas to parents that can't its like putting an impossibly small bandage on a large bleeding wound. This way we promote the family unit and allow parents that want to keep one parent home the chance and single parent families get daycare as well.

But most of all, I think this should be done through creative taxation. I think that we need to engineer a way that single imcome/parent families at/below certain income levels get taxed less so this is not an issue to begin with. I think the government should be regulating things like daycare--not running them. Alas, this option hasn't been presented.

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.

Maybe if Dad didn't have to work 12+ hours a day to make ends meet he'd be working more around the house. Maybe if half Dad's paycheck didn't go past Go directly to CCRA, Mom wouldn't need to work. Maybe the family in question is just materialistic and is extending themselves beyond their means.

To automatically blame the man, I assume BD that you're female?

[geoffrey]

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.

Maybe if Dad didn't have to work 12+ hours a day to make ends meet he'd be working more around the house. Maybe if half Dad's paycheck didn't go past Go directly to CCRA, Mom wouldn't need to work. Maybe the family in question is just materialistic and is extending themselves beyond their means.

To automatically blame the man, I assume BD that you're female?

No kidding eh. I'm telling you if I was working 12+ hours a day, I sure as hell wouldn't want to come home and clean and cook and do everything around the house. If the wife is staying home, there is kind of a responsibility to do these things.

I'm not suggesting that wives need to just be cook/cleaners. I'd have no problem if the guy did that and the woman was in the work force.

How stupid though to assume that the man should work and then come home and work some more while the wife is there all day anyways? There is only so much cleaning you can possibly do. I clean my house, and go to work and school. It's not that bad, I spend maybe 10 hours a week cleaning up around the house. Raising kids probably puts it nearly to 40, but hey, I've never had them so someone that has chip in please!

I really stuggle to comprehend how some of these stay at home people feel that after this 10 hours of work cleaning, the working spouse is required to do half of it.

Agreed on the materialist Hicksey. When you sacrifice personal relationships and your family for financial gain, there is some problems. Downsize the house, sell the car. Either way, family should be priority 1.

[betsy]

To turn your argument around, perhaps it is in the country's benefit to encourage more parents to stay home and look after their children. To that end, perhaps they shoudl tax childcare to make it prohibitively expensive so that more parents are encouraged to stay home.

I'd be just fine with people having no or less kids. Who says we need kids?

Encouraging more parents to stay home and look after their children would be great, but the amount of money required to make up even 25% of a second income would be outrageously expensive and, therefore, prohibitive.

Actually we do need kids to maintain the society, otherwise we'll have a total economic collapse in 30 years. We could boost immigration dramatically to make up for it, but I would prefer a society where it's economically feasible for people to have children. I think most people would agree with me on that.

But the point is parents will have a choice!

Those who have other means of babysitting can use whatever means they feel they want. Be it a realtive or a friend or a private caregiver they've known for sometime. Some might be fortunate to find daycares at their place of work!

Those who really feel that they need daycares can go bring their children to daycares.

A lot of moms do not make a lot of money working outside the homes. How many gets minimum paying job? All things considered, from gas/car maintenance/insurance, travel time, daycare expense, food expense, clothings for work...plus the quality of life at home.....for a lot of moms, it is better to stay at home.

Harper's incentive, may not be as much...but for a lot of moms out there, that $5/day can make a lot of difference. Actually this is the best scenario! For moms to stay at home...at least during the first 3 years of their childrens' life.

[betsy]

And this has nothing to do with “entitlement” either. I don’t think that anyone is “entitled” to daycare;

But that is exactly how women feel! They feel they are entitled to be supported in raising their children!

$5/day is not even enough for them....they're even saying how much "entitlement " they should have!

Mrs Chambers from Youth Services was asked by Mike Duffy...."Harper is creating 225,000 seats...will you be willing to work with the government on that?"

She did not give a straight answer. She just insisted, "the Liberals already signed a 5 year deal...it should be honored."

I doubt this attitude is really for the benefit of the children. How can one dismiss a new concept so readily without giving it a chance?

WHEN IN FACT, NEW QUEBEC STUDIES SHOW CHILDREN ARE WORSE OFF after the universal daycare was implemented!

[betsy]

Discrimination? Who’s talking about discrimination? You pulled that one out of your ass.

But in a way, there is that implication that people who do not approve of the National Childcare are insensitive to the plights of those who cannot afford daycares.

But there is discrimination on people like me who operate quality daycares from our homes. Sweeping statements are made bluntly stating ALL private home daycares are inferior as far as quality goes!

[tml12]

Discrimination? Who’s talking about discrimination? You pulled that one out of your ass.

But in a way, there is that implication that people who do not approve of the National Childcare are insensitive to the plights of those who cannot afford daycares.

But there is discrimination on people like me who operate quality daycares from our homes. Sweeping statements are made bluntly stating ALL private home daycares are inferior as far as quality goes!

There are those on the far left that believe that without government, humans cannot reach their full potential. The central thesis of these socialists is that most people do not know what is best for them.

On the far right, there are those that say that privatizing everything is necessary to ensure competition and the embrace of the free market.

Then there are those, like myself, who believe an appropriate combination of the two coupled with the human spirit is what is necessary for a healthy democracy.

Quebec's daycare system--the Liberals' so-called example for this nation--is in decline. It is not the example for the nation. Individuals like you, betsy, operating daycares in your home, are an example of Canadians taking the initiative for daycare.

[Renegade]

How does making one thing more expensive make another thing more economically beneficial? That just makes both options unaffordable.

Why do you think we tax tabacco and alcohol so that the retail price is many times more than the actual cost. It is to discourage one behaviour while implicitly encouraging another. Same idea.

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you think we tax tabacco and alcohol so that the retail price is many times more than the actual cost. It is to discourage one behaviour while implicitly encouraging another. Same idea.

But if alcohol and tobacco become too expensive, you can still give them up entirely.

Not really an option with kids.

I think this question needs to be answered by the country as a whole:

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?

BubberMiley has done a good job of explaining the rationale here. I think that discussion needs to happen nationally for this and every social program. It's not enough to play on the heartstrings of the electorate. People need to know that there's a rational reason behind them.

[geoffrey]

Discrimination? Who’s talking about discrimination? You pulled that one out of your ass.

But in a way, there is that implication that people who do not approve of the National Childcare are insensitive to the plights of those who cannot afford daycares.

But there is discrimination on people like me who operate quality daycares from our homes. Sweeping statements are made bluntly stating ALL private home daycares are inferior as far as quality goes!

Betsy, in a national childcare program like the Liberals or NDP support, what would happen to your home daycare? Would you be put out of business through being undercut severly or would the government just tell you to close up shop?

[betsy]

Discrimination? Who’s talking about discrimination? You pulled that one out of your ass.

But in a way, there is that implication that people who do not approve of the National Childcare are insensitive to the plights of those who cannot afford daycares.

But there is discrimination on people like me who operate quality daycares from our homes. Sweeping statements are made bluntly stating ALL private home daycares are inferior as far as quality goes!

Betsy, in a national childcare program like the Liberals or NDP support, what would happen to your home daycare? Would you be put out of business through being undercut severly or would the government just tell you to close up shop?

Both can happen I guess. Or I'll be told that I have to be under an agency in order to operate.

[Mimas]

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!

It's simple. First, your $1200 is not $1200 because it's taxible income. Second, this credit benefits stay at home parents the most - it encourages more people to stay home. Baby boomers are retiring and all experts are warning of huge labour shortages ahead. When you are expecting labour shortages, you want to encourage people to work, not to stay home. That is, you provide good quality daycare centers, so that people can drop they kids off and go to work. Without affordable, good quality daycare, people stay home to take care of their kids. The problem with labour shortages is the following: too few workers puts upward pressure on wages. High wages makes everything more expensive to produce in Canada and cheaper to produce overseas. In conclusion, this $1200 credit has to be paid for by working people and businesses, so it's a tax on the economy. This credit is a tax on the economy both in terms of pushing taxes up and pushing wages up. This means exodus of canadian businesses and capital to other cheaper places overseas. It also means that there are too few working age Canadians to support a large ageing population. As the Conservatives said "It's bad policy but it's great politics"

[Hicksey]

It's simple. First, your $1200 is not $1200 because it's taxible income.

That's right.

Second, this credit benefits stay at home parents the most - it encourages more people to stay home. Baby boomers are retiring and all experts are warning of huge labour shortages ahead. When you are expecting labour shortages, you want to encourage people to work, not to stay home.

Don't you see this is a good thing? The law of supply and demand will force wages up. The average wages of a Canadian hasn't gone up in ten years. This will force employers to at least give us fair raises every year. In the trucking industry, with the demand for drivers, we have been able to gain advantage and force our wages up about 12% in the last two years as a result. Previously, jobs were few and far between and drivers were forced to take jobs at far less than we're worth or leave the industry as I did for a while.

That is, you provide good quality daycare centers, so that people can drop they kids off and go to work. Without affordable, good quality daycare, people stay home to take care of their kids. The problem with labour shortages is the following: too few workers puts upward pressure on wages. High wages makes everything more expensive to produce in Canada and cheaper to produce overseas. In conclusion, this $1200 credit has to be paid for by working people and businesses, so it's a tax on the economy. This credit is a tax on the economy both in terms of pushing taxes up and pushing wages up. This means exodus of canadian businesses and capital to other cheaper places overseas.

That corporations pay taxes is a myth. All the costs associated with doing business is passed down and paid for by the end consumer. Wages are only a small percentage of that. While excessive wages in certain sectors does create outsourcing (ie $30+ for unskilled labour) still more workers are horribly underpaid. This is something that a minimum wage cannot solve. However, what the exodus of a generation of workers that was largely unskilled to retirement is going to do is show employers is how valuable the lower end of the unskilled labour market is to their operations.

It also means that there are too few working age Canadians to support a large ageing population. As the Conservatives said "It's bad policy but it's great politics"

This I agree with. But with our generation just not producing children at the rate of our parents, this was going to happen regardless. This underlines the need to not keep adding more programs and more taxes because we need to plan how to pay for what will undoubtedly be one of the most daunting financial challenges of our time. So many Canadians are living beyond their means already that there's just no wiggle room to solve these problems. We should be proactive in solving this. We need to be freeing up tax dollars to spend toward this end, not spending the surpluses on yet more programs.