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

Hicksey · 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.

Then what exactly caused the change whereas a single income cannot support a middle class family anymore? We didn't have a day care program back then.

BubberMiley · February 7, 2006

Then what exactly caused the change whereas a single income cannot support a middle class family anymore? We didn't have a day care program back then.

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.

Hicksey · February 7, 2006

Then what exactly caused the change whereas a single income cannot support a middle class family anymore? We didn't have a day care program back then.

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.

That's an interesting take on things. Feminism killed the prosperity of the single income family. So in giving women more power they chose to forsake the family in favor of material possessions. Interesting.

Maybe this is a good example where progress isn't necessarily progressive.

Black Dog · February 7, 2006

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.

But that's what you are doing under the Conservative plan. It's not a tax break, it's a handout. And, since the government's money is all our money, your money and my money, the argument doesn't work.

Now, I'm okay with the idea of subsidizing child care. What I don't care for is the idea of giving people money for childcare they can spend on...whatever. At the end of the day, there's no way to measure whether it will have any impact, no way to determine if anyone is actually being helped out. That make sme very nervous.

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.

Don't get me started. Suppose I'm a parent and suppose I want to put my kid in, say, piano lessons: where's my money? Why are some activities more important than others?

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 about stagnating wages, rising personal debt etc etc?

BubberMiley · February 7, 2006

It's definitely an unfortunate byproduct, but nonetheless a problem that must be dealt with one way or another. Like I said, you can't force women not to work so people have three choices: get daycare, stay home in poverty (unless they're fortunate to have one very large income in the house), or not have kids. Not having kids ultimately hurts us all, and the poverty doesn't do anybody any good either. So the last choice is create more affordable daycare spaces.

betsy · February 7, 2006

Then what exactly caused the change whereas a single income cannot support a middle class family anymore? We didn't have a day care program back then.

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.

Ahhh. So it's wanting to have it both ways.

Some couples postpone having children in lieu of getting their dream house first and getting established.

betsy · February 7, 2006

Simply put, having children is a matter of personal choice. I chose to have mine, and I accept all that Now, I'm okay with the idea of subsidizing child care. What I don't care for is the idea of giving people money for childcare they can spend on...whatever. At the end of the day, there's no way to measure whether it will have any impact, no way to determine if anyone is actually being helped out. That make sme very nervous.
[

What about welfare cheques? What about child allowance?

There's no way we can determine if it goes on food, booze or drugs! No one's keeping tabs.

Hicksey · February 7, 2006

Then what exactly caused the change whereas a single income cannot support a middle class family anymore? We didn't have a day care program back then.

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.

Ahhh. So it's wanting to have it both ways.

Some couples postpone having children in lieu of getting their dream house first and getting established.

I know. But I guess is just too much to ask everyone to be that responsible.

I wasn't, but mine was a surprise. I was supposed to be sterile. But then again, even though things didn't go as planned I am still taking responsibility for my actions.

betsy · 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.

Don't get me started. Suppose I'm a parent and suppose I want to put my kid in, say, piano lessons: where's my money? Why are some activities more important than others?

We have problems with children getting obese. At least Harper is trying to give incentives for physical fitness...for in the end, Healthcare willl be shouldering expenses for obesity-related problems. We already see a rise in diabetics among children.

betsy · February 7, 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?

BubberMiley · February 7, 2006

Ahhh. So it's wanting to have it both ways.
Some couples postpone having children in lieu of getting their dream house first and getting established.

It's not necessarily "wanting to have it both ways." The market has reacted to women entering the workforce en masse: mothers and non-mothers. There was a surge of employable labour as a result, and the laws of supply and demand forced the buying power of the average wage down. Two-income households also became the norm, which created market conditions where people could afford to pay more for housing, cars, etc., whether they have kids or not. Subsidizing kids like the CPC plan does can help all families if it's done at such a significant level that it counters these market forces, but that would involve way too much money. The only solution (and we need a solution, because the birth rate is perilously low) is more daycare spaces.

fellowtraveller · February 7, 2006

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.

No, that is not my point, it apears to be yours.

Your childhood reminiscences are not the norm. My father supported three kids in a middle class grind, like everybody else in the neighbourhood. He was fortunate enough to be buying a very modest home in a very modest neighbourhood, and many of his peers rented those very modest homes. He didn't have a car for many years, and always spent hours tinkering on the beaters he did get. The problems exists alright, but it isn't a lack of universal day care. The problem is the attitude that dependence on government to support your lifestyle choices, for your voluntary actions, is somehow desireable and even laudable.

You are also equating a lack of material possessions with poverty, which is insulting to the truly poor.

The declining birth rate is irrelevant, easily replaced with immigration. Even better, replaced with people with energy and the determination not to be leeches on others.

There is absolutely zero need for govt to 'help create daycare spaces', the private sector will respond to supply and demand if and only if the govt keeps out of it, for once.

Black Dog · February 7, 2006

What about welfare cheques? What about child allowance?
There's no way we can determine if it goes on food, booze or drugs! No one's keeping tabs.

True. But themn income suport programs have a preset criterea to qualify. There's no such prequalification for Harper's plan save for a functioning uterus.

We have problems with children getting obese. At least Harper is trying to give incentives for physical fitness...for in the end, Healthcare willl be shouldering expenses for obesity-related problems. We already see a rise in diabetics among children.

But Harper's plan (parents will be able to submit with their tax forms a bill worth up to $500 for each child under 16 for any organized activity that encourages physical exercise: they wil get up to 16 per cent back, or around $80) will only help those who already have $500 handy to put their kids into sports. And what about physical activities that aren't organized sports (like for example, dance)?

If Harper wanted to make an impact and promote fitness, why not fund sports so that the costs are lower to begin with, instead of offering a meaningless sop worth a wopping $80?

Hicksey · February 7, 2006

What about welfare cheques? What about child allowance?
There's no way we can determine if it goes on food, booze or drugs! No one's keeping tabs.

True. But themn income suport programs have a preset criterea to qualify. There's no such prequalification for Harper's plan save for a functioning uterus.

We have problems with children getting obese. At least Harper is trying to give incentives for physical fitness...for in the end, Healthcare willl be shouldering expenses for obesity-related problems. We already see a rise in diabetics among children.

But Harper's plan (parents will be able to submit with their tax forms a bill worth up to $500 for each child under 16 for any organized activity that encourages physical exercise: they wil get up to 16 per cent back, or around $80) will only help those who already have $500 handy to put their kids into sports. And what about physical activities that aren't organized sports (like for example, dance)?

If Harper wanted to make an impact and promote fitness, why not fund sports so that the costs are lower to begin with, instead of offering a meaningless sop worth a wopping $80?

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?

betsy · February 7, 2006

Ahhh. So it's wanting to have it both ways.

Some couples postpone having children in lieu of getting their dream house first and getting established.

It's not necessarily "wanting to have it both ways." The market has reacted to women entering the workforce en masse: mothers and non-mothers. There was a surge of employable labour as a result, and the laws of supply and demand forced the buying power of the average wage down. Two-income households also became the norm, which created market conditions where people could afford to pay more for housing, cars, etc., whether they have kids or not. Subsidizing kids like the CPC plan does can help all families if it's done at such a significant level that it counters these market forces, but that would involve way too much money. The only solution (and we need a solution, because the birth rate is perilously low) is more daycare spaces.

Just heard Diane Ablonszcy on Mike Duffy saying 225,000 daycare spaces will become available.

betsy · February 7, 2006

What about welfare cheques? What about child allowance?
There's no way we can determine if it goes on food, booze or drugs! No one's keeping tabs.

True. But themn income suport programs have a preset criterea to qualify. There's no such prequalification for Harper's plan save for a functioning uterus.

We have problems with children getting obese. At least Harper is trying to give incentives for physical fitness...for in the end, Healthcare willl be shouldering expenses for obesity-related problems. We already see a rise in diabetics among children.

But Harper's plan (parents will be able to submit with their tax forms a bill worth up to $500 for each child under 16 for any organized activity that encourages physical exercise: they wil get up to 16 per cent back, or around $80) will only help those who already have $500 handy to put their kids into sports. And what about physical activities that aren't organized sports (like for example, dance)?

If Harper wanted to make an impact and promote fitness, why not fund sports so that the costs are lower to begin with, instead of offering a meaningless sop worth a wopping $80?

Prequalifications? Anyone with children below 6 years of age!

Btw, why shouldn't every parents get a break? Most of these parents are carrying the extra burden for the other parents who couldn't afford by paying for various social programs.

Whoa. There's nothing stopping Harper with funding sports if it's on their agenda. But the point is Harper is killing three birds in one stone with his fitness plan: after-school babysitting, promoting physical activities and physical fitness for our youth. Whether the amount is "peanuts" for some....at least it's there.

Melanie_ · February 7, 2006

The Harper plan of giving tax breaks to businesses will not work. I sat in on a conference call last Monday between child care advocates and business leaders (reps from Microsoft, Canadian Tire, TransCanada Pipelines, and the Royal Bank) to discuss the business community's role in developing a child care system. They were all very supportive of working families, but when directly asked if they would make use of the tax incentives to set up child care for their employees, none answered, and the topic was quickly diverted. When asked what they do currently for their employees who need child care, they talked about flexible hours and working from home (try doing that with a two year old; I also wonder how many jobs really offer that kind of option); Canadian Tire declined to answer at all.

Businesses are in the business of making money. Tax breaks to start a daycare are good for the year they build the centre; they provide no sustainability of funding, and businesses are not likely to want to incur the kind of continuing expenses that daycare brings.

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.

geoffrey · February 7, 2006

Actually Melanie, I wouldn't be quite so quick to jump to that conclusion, even though it seems like you have alot of first hand experience in the matter.

I know of a few Calgary employers that use company provided daycare as an employee retention concept. It's very attractive to have daycare for your kids in a highly competitive job market, and many mothers will chose the company that gives them this benifet.

It's a brilliant idea in attracting employees and I think you'll see more companies adopt this as the job market tightens further and every little perk becomes very valuable.

BubberMiley · February 7, 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.)

BubberMiley · February 7, 2006

No, that is not my point, it apears to be yours.
Your childhood reminiscences are not the norm. My father supported three kids in a middle class grind, like everybody else in the neighbourhood. He was fortunate enough to be buying a very modest home in a very modest neighbourhood, and many of his peers rented those very modest homes. He didn't have a car for many years, and always spent hours tinkering on the beaters he did get. The problems exists alright, but it isn't a lack of universal day care. The problem is the attitude that dependence on government to support your lifestyle choices, for your voluntary actions, is somehow desireable and even laudable.

You are also equating a lack of material possessions with poverty, which is insulting to the truly poor.

The declining birth rate is irrelevant, easily replaced with immigration. Even better, replaced with people with energy and the determination not to be leeches on others.

There is absolutely zero need for govt to 'help create daycare spaces', the private sector will respond to supply and demand if and only if the govt keeps out of it, for once.

I'm not equating lack of material possession with poverty at all. I'm not talking about big screen TVs or SUVs; I'm talking about living in a decent neighbourhood and buying groceries. I'm saying that the vast majority of jobs out there pay around $10 an hour, and you just can't support a family on that kind of money. 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.

Wilber · February 7, 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 A 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.)

I'm confused. Are we talking about a child care subsidy or a mortgage subsidy? Won't subsidizing childcare just put more money into the system and have the effect of driving house prices up even more?

Leafless · February 8, 2006

BubberMiley

You wrote- " The market has a tendency to drift towards what people can afford--that's why house prices go up when interest rates go down."

I always thought it was property school and municiple taxes that rule the housing market along with desirable locations along with the commercial real estate market who always artificially push the price of houses up to save their sales industry. It's the Bank of Canada that controls interest rates.

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

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

I don't know why it is imperative to subsidize someones income so they can even live MORE comfortably while other low wage Canadians suffer.

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.

BubberMiley · February 8, 2006

I'm confused. Are we talking about a child care subsidy or a mortgage subsidy? Won't subsidizing childcare just put more money into the system and have the effect of driving house prices up even more?

I'm arguing in favour of daycare spaces as opposed to Harper's childcare subsidy.

Wilber · February 8, 2006

I'm confused. Are we talking about a child care subsidy or a mortgage subsidy? Won't subsidizing childcare just put more money into the system and have the effect of driving house prices up even more?

I'm arguing in favour of daycare spaces as opposed to Harper's childcare subsidy.

What's the difference? You are putting more money into the system which will effect prices. You are still subsidizing childcare only now you are giving an even bigger advantage to those with two incomes while penalizing single income families even more.

BubberMiley · 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.