Daycare / Childcare

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't understand this.

Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare.

Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning?

The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids.

SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place.

Comments?

[BubberMiley]

How many threads on this issue do you need going at once?

[JerrySeinfeld]

How many threads on this issue do you need going at once?

one. and by the way i havent seen any on this.

[Drea]

I don't understand this.

Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare.

Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning?

The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids.

SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place.

Comments?

Jerry the real issue isn't monetary. Provincial governments already have a program in place for low income families (whether they be headed by one parent or two -- daycare subsidy is available)

I don't want the conservatives to give every family a hundred bucks for producing children. We already have a national and provincial Child Tax Benefit. (which I might add, CAN be used to pay for daycare for the child).

When I was low income a number of years back I got $275 per month in Child Tax Benefit. On top of $375 per month from the govt for daycare costs. Today, I'm certainly not at the poverty level anymore (yaaah!) I still get $23 of the Child Tax Benefit per month for my son. BTW, my income has more than doubled; so, no, the gov't doesn't take the benefit away from families who simply get a raise from minimum wage.

[scribblet]

I don't understand this.

Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare.

Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning?

The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids.

SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place.

Comments?

Something I've always wondered about, people fall on hard times and need a helping hand up, but why have more kids then? Bottom line, don't have kids if you can't afford them.

[Drea]

I don't understand this.

Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare.

Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning?

The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids.

SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place.

Comments?

Something I've always wondered about, people fall on hard times and need a helping hand up, but why have more kids then? Bottom line, don't have kids if you can't afford them.

Who was it who said they had sex with their wife and ended up with unplanned children?

Happens to rich people, also happens to poor people. Are you saying poor people shouldn't have sex just in case they accidentally get pregnant?

NEW! Get the INCOME TEST! and we'll remove that chastity belt! LOL

[JerrySeinfeld]

I don't understand this.

Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare.

Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning?

The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids.

SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place.

Comments?

Something I've always wondered about, people fall on hard times and need a helping hand up, but why have more kids then? Bottom line, don't have kids if you can't afford them.

Who was it who said they had sex with their wife and ended up with unplanned children?

Happens to rich people, also happens to poor people. Are you saying poor people shouldn't have sex just in case they accidentally get pregnant?

NEW! Get the INCOME TEST! and we'll remove that chastity belt! LOL

Go ahead, have all the sex and childeren you want. Just don't go asking for taxpayer support for your choices.

[geoffrey]

Exactly. It's pretty irresponsible to have children into a disadvantaged financial situation. Then again, I think people overexaggerate how disadvantaged they really are.

[mcqueen625]

Never mind national daycare at the expense of the people of Canada. If people want to have to have children, let one of those parent's stay home and bring up their own children instead of some stranger. No wonder our children today have no sense of values, or morals, their parent's are too busy making money to bother raising their children themselves.

We in Canada pay far too much of our income out in taxes that are wasted on frivilous programs. We need lower taxes, and the ability to choose for ourselves what or how our money is to be spent. Does a $2 Billion failed gun registry ring any bells?

[Mimas]

I don't understand this.

Night after night during the election campaign, we heard about the need for a national daycare program of some sort or another. These reports were (and are) often accompanies by interviews with "hard done by" parents who are having trouble affording daycare or childcare.

Here is my question: if you can't afford to have kids, why do you make the choice to do so and then compain to the public purse that you're hard done by? YOU made the choice. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for your bad planning?

The whole idea with PRO CHOICE is that you HAVE A CHOICE as to whether or not you want kids.

SO: either pay for them yourself or don't have them in the first place.

Comments?

Haha...Is this a serious question or a really nearsighted and retarded question? Assuming it's the second, taxpayers should foot the bill because bearing and raising children benefits taxpayers. If people stop having children, who is going to take care of you fool when you get older? Or do you plan to die before you turn 60? These children will produce the food you'll eat, will treat you when you are sick, and will take care things you won't be able to take care of. So, you should foot the bill, pay to have them raised properly, pay to have them educated properly, because you wouldn't want your doctor to be a mentally disturbed, grade 9 drop-out So have some respect for the children and for others in general you greedy selfish con!

[Mimas]

Never mind national daycare at the expense of the people of Canada. If people want to have to have children, let one of those parent's stay home and bring up their own children instead of some stranger. No wonder our children today have no sense of values, or morals, their parent's are too busy making money to bother raising their children themselves.

We in Canada pay far too much of our income out in taxes that are wasted on frivilous programs. We need lower taxes, and the ability to choose for ourselves what or how our money is to be spent. Does a $2 Billion failed gun registry ring any bells?

I can't believe how nearsighted, greedy and plain stupid you neo-cons are. It's simple: Paying people to stay home costs money! Paying people to stay home means fewer workers in the job market. Too few workers in the job market makes it more expensive and difficult to run a business. When it's difficult to run a business, business moves to China. Bussiness moving to China is bad news for the Canadian economy! Bad economy means that you are out of work. Being out of work is worse than paying taxes. It's that simple. If you took a single course in Economics it would be obvious to you. But you clearly didn't and you don't even have the common sense to realize that paying people to waste their potential and talents at home cannot be good for the economy. If this is too complicated for you to see, will you argue that closing primary and secondary schools in favour of paying people to home-school their children would be a good thing too?

[Renegade]

Never mind national daycare at the expense of the people of Canada. If people want to have to have children, let one of those parent's stay home and bring up their own children instead of some stranger. No wonder our children today have no sense of values, or morals, their parent's are too busy making money to bother raising their children themselves.

We in Canada pay far too much of our income out in taxes that are wasted on frivilous programs. We need lower taxes, and the ability to choose for ourselves what or how our money is to be spent. Does a $2 Billion failed gun registry ring any bells?

I can't believe how nearsighted, greedy and plain stupid you neo-cons are. It's simple: Paying people to stay home costs money! Paying people to stay home means fewer workers in the job market. Too few workers in the job market makes it more expensive and difficult to run a business. When it's difficult to run a business, business moves to China. Bussiness moving to China is bad news for the Canadian economy! Bad economy means that you are out of work. Being out of work is worse than paying taxes. It's that simple. If you took a single course in Economics it would be obvious to you. But you clearly didn't and you don't even have the common sense to realize that paying people to waste their potential and talents at home cannot be good for the economy. If this is too complicated for you to see, will you argue that closing primary and secondary schools in favour of paying people to home-school their children would be a good thing too?

I saw nothing mcqueen625's post which said that he advocated PAYING people to stay home.

[wellandboy]

So have some respect for the children and for others in general you greedy selfish con!

Make your case but kindly resist the temptation to lower the level of the discussion by name calling.

[Renegade]

Haha...Is this a serious question or a really nearsighted and retarded question? Assuming it's the second, taxpayers should foot the bill because bearing and raising children benefits taxpayers. If people stop having children, who is going to take care of you fool when you get older? Or do you plan to die before you turn 60? These children will produce the food you'll eat, will treat you when you are sick, and will take care things you won't be able to take care of. So, you should foot the bill, pay to have them raised properly, pay to have them educated properly, because you wouldn't want your doctor to be a mentally disturbed, grade 9 drop-out So have some respect for the children and for others in general you greedy selfish con!

The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so. There are numerous industries from retirement homes to geriatric care which cater to taking care of the aged. These are not charity industries. Where there is a need an industry will fulfill it.

I for one am not expecting the younger generation to fund my retirement, nor am I expecting that I shoud have to foot the bill for the care and feeding of children other than my own.

[Drea]

Haha...Is this a serious question or a really nearsighted and retarded question? Assuming it's the second, taxpayers should foot the bill because bearing and raising children benefits taxpayers. If people stop having children, who is going to take care of you fool when you get older? Or do you plan to die before you turn 60? These children will produce the food you'll eat, will treat you when you are sick, and will take care things you won't be able to take care of. So, you should foot the bill, pay to have them raised properly, pay to have them educated properly, because you wouldn't want your doctor to be a mentally disturbed, grade 9 drop-out So have some respect for the children and for others in general you greedy selfish con!

The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so. There are numerous industries from retirement homes to geriatric care which cater to taking care of the aged. These are not charity industries. Where there is a need an industry will fulfill it.

I for one am not expecting the younger generation to fund my retirement, nor am I expecting that I shoud have to foot the bill for the care and feeding of children other than my own.

Not that I entirely agree with Mimas BUT taxpayers do pay for old age pension. Currently (depending on your age of course) that is you and me. Our children will be the taxpayers and foot the bill for our gov't pension cheques. (If there is a gov't pension available). I have no faith that there will be so I save and invest as much as possible today for old age.

And where does the money to pay geriatric (sp) nurses come from? Taxpayers.

Mimas, you make some good points but no one wants to respond to someone who is using the type of language you are now. Tone it down and you will see there are people who agree with you.

[Mimas]

Haha...Is this a serious question or a really nearsighted and retarded question? Assuming it's the second, taxpayers should foot the bill because bearing and raising children benefits taxpayers. If people stop having children, who is going to take care of you fool when you get older? Or do you plan to die before you turn 60? These children will produce the food you'll eat, will treat you when you are sick, and will take care things you won't be able to take care of. So, you should foot the bill, pay to have them raised properly, pay to have them educated properly, because you wouldn't want your doctor to be a mentally disturbed, grade 9 drop-out So have some respect for the children and for others in general you greedy selfish con!

The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so. There are numerous industries from retirement homes to geriatric care which cater to taking care of the aged. These are not charity industries. Where there is a need an industry will fulfill it.

I for one am not expecting the younger generation to fund my retirement, nor am I expecting that I shoud have to foot the bill for the care and feeding of children other than my own.

"The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so." Again, can you use your brain for a moment? This is not even a chicken and egg problem. Clearly, that younger generation has to be born and raised before they can be paid by you. This has to be done by their parents who won't benefit from the fact that you will be paying the kids for their services in the future. So, you have to foot the bill now, so that those parents will bear and raise children in the first place. If it's too darn expensive for people to have kids, they won't - that younger generation won't be there for you to pay them. The large expense of having children has already put a significant dent in Canadian demographics - the baby boomers are a much larger generation than those after them. This will lead to significant labour shortages once the baby boomers retire. If you think there is a shortage of doctors in the country now, wait until the boomers retire - there will be shortages in many other areas beside health care.

[Mimas]

Never mind national daycare at the expense of the people of Canada. If people want to have to have children, let one of those parent's stay home and bring up their own children instead of some stranger. No wonder our children today have no sense of values, or morals, their parent's are too busy making money to bother raising their children themselves.

We in Canada pay far too much of our income out in taxes that are wasted on frivilous programs. We need lower taxes, and the ability to choose for ourselves what or how our money is to be spent. Does a $2 Billion failed gun registry ring any bells?

I can't believe how nearsighted, greedy and plain stupid you neo-cons are. It's simple: Paying people to stay home costs money! Paying people to stay home means fewer workers in the job market. Too few workers in the job market makes it more expensive and difficult to run a business. When it's difficult to run a business, business moves to China. Bussiness moving to China is bad news for the Canadian economy! Bad economy means that you are out of work. Being out of work is worse than paying taxes. It's that simple. If you took a single course in Economics it would be obvious to you. But you clearly didn't and you don't even have the common sense to realize that paying people to waste their potential and talents at home cannot be good for the economy. If this is too complicated for you to see, will you argue that closing primary and secondary schools in favour of paying people to home-school their children would be a good thing too?

I saw nothing mcqueen625's post which said that he advocated PAYING people to stay home.

For those who haven't had the chance to find out about the $1200 conservative daycare/family plan yet, it is essentially a subsidy for people who raise their children at home. In other words, it pays people to stay home.

[geoffrey]

For those who haven't had the chance to find out about the $1200 conservative daycare/family plan yet, it is essentially a subsidy for people who raise their children at home. In other words, it pays people to stay home.

Sure. $1200 to every parent with a kid under six sure sounds discriminatory.

Just as much as 9-5 daycare (that still costs the user money, plus tens of thousands per spot for the taxpayer) discriminates against everyone that works outside 9-5, everyone that stays at home, and everyone that lives outside of a city.

Both plans are equally ineffective... People should raise their own kids.

The government has no business in the daycares of the nation.

[Renegade]

"The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so." Again, can you use your brain for a moment? This is not even a chicken and egg problem. Clearly, that younger generation has to be born and raised before they can be paid by you. This has to be done by their parents who won't benefit from the fact that you will be paying the kids for their services in the future. So, you have to foot the bill now, so that those parents will bear and raise children in the first place. If it's too darn expensive for people to have kids, they won't - that younger generation won't be there for you to pay them. The large expense of having children has already put a significant dent in Canadian demographics - the baby boomers are a much larger generation than those after them. This will lead to significant labour shortages once the baby boomers retire. If you think there is a shortage of doctors in the country now, wait until the boomers retire - there will be shortages in many other areas beside health care.

Perhaps you should spend some time to ponder before you type. Clearly the world's population has been growing without any subsidy required. People will have children regardless if someone pays them to do so. They will do so because nature have created biological urges and needs for them to do so. Frankly your argument that if we don't pay for people to raise kids, they won't is absurd. The almost unfettered growth of the world population proves this.

Where are you getting that we will be faced with massive labour shortages? Care to post any references?

[Mimas]

For those who haven't had the chance to find out about the $1200 conservative daycare/family plan yet, it is essentially a subsidy for people who raise their children at home. In other words, it pays people to stay home.

Sure. $1200 to every parent with a kid under six sure sounds discriminatory.

Just as much as 9-5 daycare (that still costs the user money, plus tens of thousands per spot for the taxpayer) discriminates against everyone that works outside 9-5, everyone that stays at home, and everyone that lives outside of a city.

Both plans are equally ineffective... People should raise their own kids.

The government has no business in the daycares of the nation.

Seeing that it is the working people who will be paying the $1200, I don't see why their taxes cannot pay for daycare too. Seeing that you are 17, have no kids, and pay no taxes, you should shut up, mind your own business, and don't even imagine that you have the right to tell parents how to raise their children!

[Mimas]

"The younger working generation will produce the food, and treat the retired generation because they will be PAID to do so." Again, can you use your brain for a moment? This is not even a chicken and egg problem. Clearly, that younger generation has to be born and raised before they can be paid by you. This has to be done by their parents who won't benefit from the fact that you will be paying the kids for their services in the future. So, you have to foot the bill now, so that those parents will bear and raise children in the first place. If it's too darn expensive for people to have kids, they won't - that younger generation won't be there for you to pay them. The large expense of having children has already put a significant dent in Canadian demographics - the baby boomers are a much larger generation than those after them. This will lead to significant labour shortages once the baby boomers retire. If you think there is a shortage of doctors in the country now, wait until the boomers retire - there will be shortages in many other areas beside health care.

Perhaps you should spend some time to ponder before you type. Clearly the world's population has been growing without any subsidy required. People will have children regardless if someone pays them to do so. They will do so because nature have created biological urges and needs for them to do so. Frankly your argument that if we don't pay for people to raise kids, they won't is absurd. The almost unfettered growth of the world population proves this.

Where are you getting that we will be faced with massive labour shortages? Care to post any references?

Ponder what? That the only countries where the population is increasing are ones that are either ruled by religious tyrants or the population is completely uneducated and has absolutely no control over their reproductive functions. For those still living in the 50s, these days Canada and most of Europe have NEGATIVE natural rate of population growth. If the overall population growth is positive in some countries (like Canada), it is only due to immigration. The countries with the lowest birth rates (or largest decrease in population) in the world are those of the former USSR and Eastern Europe, where birth rates have fallen in half since 1990. And you know why? Because their governments are too broke and stopped offering substantial "subsidies" for raising children (like daycare and child benefits), so having children has become too expensive. You tell people it will cost them $500,000 to raise a child and that they won't get a penny for it and watch the birth rates dropping. Ponder this!!!

"They will do so because nature have created biological urges and needs for them to do so." This is bullshit and you say it because you didn't do your homework again! Just because you wish it was true, doesn't make it so. Studies on the subject have actually shown that humans have no natural urges to have children. This is explained by the fact that "biological urges" to have children were never necessary in order to have children. All that's necessary is having sex. Humanoids simply ended up having children and most of them probably never even made the link between sex and having children. Tada! The only way to force people to have children is to ban contraceptives and abortions. Good luck with that!

[Drea]

When I first went back to work after my son was born, I worked nights in a hotel (LOL NOT like THAT! -- the front desk)

Anyway... because I was working at minimum wage, I recieved $395 per month to pay my daycare provider.

Someone said earlier (or on another daycare thread) that following the original liberal plan there would be no help for those who work other than 9 to 5. Not true, our (at least BC) provincial governments pay for daycare for low income families no matter what shift they work.

Someone said earlier "I saw nothing mcqueen625's post which said that he advocated PAYING people to stay home." Advocating for or agreeing with the conservative policy of giving every family with small children $1200 per year per child is indeed paying people to stay home.

Once again, we already have a system in place to assist low income families. Federally and provincially. This $100 per month was simply a vote grab. It certainly won't be of much help to the low income family where both parents have to work. As as I said before I am inscensed that that family of 6 is going to take their $5000 and spend it on a vacation. I haven't taken a vacation since 1984. Is the government going to give ME the money to go?

The most valuable thing that the government can do regarding child care is to offer incentives (ie; tax breaks) for people to train for and open daycares (and nightcares for shiftworkers).

Again, money is not the issue -- subsidies already exist -- space is the issue. In some of the larger cities it's virtually impossible to get into any daycare at all.

Should the woman give up her $40,000 a year job and stay at home because there is no daycare space? How does the gov't feel about losing her $8000 in taxes? (No skin off the gov't ass if she works -- because she makes 40 grand she does not qualify for any subsidy -- federal or provincial. Lots of skin (8 grand worth) off the gov'ts ass if she is forced to stay at home).

If she is forced to stay home because of a lack of daycare space, the govt not only loses the revenue from her taxes but now her family qualifies for the child tax benefit. So instead of collecting 8 grand in taxes they are paying out $3300 per year in child tax benefit. How senseless is this?

Mimas wrote:

The only way to force people to have children is to ban contraceptives and abortions. Good luck with that!

A number of states in the US have done this already or are working on it now. Scary gov't control IMO.

[Riverwind]

The most valuable thing that the government can do regarding child care is to offer incentives (ie; tax breaks) for people to train for and open daycares (and nightcares for shiftworkers).

Drea, I agree with you here. The gov't has a role helping ensure daycare spaces are available by assiting with the capital costs required to develop the centers. However, I am strongly opposed to a Quebec style $5/day universal daycare program which I see as an unfair entitlment program that screws people who are willing to make the financial sacrifices required to live on one income. What I would like to see is a change to the tax rules that allows stay at home parents to get paid by their working spouse (i.e. the higher income spouse should be allowed to transfer income to the lower income spouse for tax purposes). In short, there needs to be a balance between assisting people who want/need daycare and those to want/need to quit work to stay at home.

[Renegade]

Again, money is not the issue -- subsidies already exist -- space is the issue. In some of the larger cities it's virtually impossible to get into any daycare at all.

Maybe someone can explain this because I'm not getting it. When I was looking for daycare, I had no problem finding available daycare spaces. Mind you, they didn't come cheap. What cities have a lack of daycare and what is the obstacle in creating more? Surely if parents were willing to pay the price for purely profit reasons, more spots would open up. Why is this different than other demand which needs to be filled?

[Renegade]

Ponder what? That the only countries where the population is increasing are ones that are either ruled by religious tyrants or the population is completely uneducated and has absolutely no control over their reproductive functions. For those still living in the 50s, these days Canada and most of Europe have NEGATIVE natural rate of population growth. If the overall population growth is positive in some countries (like Canada), it is only due to immigration. The countries with the lowest birth rates (or largest decrease in population) in the world are those of the former USSR and Eastern Europe, where birth rates have fallen in half since 1990. And you know why? Because their governments are too broke and stopped offering substantial "subsidies" for raising children (like daycare and child benefits), so having children has become too expensive. You tell people it will cost them $500,000 to raise a child and that they won't get a penny for it and watch the birth rates dropping. Ponder this!!!

Birth rates have dropped as our standard of living has increased, contraceptive options became available, attitudes changed, and women had more options than to just stay home and give birth. Many of the countries you cite as having negative natural rates of population growth also have comparatively generous social programs. Personally I don't give a damn if people do or don't have children. Its their choice, there are more than enough people in the world and there will be for the forseeable future. What's the big issue if we use immigration to address labour shortages instead of artificially bribing people to have kids.

"They will do so because nature have created biological urges and needs for them to do so." This is bullshit and you say it because you didn't do your homework again! Just because you wish it was true, doesn't make it so. Studies on the subject have actually shown that humans have no natural urges to have children. This is explained by the fact that "biological urges" to have children were never necessary in order to have children. All that's necessary is having sex.

What exactly do you think sex is if not a biological urge to procreate? You cite studies, care to provide a reference or is it more of your bullshit?

Humanoids simply ended up having children and most of them probably never even made the link between sex and having children. Tada! The only way to force people to have children is to ban contraceptives and abortions. Good luck with that!

Frankly if your explaination is that people are too stupid to see the connection between sex and having kids, I'm pretty sure I know where the stupidity lies. Anyone over the age of 8 made the connection a long time ago, yet many continued to have sex. Why?