Rewarding Laziness in Canada

[Mimas]

Ah, that explains it, this isn't about kids, it's about money. In that case, lets not give anything to anyone. No deductions for dependents, Not subsidizing daycare. Works for me. Even better, a flat tax. Would hardly need accountants at all. Any idiot could manage their taxes.

Haha, I hate to disappoint you but any idiot should be able to do his own taxes as it is. Most personal income tax returns are quite simple. And quite boring. Anyway, it is precisely about the kids. I am not at all convinced that it's better for the kids to be raised at home, in fact, I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. If it's not better for the kids, there is no point for the parents to lose income, careers, etc. There is no point for others to pay taxes to help the parents to stay at home. In fact, I think that staying home is a mistake and I don't want to help people make that mistake. Finally, having more people stay home is bad for the economy. I mentioned that one conservative said that the baby bonus is bad policy but good politics. Harper is an economist and knows it's bad policy (no he isn't stupid or naive) but it was a good sell to get more votes. That's all.

[geoffrey]

It's very simple to me that parents that have a vested interest in the success of their children are much more capable caregivers than daycare workers. With money being excluded from the equation for a second, would you still state that all children should be raised in government hands? Or would parents then be the best choice?

Since you don't have any evidence of your claims, I'll show you some evidence of mine:

--

National Bureau of Economic Research:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/feb/06020205.html

In summary, the findings revealed that children in daycare were 17 times more hostile than children raised at home, and almost three times more anxious.

“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.”

--

So daycare raised kids are more aggressive and violent. Where's your researched data?

[Wilber]

Ah, that explains it, this isn't about kids, it's about money. In that case, lets not give anything to anyone. No deductions for dependents, Not subsidizing daycare. Works for me. Even better, a flat tax. Would hardly need accountants at all. Any idiot could manage their taxes.

Haha, I hate to disappoint you but any idiot should be able to do his own taxes as it is. Most personal income tax returns are quite simple. And quite boring. Anyway, it is precisely about the kids. I am not at all convinced that it's better for the kids to be raised at home, in fact, I have seen plenty of evidence to the contrary. If it's not better for the kids, there is no point for the parents to lose income, careers, etc. There is no point for others to pay taxes to help the parents to stay at home. In fact, I think that staying home is a mistake and I don't want to help people make that mistake. Finally, having more people stay home is bad for the economy. I mentioned that one conservative said that the baby bonus is bad policy but good politics. Harper is an economist and knows it's bad policy (no he isn't stupid or naive) but it was a good sell to get more votes. That's all.

I've been doing my own taxes and using E File for years. For most people you are right, it ain't difficult, particularly if you have a PC.

You make your choices, I'll make mine. I'm quite happy with the way my kids turned out and would have made the same choice whether it had any tax implications or not. I don't think government should subsidize children period unless there is a real need and by need I mean one that is not self inflicted, certainly not just so the parents can have a nicer car or a bigger TV.

[Mimas]

Well, I'm happy that we can agree that the money comes from taxpayers in either case, so there's no difference there.

Now then, if the government creates day care spaces, what stops a "lazy" parent from putting their kid in day care and then going home to watch TV?

I never said that parents who stay home should have access to subsidized daycare.

And if the government goves the money directly to the parent, what stops a "hard-working parent" from using the money as partial payment for day care costs

In fact, I could just as easily reverse that situation, switching lazy for hard-working?

What stops the parent from paying for daycare is the shortage of daycare spots. You can't pay for goods or services that don't exist. Secondly, a large number of daycare spots right now are just moms with no training or credentials setting up "daycare" in their basements. I don't blame people for not wanting to leave their kids in such places.

There are differences between the Tories proposal and the Liberal proposal but laziness has nothing to do with it.

I disagree. For obvious reasons (that I've pointed out numerous times), the tory plan discriminates against working people and encourages laziness. Consequently, it is bad for the economy. Any economist would agree.

Since when is staying at home taking care of children, the elderly or the ill not considered work? Why is it called "housework" anyway?

It is often women who perform these tasks but I guess "women's work" doesn't count for you, Mimas.

It doesn't count because it does not pay the bills and it's also very inefficient. If we all sat at home and raised kids, then we would all starve. If we put our kids in daycare and got a job outside the home, we would both earn money and create jobs (for daycare workers, people who would produce the goods and services we'd buy with our income, etc.)

Imagine an economy made up of 100 moms with 2 kids each. If every mom stayed home and simply raised her kids, then everyone starves. If 20 moms set up a daycare, they could take care of the 200 kids. Another 20 moms could become farmers and grow food, another 20 could build homes, 10 could get into health care, etc. Even without initial training, each mom would get better and more efficient at what she does. In this economy, everyone has a job, the kids are taken care of and everyone is richer than in the economy where 100 moms stay home and starve. This is called specialization. This is why you go to the doctor when you are sick, why you go to the accountant when you need to have your taxes done, why you go to the grocery store to buy your food, why you go to a mechanic when your car needs a tune up, and why you should go to the daycare specialist for daycare. You can't be a doctor, an accountant, a mechanic, etc. all at the same time. You are best (most efficient) in your training (whatever it is), so you are best off working in that area. If your training is not in raising kids, there is no reason for thinking that you are the best in the world at it. To make a long story short, I'd rather have my doctor and my lawyer at work and add a daycare specialist to the picture, than having everyone sit home raising their kids and wasting their very important skills.

[Mimas]

I've been doing my own taxes and using E File for years. For most people you are right, it ain't difficult, particularly if you have a PC.

You make your choices, I'll make mine. I'm quite happy with the way my kids turned out and would have made the same choice whether it had any tax implications or not. I don't think government should subsidize children period unless there is a real need and by need I mean one that is not self inflicted, certainly not just so the parents can have a nicer car or a bigger TV.

I'm glad to hear your kids are fine. I agree with what you said here, which is why I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidize stay-at-home parents. If a couple can choose to forgo one income, then they aren't starving. If they really need the income badly, they won't choose to have a stay-at-home parent. I also don't like the fact that even multi-billionnaires will get the baby bonus. They don't strike me as the type of people who need help to raise their kids.

As for daycare, it's a bit of a different story because there is such a shortage of daycare spaces. I know plenty of people who started looking for daycare before their child was born and they still can't find spots 2-3 years later. I don't think that people should be forced to stay home and waste their talents/skills because there are not enough decent daycare spots in this country. If the private sector won't provide the number of spots needed, then the government should step in and do something about it (after all, the government loses a lot of tax revenue by having parents who want to work stay home because of the lack of daycare spaces).

[Wilber]

It doesn't count because it does not pay the bills and it's also very inefficient. If we all sat at home and raised kids, then we would all starve. If we put our kids in daycare and got a job outside the home, we would both earn money and create jobs (for daycare workers, people who would produce the goods and services we'd buy with our income, etc.)

Imagine an economy made up of 100 moms with 2 kids each. If every mom stayed home and simply raised her kids, then everyone starves. If 20 moms set up a daycare, they could take care of the 200 kids. Another 20 moms could become farmers and grow food, another 20 could build homes, 10 could get into health care, etc. Even without initial training, each mom would get better and more efficient at what she does. In this economy, everyone has a job, the kids are taken care of and everyone is richer than in the economy where 100 moms stay home and starve. This is called specialization. This is why you go to the doctor when you are sick, why you go to the accountant when you need to have your taxes done, why you go to the grocery store to buy your food, why you go to a mechanic when your car needs a tune up, and why you should go to the daycare specialist for daycare. You can't be a doctor, an accountant, a mechanic, etc. all at the same time. You are best (most efficient) in your training (whatever it is), so you are best off working in that area. If your training is not in raising kids, there is no reason for thinking that you are the best in the world at it. To make a long story short, I'd rather have my doctor and my lawyer at work and add a daycare specialist to the picture, than having everyone sit home raising their kids and wasting their very important skills.

So everyone should have to put their kids in daycare and go out and get a job. Sounds pretty Orwellian to me. You live your dream, I'll live mine. I prefer a country where I get to choose. I just don't expect to be compensated for it like you.

[margrace]

Its nice that you are able to stay home, I would have loved to stay home with my kids but I wasn't given that choice. God or fate or whatever saw fit to let my husband die of Leukemia at the age of 29, no choice, get out there and support them. Well I could have lived off my parents, how many of you are willing to take care of 5 extra people.

[scribblet]

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

My wife quit work to home to raise our kids until the last reached middle school. Then she went back. She chose to sacrifice a career working and the money she could have made over 15 years for the benefit of her kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face. My daughter and her husband dairy farm and are raising four kids. I dare ya to call her lazy to her face.

Well, I don't see why a working parent should be punished once by paying taxes so that your wife could sit home and a second time by not staying home with his/her kids. Generally, I don't care what your wife or any other lazy parent thinks. Sitting on your butt at home is laziness any way you look at it. It does not produce goods or services or anything else, so it should not be rewarded at the expense of people who work for their money!

There's nothing lazy about staying home and raising your own kids, rather than putting them in a State run day care facility. Maybe if more parents could afford to stay home and raise their kids there would be less crime and fewer problems.

Saw a bumper sticker the other day - "if you can't feed em - don't breed em"

[Wilber]

Its nice that you are able to stay home, I would have loved to stay home with my kids but I wasn't given that choice. God or fate or whatever saw fit to let my husband die of Leukemia at the age of 29, no choice, get out there and support them. Well I could have lived off my parents, how many of you are willing to take care of 5 extra people.

That's the kind of thing I meant by a real need that is not self inflicted. I just don't believe that people should automatically think they are entitled to have others pay to raise their children. That's social engineering.

[FTA Lawyer]

I have read some dumb comments on this board, but this one is exceptional:

So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky?

I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers?

In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness.

There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb.

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for?

Mimas,

You are being a complete and utter imbicile.

You have at least one arguable point, which if I wade through the depths of stupidity that you are espousing I think I can identify as this: staying at home is economically unproductive, and therefore, on a strict economic analysis, it is wrong for society to give any economic incentive to a parent to stay home, when they could be participating in the enhancement and development of the economy by working. Not only is such an incentive removing workers from the workforce, but it is taking money out of the pot that is paid into by those who continue to work and pay taxes.

Your problem is that most people can't distill your valid message out of your posts because it is cloaked with ridiculous assertions that stay at home parents are all lazy and "sitting on their asses". Perhaps try, just a little, to engage in intelligent discourse rather than such buffoonery.

Now that the lecture is over...I have a couple of questions for you.

If staying at home to raise one's children is "lazy work" that "doesn't count" then how do you justify daycare workers being paid a salary? Aren't they just taking the place of the parent and being "lazy" doing "work that doesn't count" on a slightly larger scale in exchange for an unwarranted sum of economic resources?

As a self-professed accountant, I will assume that you know a thing or two about economics. Do you not understand the need for an economy such as ours to encourage child-birth so that we have an ever-existent population of new taxpayers being brought up to replace those who become "permanently lazy" (to talk in your type of terms) when they retire? Do you disagree that if Candian families increase the number of children they have as a result of the child tax credits and other "subsidies" that the pay-off to society at large is far greater in the long run when those children grow up to work and pay taxes and support your CPP draws and medical bills as you become nothing but a drain on society?

And please, if you can, respond in a way that fosters debate of my questions rather than tell me that I'm lazy...

FTA

[cybercoma]

Well, we have a long tradition of rewarding laziness and punishing people for working in this country and the new conservative government continues with that tradition even though conservatives are typically the ones who constantly complain about it. Of course I am talking about Harper's daycare/baby bonus, which has more to do with buying votes than with child care. As one Conservative put it, it's bad policy but good politics. So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

How does having chidren equate to laziness? And how in your mind did you draw the conclusions that people who have children do not work and pay taxes? This post is way off base.

[cybercoma]

Well, I don't see why a working parent should be punished once by paying taxes so that your wife could sit home and a second time by not staying home with his/her kids. Generally, I don't care what your wife or any other lazy parent thinks. Sitting on your butt at home is laziness any way you look at it. It does not produce goods or services or anything else, so it should not be rewarded at the expense of people who work for their money!

Properly raising children provides a service to society by reducing the likeliness that they will become criminals later in life. Statistics show that children whose parents spent more time with them when they are growing up are less likely to engage in criminal behaviour.

[cybercoma]

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk.

I love it when people misspell genius when they're trying to put someone down.

[Black Dog]

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk.

I love it when people misspell genius when they're trying to put someone down.

Reminds me of this guy.

[Wilber]

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk.

I love it when people misspell genius when they're trying to put someone down.

Reminds me of this guy.

That's great.

[scribblet]

I have read some dumb comments on this board, but this one is exceptional:

So, instead of providing people with decent daycare spaces, so that they can go out and work, Harper's got the idea to tax those who do work to death in order to pay a baby bonus to those who don't. This is of course on top of the $6000/child Canada National Benefit that stay-at-home parents usually get and working couples usually don't. Now, am I missing something or is this subsidy on laziness not something that should fall within the conservative ideology? Or does the conservative ideology come down to not subsidizing other lazy people but when you get to be lazy, it's all good?

Hey, where does the government get the money to pay for the day care spaces? Does it fall from the sky?

I'm willing to argue whether the government should give money directly to families with children, or give it to them indirectly by creating daycare spaces, but for heaven's sakes, can we at least agree that in either case, the money comes from taxpayers?

In addition, how is this in any way connected to "laziness"? Whether the government gives the money directly to families, or gives it to them indirectly through day care spaces, the money is not dependent on their laziness.

There is much to criticize in Stephen Harper's policies, and in the child care policy in particular. But this criticism is just dumb.

Ok, genious, at least you should read before you talk. There is no question that the money comes from taxpayers. My point was that it comes from working taxpayers and goes to those who are too lazy to work and use their kids as a convenient excuse for not doing so. There is a huge difference in how the money is spent. If it is given to people in the form of daycare spaces, then it makes it easier to put your kids in daycare and get a job (or at least you will not have an excuse for not getting one). In this case, you are both being productive (and paying for at least part of the daycare through your taxes) and are also creating other jobs (for daycare workers). If the money is given to you for staying (lazy-ing at) home, then you are not being productive, you are not paying for any of it (i.e. and are living off other people's efforts and effectively taxing the economy) and you aren't creating any jobs. In short, in the first case you are a productive member of society and in the second case you are a lazy bum who burdens the economy. Get it? Or are you arguing that sitting on your ass is an activity one deserves to be paid for?

Mimas,

You are being a complete and utter imbicile.

FTA

Not only that, he is actually saying that women have no value unless they are in the outside labour force. Isn't that one of the tenets of socialism - you know, motherhead and applie pie are forms fo slavery. Wasn't it a Marxist follower and Engels who said staying home and raising kids is a source of 'oppression'.

IMHO many of the problems in society today is because of the breakdown of the family, leaving kids to be raised in institutionalized day-cares.

[GreenWhiteandPink]

The only ppl that the $1200 a year will benefit are ppl living on social assistance, as $1200 will only pay for 1-2 months of child care and will not enable low income individuals to work instead of staying home in order to take care of their children. It will not enable a one of two parents to stay at home either as $1200 a year is nothing to replace a second income. People on social assistance will now also receieve this money $100 bucks a month for every kid the produce, yet they don't work.

I don't see how any true fiscal conservative can surport this program. It is unfair and inefficient.

Why not just make the Liberal Tax Cut permanent, and reduce the GST. Have no "No-Choice Child Care" program, because in it current proposed form it's useless.

[Wilber]

I don't see how any true fiscal conservative can surport this program. It is unfair and inefficient.

Why not just make the Liberal Tax Cut permanent, and reduce the GST. Have no "No-Choice Child Care" program, because in it current proposed form it's useless.

I tend to agree but I think a lot of it had to do with getting elected. Many Canadians were expectiing their little golden egg and woe betide those who disappointed them. If you are going to help families with children, this program at least treats all parents equally rather than helping a particular segment of society. It gives people a choice. That at least, does fit in with a conservative ideology.

[Renegade]

Do you not understand the need for an economy such as ours to encourage child-birth so that we have an ever-existent population of new taxpayers being brought up to replace those who become "permanently lazy" (to talk in your type of terms) when they retire? Do you disagree that if Candian families increase the number of children they have as a result of the child tax credits and other "subsidies" that the pay-off to society at large is far greater in the long run when those children grow up to work and pay taxes and support your CPP draws and medical bills as you become nothing but a drain on society?

For the moment, let us take as a given that society needs a population increase in order to keep the funding of social programs intact, and that this is the purpose of society providing a stimulus to parents for having children.

Consider the following:

1. The incentive is inefficient and costly. It targets all parents both current and potential parents. There is no real need to incent current parents as they have already made the decision to have a child and that child will grow up to be part of the workforce. So in that sense the incentive is wasted. It would far more efficient to incent only new children with an incentive (eg a baby bonus). Further, since many of these children were going to be born anyway, we can be narrow the target by for example only targeting the 3rd child or more. If we wanted to be even more coercive, we should only give the bonus to children born in wedlock, so as not to encourage single mothers to have children.

2. If we were trying to engineer a population increase we should encourage only the groups who society would encourage to have kids. For example, it may make sense to encourage a wealthy couple to have a child, where it may not make sense to encourage a low-income single parent to have a child. This make sense to society because it would need to contribute less to the child's upbringing if the parents were able to afford it themselves. Similarly it may make sense to encourage a family in a high-employment area to have a child, but not in an area of high unemployment.

3. Immigration may be a more cost effective substitute for population growth than organic population growth. The delay between stimulus and desired effect is considerable in encouraging the population to reproduce. That delay is considerably reduced with immigration. In addition, society (ours anyway) doesn't have to bear the burden of educating and skilling the immigrant (assuming selective immigration) in the same way as we would a newborn.