Ont. Libs. Proposing to deny fed. childcare to Welfare Recipients

[scribblet]

Good grief, surely Dalton wouldn't do this - deduct the childcarea llowance from social assist. and disability payments.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06030105.html

Ontario Liberals Propose Denying “Working Poor” Federal Child Care Supplement

Ont. Bishops’ spokesman slams McGuinty Liberals for unconscionable proposal

By Terry Vanderheyden

TORONTO, March 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Ontario Liberal government has proposed denying the province’s poorest families a Conservative campaign promise of a federal childcare allowance.

Under an election promise from the federal Conservatives, $1,200 per child per year would be given to families with children under the age of six years old to offset the cost of childcare. Stephen Harper said that passing the childcare supplement bill will be a priority for his government when MPs return to the house in April, with cheques going out by July.

The Ontario Liberals have said that they have not overlooked the option of deducting the proposed federal childcare supplement from social assistance and disability payments, as it already does with the National Child Benefit Supplement.

Contact Ontario MPPs:

http://olaap.ontla.on.ca/mpp/daCurRdg.do?locale=en&ord=R...

Contact Sandra Pupatello, minister of community and social services:

http://olaap.ontla.on.ca/mpp/daMbr.do?locale=en&whr=Id=8...

[geoffrey]

If it moves, tax it.

The Liberal way, tax the low income children. Why not?

[Drea]

If it moves, tax it.

The Liberal way, tax the low income children. Why not?

I expect that the Gordon Campbell British Columbia *Liberals* will also deduct it from welfare payments. *BC Liberals are actually conservatives.*

Let's see -- based on what a single mom we know used to get last year from welfare... she has 2 little kids.

$625 shelter portion

$500 living expenses portion

$500 child tax benefit

$200 new conservative plan

$1,825 NET income for a single mother with 2 kids who stays at home and does nothing towards the future.

How many of us clear $1800+ per month with no job and no education?

[Leafless]

This move is outright insanity and is just as bad as promoting French ACTIVIST Madeleine Meilleur to minister of community and social services and still retains ministerial respnsibility for francophone affairs in a majority English province that is NOT 'officially bilingual.'

The anti- English, anti-Conservative bias in this Dalton Mc.Guinty provincial Liberal government is clearly detrimental to the welfare of mostly it's majority English Ontario residents.

English paying tax-payers should take note on both these astounding moves.

[GreenWhiteandPink]

Go Dalton Why should ppl on welfare get money for having children that they can't even afford to take care off themselves.

[Leafless]

GreenWhiteandPink

You wrote -" Why should people on welfare get money for having children they can't even afford to take care of themselves."

The fact is hopefully when the children are grown they will be responsible tax paying citizen's contributing to the country.

This in fact beats the cost of an orphanage or similar where the children are not only detached from their mother but would cost considerably more to tax payers.

People are on welfare for many different reasons and does not prove all are irresponisible like you are suggesting.

The world is not a perfect place and you should know there are unwanted, neglected children from all walks of life though no fault of the children involved.

[GreenWhiteandPink]

The checks go to the parents, not to the children. Parents on welfare have children that grow up and live on welfare, it called the cycle of poverty. Giving a parent on social services a hunderd dollars a month will acomplish nothing. These ppl don't don't work, they don't need "child care" money. Now if they had a subsidized child care space then maybe they can go out and provide for themselves, and set a example for their child rather than teching them to go out and get pregnant at 17-18 and live off other working tax payers.

[Riverwind]

TORONTO, March 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Ontario Liberal government has proposed denying the province’s poorest families a Conservative campaign promise of a federal childcare allowance.

The Harper benfit is *taxable* to everyone that receives it. So why shouldn't it be treated like any other taxable income for those receiving social benefits? Every time you treat someone on welfare different than you treat someone working at a job that pays the same as welfare you encourage people to stay on welfare.

[geoffrey]

Go Dalton Why should ppl on welfare get money for having children that they can't even afford to take care off themselves.

I would agree with you normally, but Dalton is just going to use the cash to make institutionalised centres at your expense too.

[GreenWhiteandPink]

I would agree with you normally, but Dalton is just going to use the cash to make institutionalised centres at your expense too.

I don't live in Ontario so it's no expense to me. Publicly funded daycares enables parents to work and pay taxes, which in turn pay for the cost of publicly funded daycare. I don't have a problem with some of my tax money going to help someone work to provide for themselves. I do have a problem however with it going to a parent who chooses to not to work and live off social services, I see this happening everyday and it makes me sick.

[Drea]

Hear Hear!

GreenWhiteandPink

[geoffrey]

Agreed. I'm sick of people living off social services too. Maybe if they made more responsible choices?

I don't want to pay for either handouts or a daycare centre. Both are personal responsibility. Don't have kids if you can't afford them, its a really really straight forward concept don't you think?

[Drea]

Agreed. I'm sick of people living off social services too. Maybe if they made more responsible choices?

I don't want to pay for either handouts or a daycare centre. Both are personal responsibility. Don't have kids if you can't afford them, its a really really straight forward concept don't you think?

Unfortunately we cannot legislate personal responsibility...

In an ideal world no one would need daycare subsidy -- but alas!, we live in a world where families oftentimes cannot afford daycare -- those people we should give daycare monies to. (and we already do!)

The ones on welfare should not recieve any additional monies. In fact they should not recieve cash at all, but food/shelter "stamps".

Nor should those who have one income but one parent who stays home get a "daycare" allowance. We already have a very generous program called the Child Tax Benefit which helps low income parents (whether or not they stay home, are single, or two parent families).

[geoffrey]

That's a very good point Drea.

Why do these people that aren't working need someone to look after their kids during the day? What are they up to? Very questionable.

I'm not into this social welfare concept on any level, but in this case, I see that there is even a problem with this to more socialist minded people as well.

[Drea]

That's a very good point Drea.

Why do these people that aren't working need someone to look after their kids during the day? What are they up to? Very questionable.

Indeed!

And what about the family where the husband earns a 100 grand a year and wife stays home to look after the children? What is the wife doing with the money? What is she up to? Very questionable IMO.

This sickens me more than the family on welfare recieving it.

I'm mad as hell at over this -- it was nothing but a blatant vote grab.

[geoffrey]

That's a very good point Drea.

Why do these people that aren't working need someone to look after their kids during the day? What are they up to? Very questionable.

Indeed!

And what about the family where the husband earns a 100 grand a year and wife stays home to look after the children? What is the wife doing with the money? What is she up to? Very questionable IMO.

This sickens me more than the family on welfare recieving it.

I'm mad as hell at over this -- it was nothing but a blatant vote grab.

Agreed yet again. Well off families have no business accepting government handouts.

I think we both have different ways of solving this problem though, that's likely where the the agreement ends.

I don't think the government should be in the business of paying people to have children. I don't think the government should be in the business of any form of welfare outside of temporary unemployment assistance and things along the lines of Alberta's AISH program.

Why not just cut everyone's taxes by $1200. There is no clawbacks there, and we see major economic benefit from doing this.

On top of all these points, I also would like to venture the argument that it is of no business to the Federal government anyways, this is a provincal issue, and I'd like to see tax room created for provinces to administer programs that they see fit. That way, the programs are more directly accountable.

Universal childcare is likely to become as unwieldy, ineffective and expensive as universal health care has become. Let's not go down that road again.

[Smithers]

Geoffreys right. no daycare it shood be illegal i think. You cant take care of your kids give them to somebody that can.

[geoffrey]

Umm... I wasn't saying it should be illegal, just not taxpayer funded.

[Riverwind]

Agreed yet again. Well off families have no business accepting government handouts.

Why is a family that has one income earner making 100K less worthy than a family with two income earners making 50K? The family making 100K will pay almost $5000/year more in taxes.

Why not just cut everyone's taxes by $1200. There is no clawbacks there, and we see major economic benefit from doing this.

Not everyone has children. The $1200/child allows more money to be directed at families with kids.

Universal childcare is likely to become as unwieldy, ineffective and expensive as universal health care has become. Let's not go down that road again.

Could not agree more.

[geoffrey]

Agreed yet again. Well off families have no business accepting government handouts.

Why is a family that has one income earner making 100K less worthy than a family with two income earners making 50K? The family making 100K will pay almost $5000/year more in taxes.

Neither is entitled to the money. Just saying social assistance measures should be just that, helping those that will die or be impoverished without it. Past that, its a government salery and I don't see why we are paying people?

Why not just cut everyone's taxes by $1200. There is no clawbacks there, and we see major economic benefit from doing this.

Not everyone has children. The $1200/child allows more money to be directed at families with kids.

Kids aged 0-6. What about families with kids in university or what not? That $1200 off everyone's taxes is a much better concept. Money shouldn't be directed at anyone though, everyone should be under the same tax environment. A government handout is merely a tax break to those that the government think deserve it.

[Riverwind]

Kids aged 0-6. What about families with kids in university or what not? That $1200 off everyone's taxes is a much better concept.

Tax cuts for everyone cost a lot of more money. Directed programs score political points at a lower cost.

[geoffrey]

Kids aged 0-6. What about families with kids in university or what not? That $1200 off everyone's taxes is a much better concept.

Tax cuts for everyone cost a lot of more money. Directed programs score political points at a lower cost.

Agreed, but I'm not about political points. I'm about the right thing to do.

Tax cuts don't 'cost' money if spending is cut back equally.

[Nocrap]

Kids aged 0-6. What about families with kids in university or what not? That $1200 off everyone's taxes is a much better concept.

Tax cuts for everyone cost a lot of more money. Directed programs score political points at a lower cost.

Agreed, but I'm not about political points. I'm about the right thing to do.

Tax cuts don't 'cost' money if spending is cut back equally.

Drea Wrote "I'm mad as hell at over this -- it was nothing but a blatant vote grab. "

I agree. This $1200.00 CPC plan is a step back. I lived through the days of the old Family Allowance as it became one of the most blatant abuses of taxpayers' money. (How's that coming from a leftie?) I worked in a bank years ago and can remember one mother coming in to cash her family allowance cheque. While signing it in front of me she complained about the small amount. "Do they really think you can raise 3 children on this?" I was taken aback because this woman came from one of the wealthiest families in the city.

When Stephen Harper was VP of the National Citizens' Coalition, he praised the efforts of the Reform Party and NCC in scrapping the family allowance (Hamilton Spectre). This was one of the few statements he made back then, that I actually agreed with. The Child Tax Benefit and GST refunds were a much better alternative.

The Ontario Gov't suggesting that they may deduct this from assistance payments, could turn out to be a good thing; (Yes I'm still a Leftie) because it draws attention to the fact that Canada needs affordable childcare, not a handout.

If we really want parents to come off the welfare system, we need to present them with viable alternatives. They cannot afford to work for minimum wage if their entire earnings go to childcare. $100.00 a month will cover about 2 days per month, and 2 days wages will not take them out of the system.

I believe it will cost taxpayers far less to proceed with a National Childcare Plan, than it would to pay ALL parents $ 1200.00 per year; plus the administration costs. Scrapped daycare will just put more people on the social assistance rolls; and those already on it; no way out.

[Renegade]

Kids aged 0-6. What about families with kids in university or what not? That $1200 off everyone's taxes is a much better concept.

Tax cuts for everyone cost a lot of more money. Directed programs score political points at a lower cost.

Do they? I would argue that Harper's GST cut scored more political points than Liberal's income tax cut, despite the fact that the Liberals plan was more directed. I would argue that Harper's $1200/child handout scored more political points than the more directed Liberal policy.

I'm not arguing for or against the merits of the policy, however I don't necessarily agree that it scores more political points. People act in their self-interest. Spreading the self-interest to the most people is the best way to score points, afterall each person can only give you a vote once.

[Renegade]

I'm mad as hell at over this -- it was nothing but a blatant vote grab.

Of course it is, but so what? What did you expect in a election campaign? In my view the plan actually goes against conservative philosophy, but tactically it was a smart move during the campaign. That and the GST cut were probably what got him his minority government.