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

[Renegade]

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.

This attitude from many both wealthy, middle-income, and low-income parents is maddening. When will parents lose this sense of entitlement and accept that the cost and responsiblity of raising a child is theirs and theirs alone. Anything socieity provides is generous and is something they should be grateful for.

[Drea]

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.

That's too funny! You mean without these 2 financial incentives people would have voted for the "scandalous" Liberals?

Harper needs to do what Canadians actually want, not what he thinks they want (he's wayyy off base when it comes to the average Canadian IMO)

Poll on CTV News the other evening said 70% of people don't agree with the $100 payment.

Listen to us Mr. Harper, we don't want your lousy hundred bucks!

Another poll asked "are you waiting for the gst cut before making large purchases?" Again the result was 70% saying no, not waiting as 1% does not make that big a difference.

Why not give the $100 per month (x the number of families with small children) to our military? A much better use of the money IMO.

[Nocrap]

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.

That's too funny! You mean without these 2 financial incentives people would have voted for the "scandalous" Liberals?

Harper needs to do what Canadians actually want, not what he thinks they want (he's wayyy off base when it comes to the average Canadian IMO)

Poll on CTV News the other evening said 70% of people don't agree with the $100 payment.

Listen to us Mr. Harper, we don't want your lousy hundred bucks!

Another poll asked "are you waiting for the gst cut before making large purchases?" Again the result was 70% saying no, not waiting as 1% does not make that big a difference.

Why not give the $100 per month (x the number of families with small children) to our military? A much better use of the money IMO.

Yes and a poll taken after the election showed that almost half of the people who voted CPC wanted change and 25% voted CPC because they wanted to punish the Liberals. Only a small percentage said they voted CPC because they liked Harper.

He didn't give us change by bringing back the old Family Allowance, and will now have to face the music over his unethical cabinet postings; so he'd better listen to Canadians when it comes to key issues.

Since we are raising our four year old grandson, we would get the $ 100.00 per month, but will be putting it away in a trust fund for him. I find that ridiculous, since I don't believe that taxpayers should be depositing money into his bank account. A local poll showed that many middle income families will be doing the same, since the pittance will do absolutely nothing in so far as daycare (childcare) is concerned.

Lower income families will use it for food and those on social assistance probably won't see a dime. A few higher income families say they will donate it to charity for the needed tax break.

I think there are far better ways to spend taxpayers' money, especially since very little will go to those who really need it, and for those anxious for the cheques, they will be singing a different tune come tax time.

I live near a military base and there was an article in our local paper that said that many soildiers are forced to buy their own equipment, because the things they are using are so outdated. Give every soldier 1200.00; and quit calling this handout a 'childcare plan'.

[Renegade]

That's too funny! You mean without these 2 financial incentives people would have voted for the "scandalous" Liberals?

You bet. While it may not have swayed everyone, it swayed enough to make a difference.

Harper needs to do what Canadians actually want, not what he thinks they want (he's wayyy off base when it comes to the average Canadian IMO)

Poll on CTV News the other evening said 70% of people don't agree with the $100 payment.

Listen to us Mr. Harper, we don't want your lousy hundred bucks!

Another poll asked "are you waiting for the gst cut before making large purchases?" Again the result was 70% saying no, not waiting as 1% does not make that big a difference.

Why not give the $100 per month (x the number of families with small children) to our military? A much better use of the money IMO.

I would guess you didn't vote for Harper anyway, and you aren't the one benefiting from teh $100/month payment. The polls above don't really tell us how the policies affected people's vote. There are plenty of people who may not agree that $100/month/child is a good idea, but will happily pocket the money and support a government that gives it to them. So many middle-class voters who may not have directly benefit from the liberal plan, would benefit from the Harper plan. Yes, people do vote in their self-interest. Funny that.

[Renegade]

Yes and a poll taken after the election showed that almost half of the people who voted CPC wanted change and 25% voted CPC because they wanted to punish the Liberals. Only a small percentage said they voted CPC because they liked Harper.

People wanted change too in the previous election, yet it wasn't enough to elect Harper last time. I dont' beleive it is ever one single factor but a combination of factors which influence the decision.

He didn't give us change by bringing back the old Family Allowance, and will now have to face the music over his unethical cabinet postings; so he'd better listen to Canadians when it comes to key issues.

He must be doing something right since his poll number are up. Conservative support rising: poll

Since we are raising our four year old grandson, we would get the $ 100.00 per month, but will be putting it away in a trust fund for him. I find that ridiculous, since I don't believe that taxpayers should be depositing money into his bank account. A local poll showed that many middle income families will be doing the same, since the pittance will do absolutely nothing in so far as daycare (childcare) is concerned.

It's odd that you feel that way because the government (if you included the $1200/child) subsidizes, for middle-class families, up to 55% of the chidcare cost. That is hardly a pittance.

Btw, if you don't feel you are due the money, you are free to give it back. You CAN infact donate your money back to the Federal or Provincial government. Will you? Putting the money in a trust fund is no different than keeping it.

Lower income families will use it for food and those on social assistance probably won't see a dime. A few higher income families say they will donate it to charity for the needed tax break.

I think there are far better ways to spend taxpayers' money, especially since very little will go to those who really need it, and for those anxious for the cheques, they will be singing a different tune come tax time.

Well in that way it met the objectives. The objective was to give parents a choice on where they spent the money. If they want to donate it, they are free to do so, if they want to use it for food, they can, if they want to use it for beer and popcorn, they can.

Don't misinterpret that I am in favour of this plan, I'm not. I think it is a bad idea to subsidize parents, but as a political tactic, it was brilliant.

I live near a military base and there was an article in our local paper that said that many soildiers are forced to buy their own equipment, because the things they are using are so outdated. Give every soldier 1200.00; and quit calling this handout a 'childcare plan'.

So, how many parents local to you will be taking their $1200 and donating it to soldiers? None? I though so. People say one thing but do another.

[Drea]

So, how many parents local to you will be taking their $1200 and donating it to soldiers? None? I though so. People say one thing but do another.

Neither Nocrap nor myself said the families would do the donating. But that the gov't should take the money it's allocated for families and spend it on the military.

[Renegade]

So, how many parents local to you will be taking their $1200 and donating it to soldiers? None? I though so. People say one thing but do another.

Neither Nocrap nor myself said the families would do the donating. But that the gov't should take the money it's allocated for families and spend it on the military.

Yes I know neither of you said that. But my point is, when YOU have the power to allocate the money to the military, YOU aren't going to do it, yet you are all for the government doing what you yourself would not when given the choice. Why the double standard?

[geoffrey]

The families are paying for it Drea. The government has no money, it belongs to us. We hire them to provide some services here and there.

So giving more money to the military instead of a tax cut is pretty much families donating they money.

[Nocrap]

The families are paying for it Drea. The government has no money, it belongs to us. We hire them to provide some services here and there.

So giving more money to the military instead of a tax cut is pretty much families donating they money.

That's right Geoffrey. As a taxpayer I have a right to tell the CPC that this 1200.00 excuse for a childcare plan is insane, even though my grandson is eligible for the handout. Once it is in place, it is going to be very hard to get rid of, so I think we need to tell our MP's now to stop this silly notion and put the money to better use.

Sure, I could simply send the money back or donate it to charity, but we are guardians of our grandson and I don't feel that I have a right to decide that for him. The money is his.

Besides, what would that prove? Who besides me and my family would know that I did that?

I think that very few Canadians would complain if the government said that the $ 1200.00 per year was going to our soldiers to offset their personal expenses, so long as it went DIRECTLY to the soldiers and not to one of Mr. O'Connors former military clients.

[scribblet]

The families are paying for it Drea. The government has no money, it belongs to us. We hire them to provide some services here and there.

So giving more money to the military instead of a tax cut is pretty much families donating they money.

What gives people the idea that they are entitled to anything from other taxpayers other than a reasonable safety net?

It is insane to suggest that we should have to pay for a National Day Care program, it is insane that we would even consider embarking on another program that would likely result in a major cash drain. This is more from the 'gimmee crowed' , as in gimmee everything you've got, no thanks.

If you can't feed em - don't breed em....

[Nocrap]

The families are paying for it Drea. The government has no money, it belongs to us. We hire them to provide some services here and there.

So giving more money to the military instead of a tax cut is pretty much families donating they money.

What gives people the idea that they are entitled to anything from other taxpayers other than a reasonable safety net?

It is insane to suggest that we should have to pay for a National Day Care program, it is insane that we would even consider embarking on another program that would likely result in a major cash drain. This is more from the 'gimmee crowed' , as in gimmee everything you've got, no thanks.

If you can't feed em - don't breed em....

It is insane to suggest that we should have to pay for a National Day Care program, it is insane that we would even consider embarking on another program that would likely result in a major cash drain.

Whether people are willing to accept it or not, a National Daycare or Childcare Plan will benefit everyone. Already many women are saying that they will be forced to quit their jobs if the plan is axed, because they will simply no longer be able to afford to go to work.

This plan will not mean that taxpayers are expected to pay for all children - from what I understand if you can afford to pay for the service, you will have to pay for the service. Only those who can't afford to go to work without affordable or accessable childcare, will be subsidized.

A working Canada is good for all Canadians since working Canadians buy the goods and services that keep companies going and keeps us all employed. It's a win win.

On the other hand, the ridiculous $1200.00; not so much a childcare plan as a vote grab; will do nothing to alieviate the problem. It will be a noose around taxpayers necks that we will never get off. Calling $100.00 per month a childcare plan is like giving all Canadians a dollar to put towards groceries and calling it 'feeding Canadians'.

STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

[Drea]

A working Canada is good for all Canadians since working Canadians buy the goods and services that keep companies going and keeps us all employed. It's a win win.

On the other hand, the ridiculous $1200.00; not so much a childcare plan as a vote grab; will do nothing to alieviate the problem. It will be a noose around taxpayers necks that we will never get off. Calling $100.00 per month a childcare plan is like giving all Canadians a dollar to put towards groceries and calling it 'feeding Canadians'.

STUPID! STUPID! STUPID!

Hear, Hear!

[Renegade]

Sure, I could simply send the money back or donate it to charity, but we are guardians of our grandson and I don't feel that I have a right to decide that for him. The money is his.'

So is the money his or does it rightfully belong with the soldiers? Make up your mind. It's the same money going around.

Besides, what would that prove? Who besides me and my family would know that I did that?

So what, what does it matter? Are you interested in the use of the money or publicity?

Already many women are saying that they will be forced to quit their jobs if the plan is axed, because they will simply no longer be able to afford to go to work.

So what? If it is more economically viable for them to stay home, they should. It seems stupid to subsidize a parent by several thousand per child, just so they can earn less than that working. If they can earn more than what the (unsubsidized) childcare cost, then they can afford to work.

A working Canada is good for all Canadians since working Canadians buy the goods and services that keep companies going and keeps us all employed. It's a win win.

Actually its lose-lose. The parent gets incented to spend time away from their children they lose out on part of the parenting experience they would otherwise have had, the children lose in reduced contact with the parent, and the taxpayer loses in that it is forced to subsidize all of this. BTW, in your scheme above, there is no wealth being created, the net amount of money stays the same, therefore the amount which is spent in the economy is the same, its just different people who do the spending.

On the other hand, the ridiculous $1200.00; not so much a childcare plan as a vote grab; will do nothing to alieviate the problem. It will be a noose around taxpayers necks that we will never get off. Calling $100.00 per month a childcare plan is like giving all Canadians a dollar to put towards groceries and calling it 'feeding Canadians'.

It seems that your biggest issue is that it is called a childcare plan. If they called it parent incentive would that make you happier? BTW, you seem to be blissfully unaware the actual portion which taxpayers foot of the childcare cost.

[geoffrey]

I pay enough for others responsibilities. As a university student that pays a many thousands of dollars a year tax bill, I have to ask the question. Why the hell am I burdened with paying for working people's children, when I'm struggling to fund my way through school?

Get off your lazy asses and find a second, or third job. Do whatever it takes. But don't you dare ask me to pay for it.

I'm seriously so sick of hearing these sob stories and people asking more and more of the hard working members of our society.

When will I get the help I deserve by paying less in taxes, so I have more motivation to work through university and not come out burdened by debt?

No more money for irresponsbility please, ok thanks.

[fryingpan]

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.

This attitude from many both wealthy, middle-income, and low-income parents is maddening. When will parents lose this sense of entitlement and accept that the cost and responsiblity of raising a child is theirs and theirs alone. Anything socieity provides is generous and is something they should be grateful for.

I agree. The more tax cuts and handouts you give to people who have kids, the more people there will be having kids so they can get money back from the government.

If you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. This world is overpopulated enough as it is.

[Nocrap]

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.

This attitude from many both wealthy, middle-income, and low-income parents is maddening. When will parents lose this sense of entitlement and accept that the cost and responsiblity of raising a child is theirs and theirs alone. Anything socieity provides is generous and is something they should be grateful for.

I agree. The more tax cuts and handouts you give to people who have kids, the more people there will be having kids so they can get money back from the government.

If you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. This world is overpopulated enough as it is.

It seems that your biggest issue is that it is called a childcare plan. If they called it parent incentive would that make you happier? BTW, you seem to be blissfully unaware the actual portion which taxpayers foot of the childcare cost.

I'm not blissfully unaware of the costs, but am blissfully aware of the rewards. When people can afford to go to work without worrying about the costs or availability of childcare, they can PAY TAXES and keep the economy moving.

On a few other points - if the government goes through with this insane plan and sends my grandson $100.00 per month, I will put it in the bank for him. However, I don't believe that TAXPAYERS should put money into his account. Once it's here, as his guardian, I don't get to give it away. It is then his. I want the whole plan stopped before it gets to that stage.

I only mentioned the soldiers as an alternative place where the money could be put to better use. Mr. Harper or who ever came up with this sum, better get back into their time machine and set the dial for 2006, because $100.00 per month has not bought childcare since the 1950's.

I listened to a radio talk show on the weekend and the topic was how parents were going to spend this handout. Like the newspaper survey, most middle income families were going to invest it, lower income use it for food, etc., etc. Not one single caller was going to use it for childcare so that they could work.

One single mother of 3, with one child under 6, plans to use the money so that she can go to bingo twice a month. She is a stay at home mom, and this would give her a much needed break. Who can argue with that? However, should taxpayers be giving people money to go to bingo, when our government is using this to REPLACE a childcare plan? Is this the 'choice' they keep referring to?

If we feel that stay at home moms need a break (and I do), then add it to the Child Tax Credit, which is income based. I applaud stay at home moms. I was one for more than a decade.

So CPC - do not axe the daycare/childcare plan - do not call $100.00 per month an alternative to a workable daycare/childcare plan - recognize that the meager amount will not encourage people to work, nor will it encourage them to stay home. It is simply the family allowance all over again.

[Renegade]

I'm not blissfully unaware of the costs, but am blissfully aware of the rewards. When people can afford to go to work without worrying about the costs or availability of childcare, they can PAY TAXES and keep the economy moving.

I didn't say you were unaware of the cost of childcare; I said you were unaware of the amount of the taxpayer subsidy.

As long as the childcare cost is more than zero, there will always be a portion who worry about the cost, so in the subsidized childcare scheme it will open up some spots to some parents, but the rest will still have a cost issue.

Does it make sense to you for the government to spend $7000 to subsidize a childcare spot, so that a mother can earn $7000 and pay at best $1000 in taxes? It doesn't make sense to me either. Your argument that the government should subsidize childcare so that the parent will work and pay taxes, only makes sense if the taxes collected outweigh the cost of the subsidy. Do you have any evidence to show that it will?

In Quebec, the numbers I've seen show that the government only recoups $0.40 in generated taxes for every $1 it spends subsidizing. Doesn't make economic sense does it?

On a few other points - if the government goes through with this insane plan and sends my grandson $100.00 per month, I will put it in the bank for him. However, I don't believe that TAXPAYERS should put money into his account. Once it's here, as his guardian, I don't get to give it away. It is then his. I want the whole plan stopped before it gets to that stage.

The payment is made to you as guardian, not to your grandson. It is yours to spend, not his. You may choose to put it in his account, which is apparently the route you chose. You make an argument that it is "his money" and the choice is out of your hands, but this is simply not true. If you think there is a higher priority use for the money, you are free to use it that way. Apparently soliders or whatever else is not priority.

I only mentioned the soldiers as an alternative place where the money could be put to better use. Mr. Harper or who ever came up with this sum, better get back into their time machine and set the dial for 2006, because $100.00 per month has not bought childcare since the 1950's.

Again, you show that your perception is that he government only contributes $100/month to childcare cost. Again, do you know the average childcare cost? Do you know how much is already paid by the taxpayer?

I listened to a radio talk show on the weekend and the topic was how parents were going to spend this handout. Like the newspaper survey, most middle income families were going to invest it, lower income use it for food, etc., etc. Not one single caller was going to use it for childcare so that they could work.

One single mother of 3, with one child under 6, plans to use the money so that she can go to bingo twice a month. She is a stay at home mom, and this would give her a much needed break. Who can argue with that? However, should taxpayers be giving people money to go to bingo, when our government is using this to REPLACE a childcare plan? Is this the 'choice' they keep referring to?

It is interesting that you seem critical that parents are not spending it on childcare. Certainly you have stated that you don't intend to. So I ask again, is your biggest problem in the name of this plan, that you feel it is falsely labeled?

[Nocrap]

I'm not blissfully unaware of the costs, but am blissfully aware of the rewards. When people can afford to go to work without worrying about the costs or availability of childcare, they can PAY TAXES and keep the economy moving.

I didn't say you were unaware of the cost of childcare; I said you were unaware of the amount of the taxpayer subsidy.

As long as the childcare cost is more than zero, there will always be a portion who worry about the cost, so in the subsidized childcare scheme it will open up some spots to some parents, but the rest will still have a cost issue.

Does it make sense to you for the government to spend $7000 to subsidize a childcare spot, so that a mother can earn $7000 and pay at best $1000 in taxes? It doesn't make sense to me either. Your argument that the government should subsidize childcare so that the parent will work and pay taxes, only makes sense if the taxes collected outweigh the cost of the subsidy. Do you have any evidence to show that it will?

In Quebec, the numbers I've seen show that the government only recoups $0.40 in generated taxes for every $1 it spends subsidizing. Doesn't make economic sense does it?

On a few other points - if the government goes through with this insane plan and sends my grandson $100.00 per month, I will put it in the bank for him. However, I don't believe that TAXPAYERS should put money into his account. Once it's here, as his guardian, I don't get to give it away. It is then his. I want the whole plan stopped before it gets to that stage.

The payment is made to you as guardian, not to your grandson. It is yours to spend, not his. You may choose to put it in his account, which is apparently the route you chose. You make an argument that it is "his money" and the choice is out of your hands, but this is simply not true. If you think there is a higher priority use for the money, you are free to use it that way. Apparently soliders or whatever else is not priority.

I only mentioned the soldiers as an alternative place where the money could be put to better use. Mr. Harper or who ever came up with this sum, better get back into their time machine and set the dial for 2006, because $100.00 per month has not bought childcare since the 1950's.

Again, you show that your perception is that he government only contributes $100/month to childcare cost. Again, do you know the average childcare cost? Do you know how much is already paid by the taxpayer?

I listened to a radio talk show on the weekend and the topic was how parents were going to spend this handout. Like the newspaper survey, most middle income families were going to invest it, lower income use it for food, etc., etc. Not one single caller was going to use it for childcare so that they could work.

One single mother of 3, with one child under 6, plans to use the money so that she can go to bingo twice a month. She is a stay at home mom, and this would give her a much needed break. Who can argue with that? However, should taxpayers be giving people money to go to bingo, when our government is using this to REPLACE a childcare plan? Is this the 'choice' they keep referring to?

It is interesting that you seem critical that parents are not spending it on childcare. Certainly you have stated that you don't intend to. So I ask again, is your biggest problem in the name of this plan, that you feel it is falsely labeled?

It is interesting that you seem critical that parents are not spending it on childcare. Certainly you have stated that you don't intend to. So I ask again, is your biggest problem in the name of this plan, that you feel it is falsely labeled?

I won't be using it for childcare because first off, I don't need childcare and secondly, if I did need childcare, this would not pay for it.

The idea of a National Childcare/Daycare program is about availability and affordability. We only subsidize those who need it and ONLY IF IT ALLOWS THEM TO WORK. It is income based, as it should be. Again, working people pay taxes. You argue that it could cost as much as $7,000.00 per child to taxpayers, so that their parents can pay $ 1,000.00 in taxes. This would mean a loss of $6,000.00 - $1200.00 handout. Taxpayers are to the good $ 4,800.00; right?

Except that if that person was unable to work and not pay taxes, but instead had to rely on social assistance, it would be a whole new ballgame. In Ontario a single mother with one child receives $ 1,249.00 per month; a cost to taxpayers of $ 14,988.00 per year. She probably wont' get the $1200.00; but it still puts us in the hole.

Again, it is just the old Family Allowance program all over again, and should not replace a proper program; one that I might add, Canadians havel already invested millions into, to get it up and running.

OOPs! My spelling is terrible today. My grandson was up most of the night with the croup, and I'm afraid I'm typing with one eye open.

[Renegade]

The idea of a National Childcare/Daycare program is about availability and affordability. We only subsidize those who need it and ONLY IF IT ALLOWS THEM TO WORK. It is income based, as it should be. Again, working people pay taxes. You argue that it could cost as much as $7,000.00 per child to taxpayers, so that their parents can pay $ 1,000.00 in taxes. This would mean a loss of $6,000.00 - $1200.00 handout. Taxpayers are to the good $ 4,800.00; right?

Except that if that person was unable to work and not pay taxes, but instead had to rely on social assistance, it would be a whole new ballgame. In Ontario a single mother with one child receives $ 1,249.00 per month; a cost to taxpayers of $ 14,988.00 per year. She probably wont' get the $1200.00; but it still puts us in the hole.

It would seem then your entire argument of it being economically beneficial depends upon providing the childcare to welfare mothers. Do you agree that providing subsidized childcare to non-welfare parents does not make economic sense?

[Nocrap]

The idea of a National Childcare/Daycare program is about availability and affordability. We only subsidize those who need it and ONLY IF IT ALLOWS THEM TO WORK. It is income based, as it should be. Again, working people pay taxes. You argue that it could cost as much as $7,000.00 per child to taxpayers, so that their parents can pay $ 1,000.00 in taxes. This would mean a loss of $6,000.00 - $1200.00 handout. Taxpayers are to the good $ 4,800.00; right?

Except that if that person was unable to work and not pay taxes, but instead had to rely on social assistance, it would be a whole new ballgame. In Ontario a single mother with one child receives $ 1,249.00 per month; a cost to taxpayers of $ 14,988.00 per year. She probably wont' get the $1200.00; but it still puts us in the hole.

It would seem then your entire argument of it being economically beneficial depends upon providing the childcare to welfare mothers. Do you agree that providing subsidized childcare to non-welfare parents does not make economic sense?

Do you agree that providing subsidized childcare to non-welfare parents does not make economic sense?

It is not just for 'welfare' parents and is only subsidized for those who cannot afford it. It is income based and not only ensures that you can go to work, but that you can continue to work. $1200.00 per year does neither.

Stay at home parents do need a break, but again, add it to the income-based Child Tax Credit, if the taxpayers feel that it is justified.

Personally, as a taxpayer, I would rather money go to programs that allow Canadians to share the tax burden. If one parent decides to stay home with the children, I applaud that. If the government wants to give them a reward for this, I'm all for it. However, if the working parent is pulling in a hundred grand, then they already have the financial opportunity to pay an outsider when they need to get out of the house.

Income based additional Child Tax Credit for stay at home parents - Yes.

$1200.00 family allowance for everyone with children under six, regardless of income and calling it a Childcare Plan - No Way!

[Renegade]

It is not just for 'welfare' parents and is only subsidized for those who cannot afford it. It is income based and not only ensures that you can go to work, but that you can continue to work. $1200.00 per year does neither.

Yes, I understand what your saying. But your argument that this is economically beneficial doesn't stand up, for non-welfare parents, and it only may be valid for the small subset of welfare parents who can earn enough to offset the welfare payment including the exempted income. If you start including low-income parents who are not on welfare, as a whole subsidizing childcare is not economically beneficial for the taxpayer. Those parents who are not on welfare and working have already found a daycare solution, otherwise they could not work. By economically beneficial I mean saves at least as much money as is required to invest in the program.

Personally, as a taxpayer, I would rather money go to programs that allow Canadians to share the tax burden. If one parent decides to stay home with the children, I applaud that. If the government wants to give them a reward for this, I'm all for it. However, if the working parent is pulling in a hundred grand, then they already have the financial opportunity to pay an outsider when they need to get out of the house.

I guess it is a matter of personal preference of where you want your taxdollars spent. Personally, I'd prefer that the tax rate was lowered and in effect it was returned to the taxpayers from where it came.

$1200.00 family allowance for everyone with children under six, regardless of income and calling it a Childcare Plan - No Way!

I agree with you here in that it is not specificly a Childcare plan. Perhaps they should have had parents submit childcare receipts, or made it a credit as a % of the childcare deduction, then they would have better baisis to call it a child care plan.

However creative naming is not new, nor exclusive to this regime. Remember Mike Harris' "Fair Share Health Care Levy", which had nothing to do with Health Care, or McGuinty's "Health Premium" which was really a general tax. Or how about welfare recepients who receive a "Shelter Allowance" but can spend it on beer and popcorn if they so choose.

So if you're upset about naming, brace yourself, because governments have a long tradition of spinning creative names.

[Nocrap]

Some working parents already rely on subsidized childcare, but that could be scrapped, meaning that they could no longer afford to go to work.

I'm not merely objecting to the name, but the entire concept.

I do volunteer work and one family comes to mind. Mother and father work - she is a cleaner at the hospital and he works at Harvey's. Their three children are clean and well cared for; the eldest just came in second in a regional spelling bee. All are polite and well mannered and by all accounts will grow up to be good tax paying citizens, because they have excellent role models.

Because none of their children are under six they will not receive any of the 'childcare' benefit, but still require childcare before and after school, summer holidays, etc.

They are terrified that if the federal government no longer supports a childcare subsidy, one of them will have to stay home or look for a part-time job, so that they can be home when their children are. They cannot afford a reduction in income, because they are barely able to make ends meet now.

These are some of the people who will suffer under Harper's plan. On the other hand, let's say a couple have two children under six. One parent stays home and the other earns 100,000 per year. Under the Harper plan they will get to KEEP $2400.00 per year because the lower (in this case non) wage earner gets to claim the handout. Is this a fair system?

[Renegade]

Some working parents already rely on subsidized childcare, but that could be scrapped, meaning that they could no longer afford to go to work.

The agreement with the provinces and the Liberal federal government is relatively recent. Much of $5B the subsidy has not yet reached the childcare providers. In fact the agreements were made less than a year ago. So it is hard to believe the claim that working parents are already relying on this subsidy.

I'm not merely objecting to the name, but the entire concept.

I'm sure you object to the concept, but you seem to keep harping on the name.

I do volunteer work and one family comes to mind. Mother and father work - she is a cleaner at the hospital and he works at Harvey's. Their three children are clean and well cared for; the eldest just came in second in a regional spelling bee. All are polite and well mannered and by all accounts will grow up to be good tax paying citizens, because they have excellent role models.

Because none of their children are under six they will not receive any of the 'childcare' benefit, but still require childcare before and after school, summer holidays, etc.

They are terrified that if the federal government no longer supports a childcare subsidy, one of them will have to stay home or look for a part-time job, so that they can be home when their children are. They cannot afford a reduction in income, because they are barely able to make ends meet now.

As I've said, the agreements for additional funding with the provinces are relatively recent.. Since this family has had kids and childcare needs even before that, what did they do in previous years? Obviously for at least 6 years they've been able to manage.

These are some of the people who will suffer under Harper's plan. On the other hand, let's say a couple have two children under six. One parent stays home and the other earns 100,000 per year. Under the Harper plan they will get to KEEP $2400.00 per year because the lower (in this case non) wage earner gets to claim the handout. Is this a fair system?

Let me articulate the scenario you describe. The couple above give up one income (say $25000) and get no childcare tax deduction so the net childcare cost to them is $11,300 (ie $12,500 - $1200). On the other hand a lower income couple with two parents working, will get to pay say $7000 per child, but will get a tax deduction for the $7000, in addition to $1200. So at a 30% tax bracket that works out to $3700/child ($7000 - 2100 - 1200). Still a big difference wouldn't you say?

Is it fair? In my opiinion neither the Liberal nor the Conservative plan is fair. The parents should have the total responsiblity for funding childcare. The fact that childcare expenses are deductable mean that even without the subsidy the taxpayer is footing part of the bill. In your example above, what were the parent's (who can barely make ends meet), plan when they decided to have 3 kids, or did they even have one? If they didn't, who's fault is that?

[Hydraboss]

Some working parents already rely on subsidized childcare, but that could be scrapped, meaning that they could no longer afford to go to work.

I'm not merely objecting to the name, but the entire concept.

I do volunteer work and one family comes to mind. Mother and father work - she is a cleaner at the hospital and he works at Harvey's. Their three children are clean and well cared for; the eldest just came in second in a regional spelling bee. All are polite and well mannered and by all accounts will grow up to be good tax paying citizens, because they have excellent role models.

Because none of their children are under six they will not receive any of the 'childcare' benefit, but still require childcare before and after school, summer holidays, etc.

They are terrified that if the federal government no longer supports a childcare subsidy, one of them will have to stay home or look for a part-time job, so that they can be home when their children are. They cannot afford a reduction in income, because they are barely able to make ends meet now.

These are some of the people who will suffer under Harper's plan. On the other hand, let's say a couple have two children under six. One parent stays home and the other earns 100,000 per year. Under the Harper plan they will get to KEEP $2400.00 per year because the lower (in this case non) wage earner gets to claim the handout. Is this a fair system?

Your math doesn't work, as Renegade has pointed out. All childcare subsidies do is shuffle the money around (I guess we could call it the Kyotocare Program). By the time parents earn enough to pay sufficient taxes to offset the taxpayer-funded childcare subsidy, they would no longer qualify for the subsidy. Net loss to society.

People cannot do simple math to figure out what child-rearing costs will be...but they can sure as hell calculate Childcare+Welfare+Child Tax Benefit=Free Ride. My wife and I are raising our two kids by ourselves. It meant reducing to one income for a number of years, but we survived (barely). Others should do the same. The CPC's plan is a joke, although it does give some taxpayers back some of their stolen money. Not me, though. The Lib's and NDP plan is the watered down version of communism - no one is allowed to have more than the lowest-common-denominator. I also should not be paying for Geoffrey's education, but at least he is working to help himself, and will pay back the money in taxes. What does the no-tax-paying-live-off-everyone-else-breeder do? Nothing except accepting everyone else's money that they have not earned.

I WORKED FOR MY MONEY, SO QUIT STEALING IT!

[geoffrey]

I also should not be paying for Geoffrey's education, but at least he is working to help himself, and will pay back the money in taxes. What does the no-tax-paying-live-off-everyone-else-breeder do? Nothing except accepting everyone else's money that they have not earned.

I WORKED FOR MY MONEY, SO QUIT STEALING IT!

Completely agreed Hydra. And I'd never ask anyone to pay for my school. I wouldn't even ask my parents or relatives.

I'm an adult and my life is my responsibility. If I've got to suffer by working a couple jobs and what not to get it done, or even borrow money, so be it. I will never ask the tax payer to cover for my lazyness.

That was frustrates me so much. People are so willing to give in and go 'oh well, the government will bail me out.'

Since when it is anyone's obligation to care for children other than the parents. I've had just about enough of paying for everyone else. Chances are when I finish my university, I won't be staying in Canada, consumed by this massive culture of entitlement. I'll take my education and go elsewhere, somewhere where hard work is respected and lazy people suffer until they realise they have to work to have the priveledges of the rest of society.