Harper Makes Child Care a Confidence Vote

[Teddy Ballgame]

Go ahead and cry foul all you want, but TB is making some pretty valid points in his response.

Supporting a poster like nocrap, whose sole purpose is to attack our PM, is pretty sad.

- S - Thanks for your support! I was blissfully unaware of this Drea character until she threatened me with the wrath of Greg. But this threat led me to scan her posts and quelle surprise! Like Nocrap, she is a decidedly left wing female who is anti-Harper and Conservative and Bush and US and our mission in Afghanistan and most of all she is anti Harper's child care package. Maybe Nocrap and she are related or sock puppets or something. Or maybe they are both monopoly public sector unionists who can't wait for the government to tax away every dollar we make and divvy it up among the child care and other unionists.

- But it is interesting that the only defence Drea dredges up to support her position is the threat of censorship and banning.

- In my experience, it is almost always the left wingers in this country who are the fascist censors, deleters, banners and bitchers when it comes to the exercise of free speech. The insufferable, ridiculous to the point of self paraody, Stalinesque rabble board is a classic case in point.

- Perhaps you have read "1984" and recall the way that the authorties used a new language known as "Newspeak" to control the masses. The thing about "Newspeak" is that everything was the exact and polar opposite of what it pretended to be with truth being actually lies, peace being war, freedom being slavery, etc. I'm sure both Drea and Nocrap would be right at home using Newspeak.

- Nevertheless, I'll acquiesce in henceforth pretending that ALLCRAP is really Nocrap. I do want to continue posting here without any hassles from Greg. And I also want Nocrap to continue posting here not because she is so easy to vanquish in debate but mainly because her positions and the rationale for them are usually so ridiculous that they actually gain converts to the other side which is the side I usually tend to support. So if we didn't have a Nocrap here, we conservatives might have to invent one.

[Guest Warwick Green]

As a religious person, I've always been somewhat socially reserved in making massive changes to families and things like that. I like having a family, and I believe that is really is an essential aspect of society. Further destruction of the family will surely lead to more youth trouble.

Anything you have in mind here? My socon friends tell me that SSM, daycare, birth control, AID and a plethora of other activities will "destroy" the family. But as I look around marriage as an institution seems to be imploding without any outside help.

[betsy]

I am also infuriated with this lame excuse for a childcare plan that has far too many loopholes and not enough support for those who need it in order to work and share the tax burden.

Suggestions of substantial tax cuts, so that people could afford childcare, would be wonderful; but I don't see it happening anytime soon. A cut in the GST will only help those with disposable income and mean nothing for those unable to shop for anything other than food and basic needs.

The CPC are definitely a party for the 'have mores' and are completely out of touch with the grassroots.

Talking about loopholes....I think you're aiming at the wrong direction. Take a good look at this universal childcare plan of the Liberals.

Your preferred childcare plan does NOT even address the needs of those who REALLY NEED IT!

Shift works, round-the-clock service! That includes accomodating part-time workings (and keeping up with the accepted ratios of children per adult). It places everyone at the mercy of the UNION and threats of walk-outs!

This system is another astronomical boondagle about to happen! Just look at the failing system in Quebec!

As for this disdain for the "have mores"....fyi, the so-called "have mores" have been shouldering the extra burden of raising the children of other parents incapable of raising their own! This disdain is nothing more but envy. Instead of griping and whining why others have more, parents who have less should focus on how to improve their lot.....or make do with what they've got. Who said it's gonna be easy raising a family?

Don't shove all your responsibility on me (taxpayer). If you're having a tough time, too bad. Who isn't, one way or the other? Grow up and deal with your problem like everybody does. I don't owe you anything!

[betsy]

The CPC are definitely a party for the 'have mores' and are completely out of touch with the grassroots.

With this so-called "grassroots"....you must mean those who have acquired and gleefully embraced the culture of entitlement.

The real grassroots I think of are practical and sensible. They're not a bunch of self-absorbed whiners or nonsense-touchy-feely-insecured-security-blanket clutchers!

[betsy]

$1200 per child is about 20% and higher percent of daycare help (depending on the child's needs and age).

That is a sizeable amount, considering a child's welfare and upbringing is a parent's responsibility...and yes, that includes the expenses involved!

Not to mention Haprper's physical fitness incentive program that not only addresses the growing weight problems of children...but also can be used as an after-school assistance.

Those, plus the deductibles as dependents? Isn't there a child allowance somewhere??

Don't single moms have child support payments from spouses??

How much more do these whiners want others to pay for their daycare expenses? 100%?

I say these parents are already getting a lot! There are other social programs that badly need more funding...areas that benefit EVERYONE in society.

If you can't pay for most of your daycare...then obviously you've got to change your game plan! Of course there'll be some sacrifices, nip and tuck here and there...what do you think? A free ride all the way through???

[fixer1]

When it comes to government planning it is very hard for the governments to plan around the fact that many couples are having only one child. You then need to take up that slack with immigration etc. If there were a program that made it possible and even easy for couples to have lets say 3 or more children, then we could plan better and our social programs would be easily costed out and paid for. I will not qualify for any of the money offered as my time raising children is done and over, but I am fully supportive of any government program that allows for, or makes it easier for couples to have children. Canada has many natureal resources but we do seem to lack one resource in the form of children. Back when I was being raised you pretty much saw 3-4 children in every family, now I would believe 1-2 children families are the norm. That just is not good enough. Maybe we need soem defective birth control pills Just kidding of course.

[Drea]

- S - Thanks for your support! I was blissfully unaware of this Drea character until she threatened me with the wrath of Greg. But this threat led me to scan her posts and quelle surprise! Like Nocrap, she is a decidedly left wing female who is anti-Harper and Conservative and Bush and US and our mission in Afghanistan and most of all she is anti Harper's child care package.

You got that one line correct. I am certainly against Harper's child care package.

The rest you got wrong. I am not a leftist -- I'm a centrist, just like the majority of Candians. If you had read my posts you would know this (unless of course you label anyone left of the far right a "lefty") How do I know the majority of Canadians are centrists? Because we haven't voted in the NDP! LOL

Maybe Nocrap and she are related or sock puppets or something. Or maybe they are both monopoly public sector unionists who can't wait for the government to tax away every dollar we make and divvy it up among the child care and other unionists.

Actually I'm in sales. I have lots of write-offs -- just found out from my accountant yesterday I can get away with paying hardly any income tax at all!

Anyway, here you are advocating for the $100 allowance which boils down to a payment for screwing. Yippe the govt is going to pay me $100 a month if I have a baby! Talk about taxing away every dollar... talk about "nanny states"...

- But it is interesting that the only defence Drea dredges up to support her position is the threat of censorship and banning.

- In my experience, it is almost always the left wingers in this country who are the fascist censors, deleters, banners and bitchers when it comes to the exercise of free speech. The insufferable, ridiculous to the point of self paraody, Stalinesque rabble board is a classic case in point.

Say all you want about anything. No one has an issue with it. The issue is that you are being rude and I do believe this board has rules about that.

- Perhaps you have read "1984" and recall the way that the authorties used a new language known as "Newspeak" to control the masses. The thing about "Newspeak" is that everything was the exact and polar opposite of what it pretended to be with truth being actually lies, peace being war, freedom being slavery, etc. I'm sure both Drea and Nocrap would be right at home using Newspeak.

Yes, I read it. They are changing the name and re-releasing the book -- it's going to be called "America, in the Year 2020."

- Nevertheless, I'll acquiesce in henceforth pretending that ALLCRAP is really Nocrap. I do want to continue posting here without any hassles from Greg. And I also want Nocrap to continue posting here not because she is so easy to vanquish in debate but mainly because her positions and the rationale for them are usually so ridiculous that they actually gain converts to the other side which is the side I usually tend to support. So if we didn't have a Nocrap here, we conservatives might have to invent one.

Very good. Twisting a poster's handle into a nasty name is rude and childish. Glad to hear you will not do it again.

I like having nocrap here too!

Anyway, regarding the title of the thread.

I do not support this lame excuse for a childcare plan. Parents are not lacking in money to send their children to daycare, they are lacking in daycare spaces to put their children.

This idiot pie in the sky plan by Harper just puts more of a burden on the taxpayers and does very very little to offset the cost of raising kids. Heck, just yesterday I spent $100 at the pet store. $100 does not go very far these days. A tax break would have been much more beneficial to all Canadians.

[Renegade]

I'm not a big fan of Harper's childcare offering, however there have been a number of criticisms which should be addressed.

Late last week Jeffery Simpson wrote an article in the Globe & Mail critical of Harper's childcare plan. Simpson makes the same points as many posters above, however the objections seem to be directed mostly in two specific areas:

1. There is no accountability for where the money is spent. Parents can spend the money on childcare, on beer and popcorn, or vacations if they so choose, therefore the argument goes this should not be considered a childcare policy.

This is an interesting argument, and it might hold some validity if it were not specificly directed at the childcare benefit. We have a GST credit. There is no proof required that the recepient incurs GST costs which need to be offset. There is a Child-Tax Benefit. There is no accountability that the parent spends the money for the benefit of the child. Welfare recepients are given a "shelter allowance", again with no proof requred that the funds are actually being spent on shelter. So the critics of this policy seem to have blinders on and seem self-serving to single out the Child Care benefit in this regard.

2. The objection has also been raised that since $1200 is insignificant in the cost of childcare, Harper's plan cannot be considered a true childcare policy.

The Conservatives, you might recall, pledged to give all families $1,200 per child under 6. They called it the Choice in Child Care Allowance. The money, according to their campaign platform, "will let parents choose the child-care option that best suits their family's needs."

It will do nothing of the kind. Simple math shows why. The $1,200 is supposed to go to the lowest-income earner. Say that person earns $40,000. For simplicity's sake, suppose he or she pays tax such that of the $1,200, a $1,000 per child is left.

That would mean about $4 per day, per child. Now, you tell me: Where can anybody get child care for $4 per day? Statistics Canada recently reported that 54 per cent of children aged six months to five years were in some form of care in 2002-03. Government help of $4 a day won't do much for the majority.

Both parents work with modest to middle income - taxable. (most will only get to keep about 653.00 per year)

These arguments ignore the overall picture on the childcare costs. Lets look closer at Nocraps' numbers above. The couple above has a marginal tax rate of 46%. (ie they get to keep 56% of the $1200 Child Care benefit). Now let's assume the couple pays $6000/year for childcare. That couple gets to deduct the $6000 from their income in affect avoiding taxes on that income. The net benefit to the couple of that deduction is $2760 (ie $6000 * 46%).

So the total benefit to the couple is $3413 (ie $2760 + $653). This represents 57% of the childcare cost that the parent incurs and taxpayers pay for. This is not even including the CTB. So in effect this payment tops off an already generous childcare benefit to parents, and still some parents object?

I've said that I'm not a big fan of the CPC childcare plan, but I think there is an important principle at stake. It was a promise made during the election campaign, and a promise made should be a promise kept. Canadian voters were well aware of the CPC platform, and enough of them voted for CPC to allow them to form the govenment. As much as I don't like the policy, it is more important that Harper keep his word to voters than abandon a policy which some don't like.

[Drea]

$1200 per child is about 20% and higher percent of daycare help (depending on the child's needs and age).

That is a sizeable amount, considering a child's welfare and upbringing is a parent's responsibility...and yes, that includes the expenses involved!

We already have provincial daycare subsidies that offset the cost of daycare for low income families. High income families do not need subsidy and should not be recieving money from the government for having babies.

Not to mention Haprper's physical fitness incentive program that not only addresses the growing weight problems of children...but also can be used as an after-school assistance.

Out here in BC we laugh at this program. We are already fit and healthy we don't need the federal government holding our hand or paying for after school programs. What's Harper doing? Giving more money, becoming Daddy Nanny?

Those, plus the deductibles as dependents? Isn't there a child allowance somewhere??

Don't single moms have child support payments from spouses??

Yes, children are tax deductible. Yes, there is a child allowance it's called the Child Tax Benefit. A low income family recieves approx. $250/mo (non-taxable).

Don't single moms have child support payments from spouses?

I read that line and spiffed my coffee on the computer screen! I get $100 a month from my ex. Yessiree that's 50% of the cost of raising my son -- it sure is!! Pfffft. The majority of absent fathers pay a pittance.

How much more do these whiners want others to pay for their daycare expenses? 100%?

How much do you conservative winers want? Parents already get the national child tax benefit and now you want ME to pay you an additional $100 every month because you screwed and produced offspring!

If you can't pay for most of your daycare...then obviously you've got to change your game plan! Of course there'll be some sacrifices, nip and tuck here and there...what do you think? A free ride all the way through???

We already subsidise low income parents -- what the heck do you conservatives who advocate this "daycare $100 plan" expect? A free ride all the way through?!

I like that -- nip and tuck here and there. I bet there will be, under Harper's $100 per month plan, women who use the money for plastic surgery. Why not? They have nothing better to spend the money on. Hubby earns $100 grand a year and the extra gov't money will go to an "extra" like nips and tucks. LOL

$100 a month does not even cover the cost of diapers these days. But then again, those who benefit from the program (those who won't be taxed on it) don't have any issue affording diapers. The low income family where the mom works part time at Tim Hortons and the dad works as a WalMart greeter will be taxed on it, therefor having less money in their jeans than before The Great Harper Baby Plan.

[betsy]

Anyway, here you are advocating for the $100 allowance which boils down to a payment for screwing. Yippe the govt is going to pay me $100 a month if I have a baby! Talk about taxing away every dollar... talk about "nanny states"...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you don't know what you're talking about. It is the Liberal plan that fits the description of "nanny states" perfectly to a "T?"

It is the government who will tell you what is good for you and how you should live your life....it will make the choice and decide for you, (in this case, how and where to raise your children).

Oppressive regimes such as Communist places will indoctrinate your children to their philosophy. You don't count as a parent. You are nothing more than a baby-maker and then they take over. THAT is a nanny state!

[Renegade]

We already have provincial daycare subsidies that offset the cost of daycare for low income families. High income families do not need subsidy and should not be recieving money from the government for having babies.

Drea, if I remember, you have claimed to be a supporter of universal health care. Which in our system means the same healthcare for everyone, rich or poor. The argument can be made that the rich are capable of paying for their own health insurance, so potentially free (or subsidized) healthcare should only be provided for the poor.

Why is it you have an inconsistent position in that you think healthchare should be universal but childcare should not, afterall do the same principles not apply?

[shoop]

If you are going to threaten to run to the moderator when you a poster you disagree with breaks the rules then maybe you should respect them yourself. Just as it is childish to change the name of posters it is equally childish to refer to a plan as idiot pie in the sky or a lame excuse for a plan. Check with Greg if you feel like it. That is of course if you really believe the rules, and aren't just attacking TB because you disagreed with his politics.

You conveniently ignore two issues in your response. You ignore the fact that not *every* parent wants to send their child to daycare. You also ignore the fact that a component of this programme is a space creation plan that will meet with Canadians and determine the best way to create child care spaces. Hmmm, the Conservatives are about what they are and aren't doing. They are also attacked for being to secretive. Yet they will come up with a plan for creating more spaces after meeting with the public.

Anyway, regarding the title of the thread.

I do not support this lame excuse for a childcare plan. Parents are not lacking in money to send their children to daycare, they are lacking in daycare spaces to put their children.

This idiot pie in the sky plan by Harper just puts more of a burden on the taxpayers and does very very little to offset the cost of raising kids. Heck, just yesterday I spent $100 at the pet store. $100 does not go very far these days. A tax break would have been much more beneficial to all Canadians.

[betsy]

should not be recieving money from the government for having babies.

You seem to confuse having children to a money-making scheme. Twice you've referred that the government "pays for having children."

You sound like those single moms in the laundromat in Quebec when I was just new to Canada. They adviced me to have children so I will get money from the government.

A parent shouldn't think that way. A parent should have children not because "they are paid to have children"...but because they WANT to have children.

Sorry but I just have to comment on that. It's an eye-opener from a different perspective. If a lot of people think of having children that way...that must explain this absurd expectation that society should pay for the way of these children.

[uOttawaMan]

should not be recieving money from the government for having babies.

You seem to confuse having children to a money-making scheme. Twice you've referred that the government "pays for having children."

You sound like those single moms in the laundromat in Quebec when I was just new to Canada. They adviced me to have children so I will get money from the government.

A parent shouldn't think that way. A parent should have children not because "they are paid to have children"...but because they WANT to have children.

Sorry but I just have to comment on that. It's an eye-opener from a different perspective. If a lot of people think of having children that way...that must explain this absurd expectation that society should pay for the way of these children.

If people think that way then they are clearly delusional. Any money you recieve from the gov't for having a child is massively offset by all the costs associated with raising said child or children.

[betsy]

$100 a month does not even cover the cost of diapers these days. But then again, those who benefit from the program (those who won't be taxed on it) don't have any issue affording diapers. The low income family where the mom works part time at Tim Hortons and the dad works as a WalMart greeter will be taxed on it, therefor having less money in their jeans than before The Great Harper Baby Plan.

Well, if one cannot afford having a child....then that plan must be shelved until one can without being a burden to others.

Much as I agree that we do need more children.....I have to re-assess what kind of children will grow out from these mentality and environment.

Maybe we're better off with no kids at all! What good is having lots of children if more than half of them (as adults), will feel entitled to be supported by society all the way through. We're then back to square one!

Children are the future. Yeah, yeah, yeah...but as kids, they're still raw materials and have yet to prove who will end up productive or a dud. So, worth-wise...too risky.

[Drea]

If you are going to threaten to run to the moderator when you a poster you disagree with breaks the rules then maybe you should respect them yourself. Just as it is childish to change the name of posters it is equally childish to refer to a plan as idiot pie in the sky or a lame excuse for a plan. Check with Greg if you feel like it. That is of course if you really believe the rules, and aren't just attacking TB because you disagreed with his politics.

I attacked the issue, not the poster.

This is a political forum and issues and opinions will be attacked. Far different than attacking a person IMO.

You conveniently ignore two issues in your response. You ignore the fact that not *every* parent wants to send their child to daycare. You also ignore the fact that a component of this programme is a space creation plan that will meet with Canadians and determine the best way to create child care spaces. Hmmm, the Conservatives are about what they are and aren't doing. They are also attacked for being to secretive. Yet they will come up with a plan for creating more spaces after meeting with the public.

Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay a family to have children? Having children is a choice is it not?

I wait with bated breath for the "The Great Daycare Space Plan" to offset "The Great Baby Payment Plan".

Gee I must be more rightwing than I thought -- rightwingers here are advocating paying people (all people) all they have to do is have sex and produce a baby. The family that earns $100 grand a year whining "Oh, Mr. Harper, I need to get away from the children for an hour or two a day, can you pay me for this? My life is just sooo busy and such I can't seem to find any time away from my children, please help me offset the cost of staying at home."

Anyway, regarding the title of the thread.

I do not support this lame excuse for a childcare plan. Parents are not lacking in money to send their children to daycare, they are lacking in daycare spaces to put their children.

This idiot pie in the sky plan by Harper just puts more of a burden on the taxpayers and does very very little to offset the cost of raising kids. Heck, just yesterday I spent $100 at the pet store. $100 does not go very far these days. A tax break would have been much more beneficial to all Canadians.

The plan (not a person, not a poster on this board) is idiot pie in the sky. It, (the plan) is a lame excuse for a daycare plan. I stand by my comment.

[betsy]

Not to mention Haprper's physical fitness incentive program that not only addresses the growing weight problems of children...but also can be used as an after-school assistance.

Out here in BC we laugh at this program. We are already fit and healthy we don't need the federal government holding our hand or paying for after school programs.

Drea, can you stop and analyze the message you're saying?

Who comprise the "we" in your statement? ALL OF BC? Besides I'm talking about children with weight problems...not adults like you.

Just because YOU are already fit and healthy does not mean this program therefore is not needed....by children.

Obesity is a growing problem among them, if you have not read yet about it. Count yourself fortunate that your children do not have this problem....I assume that they are, since YOU are fit and healthy.

However, there are other people in this nation besides you and your friends.

[Drea]

We already have provincial daycare subsidies that offset the cost of daycare for low income families. High income families do not need subsidy and should not be recieving money from the government for having babies.

Drea, if I remember, you have claimed to be a supporter of universal health care. Which in our system means the same healthcare for everyone, rich or poor. The argument can be made that the rich are capable of paying for their own health insurance, so potentially free (or subsidized) healthcare should only be provided for the poor.

Why is it you have an inconsistent position in that you think healthchare should be universal but childcare should not, afterall do the same principles not apply?

No the same principals do not apply.

I have a child, my choice.

I am born (and therefor need medical care), not my choice (my parents' choice).

How often do I see my chiropractor? More than once a month and it comes right out of my pocket. How often do I see a medical doctor? Once a year, because they make me go. I pay for it by the way -- comes off my paycheque as I have blue cross.

We can deny childcare benefits, but we cannot deny healthcare. Healthcare I might add, that is offset by those such as myself who have private insurance through employment.

Should we deny coverage to those who don't work for companies that have private insurance?

Of course not.

Should we deny work for the low income family because they need a subsidy? (Oh you can't go earn $8.50 an hour because there is no one to look after your children, so you can just stay home on welfare -- good luck later in life when you have no job experience -- you stayed home! and can't get welfare as your children are grown and moved out!)

Of course not.

Should we pay parents for having children?

Of course not.

[betsy]

I read that line and spiffed my coffee on the computer screen! I get $100 a month from my ex. Yessiree that's 50% of the cost of raising my son -- it sure is!! Pfffft. The majority of absent fathers pay a pittance.

Well, why don't you go after him for more? After all, he is half-responsible for the baking.

We, the taxpayers on the other hand, had nothing to do whatsoever at all with this production...and we're already doling out some.

[betsy]

The majority of absent fathers pay a pittance.

How do you know?

What is your criteria of a "pittance?"

[Drea]

The majority of absent fathers pay a pittance.

How do you know?

What is your criteria of a "pittance?"

Anything less than 50% of the actual cost of raising the child.

Many dads pay upwards of $350 - $500 per month.

If this were 50% of the cost of raising the child, then it must only cost $750 to $1000 per month to raise a child.

Not in my life. I have a university education to save for!

My ex pays the minimum because I just wanted to get the heck outta there and away from him. At the time I was much more concerned with raising my son in a positive environment than having extra money.

We struggled financially at first, but now I make more money than the ex anyway. (He hates that -- freaks right out because he has to pay the $100 a month even though I make more money than he does).

[betsy]

How much do you conservative winers want? Parents already get the national child tax benefit and now you want ME to pay you an additional $100 every month because you screwed and produced offspring!

If you'll look past that resentment towards those who "can afford".....you'll see that at least, your tax dollars is not wasted on another grandoise out-of-a-hat-desperate-last-minute-decision-by-a-desperate-Liberal Party, who dilly-dallied and have not produced any childcare spaces in all of 13 years.

At least, Harper's plan is not an astronomical boondagle in gigantic proportions...and it eliminates middle men and red-tape bureacracy...handing the money directly to the parents!

[betsy]

My ex pays the minimum because I just wanted to get the heck outta there and away from him. At the time I was much more concerned with raising my son in a positive environment than having extra money.

Well, you made your choice that's why he's paying only the minimum. At the end of the day, it was your own decision why he's paying only a pittance. You agreed to it.

[Drea]

How much do you conservative winers want? Parents already get the national child tax benefit and now you want ME to pay you an additional $100 every month because you screwed and produced offspring!

If you'll look past that resentment towards those who "can afford".....you'll see that at least, your tax dollars is not wasted on another grandoise out-of-a-hat-desperate-last-minute-decision-by-a-desperate-Liberal Party, who dilly-dallied and have not produced any childcare spaces in all of 13 years.

At least, Harper's plan is not an astronomical boondagle in gigantic proportions...and it eliminates middle men and red-tape bureacracy...handing the money directly to the parents!

I was not advocating for Martin's daycare plan either. He wanted to follow the Quebec universal daycare plan which subsidizes the actual space, not the family. I don't like it because it is "institutionalized" (only registered national type daycares would've been subsidized). Those who use home daycares wouldn't have benefitted at all.

What I think needs to be done is encouraging more people to open daycares/eveningcares.

As I've said before, out tenant looks after children so there are 3 extra spaces now in our little city.

[Canuck E Stan]

What I think needs to be done is encouraging more people to open daycares/eveningcares.

Any ideas on how that could be done?