Tories' child-care plan falls flat, poll says

[Renegade]

the centers cannot charge enough to recover that investment

Why can't the charge enough, since clearly there is enough demand from parents? Economics 101 suggest they can charge a higher price than they are.

[Riverwind]

Why can't the charge enough, since clearly there is enough demand from parents? Economics 101 suggest they can charge a higher price than they are.

No one can afford to work if their aftertax income is less than the cost of childcare + cost of commuting. Most people will not want to work if they do not get a reasonable return on investment (time and energy) after deducting expenses like childcare. These factors mean that childcare providers cannot raise fees significantly without causing a significant reduction in demand.

This factor makes it difficult to justify capital investment unless it could be paid for with the existing fee structure since you know that the demand will drop if the fees were raised to pay for the capital improvements.

[Renegade]

Why can't the charge enough, since clearly there is enough demand from parents? Economics 101 suggest they can charge a higher price than they are.

No one can afford to work if their aftertax income is less than the cost of childcare + cost of commuting. Most people will not want to work if they do not get a reasonable return on investment (time and energy) after deducting expenses like childcare. These factors mean that childcare providers cannot raise fees significantly without causing a significant reduction in demand.

This factor makes it difficult to justify capital investment unless it could be paid for with the existing fee structure since you know that the demand will drop if the fees were raised to pay for the capital improvements.

Yes I agree. So as you have pointed out, raising fees will result in a drop in demand as at least some parents who are employed will opt to stay home instead. That in turn frees up spaces, which in turn reduces or eliminates wait lists.

If government regulation has made it capital intensive to create childcare spaces, we can either relax the regulations to the point where it becomes economically feasable to open daycare centers, or conversely allocate the spots to those who can use them the most efficiently (ie those who are willing to pay the higher cost)

[Riverwind]

If government regulation has made it capital intensive to create childcare spaces, we can either relax the regulations to the point where it becomes economically feasable to open daycare centers, or conversely allocate the spots to those who can use them the most efficiently (ie those who are willing to pay the higher cost)

Both of those options have already been explored. The unregulated daycare market is large and fills the need for many parents and the cost of all daycare is already at the maximum pratical rate (outside of Quebec at least) - raising it further would likely make existing centers unviable.

Daycare is a political issue and can never be resolved by simple economics. Society needs people to make sacrifices to raise children. It is unreasonable to expect that society's need for skilled labour can be met by importing trained workers from abroad. Many companies realize that it is better to hire younger workers and train them instead of depending on hiring skilled workers that have been trained elsewhere. The same logic applies to societies.

[Renegade]

Both of those options have already been explored. The unregulated daycare market is large and fills the need for many parents and the cost of all daycare is already at the maximum pratical rate (outside of Quebec at least) - raising it further would likely make existing centers unviable.

The existance of waitlists in centers which charge at least $1200/month would suggest that the cost has not reached the maximium practical rate. The cost will have reached the maximium practical rate when the waitlist drops to zero. Not all centers are equal. Some will have better facilities, childcare providers, or premium location and there will be parents willing to pay the rate.

Daycare is a political issue and can never be resolved by simple economics. Society needs people to make sacrifices to raise children. It is unreasonable to expect that society's need for skilled labour can be met by importing trained workers from abroad. Many companies realize that it is better to hire younger workers and train them instead of depending on hiring skilled workers that have been trained elsewhere. The same logic applies to societies.

This is the heart of the issue. People need to make sacrifices to raise children. I put it to you that it is parents who ought to be the ones who make those sacrifices and not society in general. Personally I don't see a huge benefit one way or another if a replenshment to the population is home-grown vs imported. In many ways an imported population offers the advantage of being able to choose from an already educated and trained workforce, so I'm not quite sure why you would consider it an unreasonable expectation.

[gerryhatrick]

I think it's worth noting that 100$ taxable $$ per month is not a "child care plan".

It's a benifit. Not a "child care plan".

What nonsense, and what a complete pass they've gotten on this from that evil media.

[M.Dancer]

I see creating daycares the same way as creating schools.....it may take a village to raise a child .....<ducks> but it is a worthwhile investment.

The "village" wasn't really given a voice or a choice in signin up for this so I don't see why it should bear the cost.

Arguments like that fall into the Tiny Tim category.....It's a lame argument and should be avoided.....

I don't see why zoos should get funded......I don't like animals

I don't see why roads should get funded......I don't drive

I don't see why embassies should get funded......I don't travel

I don't see why wars should get funded......I don't like war

I don't see why zoos should get funded......I don't like animals

I don't see why libraries should get funded......I don't read

and so on

[M.Dancer]

So what it is you are asking for? You've said that you don't want subisides to parents. You've said you don't want the government to create subsidized childcare spaces.

If you are asking for the government to build childcare buildings and such infrastructure, are you expecting that they will recoup the cost from the operators. If not, isn't that exactly subsidized childcare spaces?

I don't know why governments fund the coast guard...i don't sail......

I would like the governement to subsidize the creation of new spaces by way of building new structures or by buying existing structures and converting them. I expect they will be run by not for profit professionals and staffed by ECE trained teachers. It would be a one time grant. The fees that the parents would pay would still be in the normal non subsidized range (as opposed to the muniple daycare).

Will the Gov't recoup? A fraction, from the taxes paid by construction companies, workers.....

I think the great conservative politician, Churchill, said it best.....

There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into Babies

[M.Dancer]

There have been studies after studies that show children in ECE programmes are better socialized, have fewer problems at school and do better than their peers who haven't had the benefit of ECE. What you have just questioned is like asking what are the benefits of kindregarten, grade 1,2 and 3.......

No, no. That's how it benefits you the parent and your kid. Since you've asked me and the rest of society to consider it an "investment" I expect a return. You may get value from the fact that the kid behaves better, or does better than their peers, but what is the net value to those of us being asked to fund the "investment"

BTW, I can lay on the sarcasim as well as you, so if you want to avoid a pissing contest, tread a bit lighter here.

I can't for the life of me figure out how society doesn't benefit from a batter socialized child who does well in school. I suppose there is no correlation between early childhood and adulthood achievements.

[M.Dancer]

the centers cannot charge enough to recover that investment

Why can't the charge enough, since clearly there is enough demand from parents? Economics 101 suggest they can charge a higher price than they are.

They certainly do charge as much as the market can bear but even econ 101 will say that sometimes the market is unsupportable...no daycare can charge more per month that the parent can make in a month. So if the daycare can charge $1400 a month and parents will wait for a spot.....but what if building a new site requires $3200 a month.....are you suggesting that only the very affluent should have daycare...exactly the people who need it the least?

[M.Dancer]

Why can't the charge enough, since clearly there is enough demand from parents? Economics 101 suggest they can charge a higher price than they are.

No one can afford to work if their aftertax income is less than the cost of childcare + cost of commuting. Most people will not want to work if they do not get a reasonable return on investment (time and energy) after deducting expenses like childcare. These factors mean that childcare providers cannot raise fees significantly without causing a significant reduction in demand.

This factor makes it difficult to justify capital investment unless it could be paid for with the existing fee structure since you know that the demand will drop if the fees were raised to pay for the capital improvements.

I should read every post before I reply...I could save myself the time when someone has said better than I.

[M.Dancer]

If government regulation has made it capital intensive to create childcare spaces, we can either relax the regulations .......

Since I already discussed why turning daycares into a luxary for trhe elite is wrong headed....it benefits those who need the the least....single parents who have no other option will be finely fusckered indeed.....I will turn to lax regulations.

Would you let your children learn to sail from a company that didn't pass coast guard certification? Learn to fly on a plane without proper maintenance.....let you children go to school in a building that's not up to code?

[M.Dancer]

I think it's worth noting that 100$ taxable $$ per month is not a "child care plan".

It's a benifit. Not a "child care plan".

What nonsense, and what a complete pass they've gotten on this from that evil media.

An interesting thing and I'm not sure if everyone knows this. If you send your children to a licensed daycare, you can claim the expenses as a deduction, but the deduction goes to the lowest (if there are two of you) income earner....the taxable benefit also goes to the lowest earner....

For the single parent who has bugger all choice, what it comes down to is they often pay little or no taxes...even before the deduction. In their case the $100 will help. But rarely.

[Renegade]

Arguments like that fall into the Tiny Tim category.....It's a lame argument and should be avoided.....

I don't see why zoos should get funded......I don't like animals

I don't see why roads should get funded......I don't drive

I don't see why embassies should get funded......I don't travel

I don't see why wars should get funded......I don't like war

I don't see why zoos should get funded......I don't like animals

I don't see why libraries should get funded......I don't read

and so on

None of the things you have specified above should be funded by non-beneficiaries.

Explanations like yours fall into the idiotic category.

Hmm....

Sounds like you are saying:

I have children so I want my childcare funded.

I am sickly, so fund my healthcare

I watch TV, so fund the CBC

I will grow old, so fund my pension

I need transportation to get to work, so fund my public transit

I need food, so fund that too please.

and so on.

[M.Dancer]

Arguments like that fall into the Tiny Tim category.....It's a lame argument and should be avoided.....

I don't see why zoos should get funded......I don't like animals

I don't see why roads should get funded......I don't drive

I don't see why embassies should get funded......I don't travel

I don't see why wars should get funded......I don't like war

I don't see why zoos should get funded......I don't like animals

I don't see why libraries should get funded......I don't read

and so on

None of the things you have specified above should be funded by non-beneficiaries.

Explanations like yours fall into the idiotic category.

I don't want to get off topic but I'm not sure I'm following.....are you saying you agree that Zoos, roads, emabassie, the military, and libraies shouldn't get tax payers support?

[M.Dancer]

Sounds like you are saying:

I have children so I want my childcare funded.

I am sickly, so fund my healthcare

I watch TV, so fund the CBC

I will grow old, so fund my pension

I need transportation to get to work, so fund my public transit

I need food, so fund that too please.

and so on.

I'm saying the funding argument...whether it is "why should the tax payer..." or even "the tax payer should ..." is a lame argument and should not be expected to be taken seriously.

[Renegade]

I would like the governement to subsidize the creation of new spaces by way of building new structures or by buying existing structures and converting them. I expect they will be run by not for profit professionals and staffed by ECE trained teachers. It would be a one time grant. The fees that the parents would pay would still be in the normal non subsidized range (as opposed to the muniple daycare).

I could have sworn that when I stated parents were asking for the government to create subsidized spaces, you denied that's what you were asking for. Now, here you are asking for exactly that ("I would like the governement to subsidize the creation of new spaces...")

Will the Gov't recoup? A fraction, from the taxes paid by construction companies, workers.....

I think the great conservative politician, Churchill, said it best.....

There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into Babies

Regardless if you say it or Churchill says it, it doesn't make it so.

All I'm saying is you want an investment in childcare, prove that there is a tangible return on that investment. You have already admitted that the government will only recoup a fraction in taxes paid to fund the infrastructure.

I don't dispute that it is better for the children and parents. Show me some quantifiable benefits to those you are asking to fund the investment.

[Renegade]

I'm saying the funding argument...whether it is "why should the tax payer..." or even "the tax payer should ..." is a lame argument and should not be expected to be taken seriously.

Its is always easier to call the argument lame rather than find an actual response. I guess you don't have one.

[M.Dancer]

I would like the governement to subsidize the creation of new spaces by way of building new structures or by buying existing structures and converting them. I expect they will be run by not for profit professionals and staffed by ECE trained teachers. It would be a one time grant. The fees that the parents would pay would still be in the normal non subsidized range (as opposed to the muniple daycare).

I could have sworn that when I stated parents were asking for the government to create subsidized spaces, you denied that's what you were asking for. Now, here you are asking for exactly that ("I would like the governement to subsidize the creation of new spaces...")

I'm not interested in myopic idealogical spats over semantics.

[Renegade]

I don't want to get off topic but I'm not sure I'm following.....are you saying you agree that Zoos, roads, emabassie, the military, and libraies shouldn't get tax payers support?

By the general taxpayer, no. By the specific beneficiaries, yes. For example, I'm perfectly ok with user fees to fund libraries, roads, embassies, and zoos.

[M.Dancer]

I'm saying the funding argument...whether it is "why should the tax payer..." or even "the tax payer should ..." is a lame argument and should not be expected to be taken seriously.

Its is always easier to call the argument lame rather than find an actual response. I guess you don't have one.

I gave you one. It's a lame argument because it is so open ended and basically selfish it can be used by anyonme who dopesn't like any gov't programme. Whther it's the DFO, the Coast Guard, The Military or the trans canada highway...it basically comes down to:

It's my ball and I'm going home.....

So yes pfft on that.....

[M.Dancer]

I don't want to get off topic but I'm not sure I'm following.....are you saying you agree that Zoos, roads, emabassie, the military, and libraies shouldn't get tax payers support?

By the general taxpayer, no. By the specific beneficiaries, yes. For example, I'm perfectly ok with user fees to fund libraries, roads, embassies, and zoos.

I'm sorry I think we are entering the moonbat zone.....

So who will the embassy bill when Peter Mckay asks the Canadian amabssador to visit the Amercan Secretary....?

I don't dispute that it is better for the children and parents. Show me some quantifiable benefits to those you are asking to fund the investment.

I never would have thought that someone would need proof that a well rounded society included the betterment of children...no you are right...what quantifiable benefit could there be for society....

[Renegade]

They certainly do charge as much as the market can bear but even econ 101 will say that sometimes the market is unsupportable...no daycare can charge more per month that the parent can make in a month. So if the daycare can charge $1400 a month and parents will wait for a spot.....but what if building a new site requires $3200 a month.....are you suggesting that only the very affluent should have daycare...exactly the people who need it the least?

If a new daycare requres $3200/month for each spot and no one is willing to pay that, then the new daycare shoudl not be built.

If the daycare which is charging $1400/month now charges $1500/month and some parents drop out becaue it is now not worth it to work and they woudl rather stay home, that in essence opens up spots and reduces or eliminates the waitlist.

It is exactly the affluent who get the most out of daycare because they can generate the most income from having someone else look after their child while they work.

Does it make any economic sense to you to have a daycare spot which cost $1400/month subsidized to $400/month so that the parent can go earn $1000 month?

[M.Dancer]

Okay..a hypothetical.....

Which benefits society more

Children growing up in a healthy enriched environment

Children growing up living on welfare.

[Renegade]

I never would have thought that someone would need proof that a well rounded society included the betterment of children...no you are right...what quantifiable benefit could there be for society....

"well rounded society"? I thought your argument was that it was an "investment". Some investment if you can't show a payback.