$100 a month per child

[Who's Doing What?]

Just wanted to get some oppinions on this.

First off I want to make it perfectly clear I have no problem with helping to feed or clothe a child in need.

But here is the scenario:

A friend recently had a child. The mother stays home and the Father works full time making decent money. Both live on the Father's family farm with his parents, paying basically next to nothing for room and board. They have no need for child care, since the Grandfather is retired and the Grandmother only works part time, as well as the mother staying home.

I was just wondering what people thought about the idea that every cheque they recieve of our tax dollars goes into a bank account for the child. Our taxes are are creating a nest egg for this kid.

The cheque never, I repeat never, goes towards food, clothing, shelter, or day care or other baby sitting for the kid. My wife and I have even looked after him ourselves while the couple went out to dinner. Free of charge I might add, and there is no shortage of others who would do the same.

After 6 years when the cheques will stop this child will have about $7000 plus accrued interest in his savings account all coming from our pockets.

I know this can't be the only instance of this happening. I also know there are plenty of people making lots of more money than my friend and are still getting these cheques.

So what does everyone think?

Do you mind creating a nest egg for the neighbour's kids out of your taxes?

Should there be more put into determining who should actually get a monthly cheque instead of a blanket policy?

Personally I would rather see the daycare down the road expanded to to hold more children for a reasonable rate, than hear about how "Junior" bought his first pickup truck my taxes. But that is just me.

[weaponeer]

How about this. Instead of giving $$ to parents each month, why not use that money to help people start Daycare businesses in their towns/cities. Lack of daycare spaces sounds like a great business opportunity for someone....

Just a thought....

[Charles Anthony]

I have a better idea: forget about deciding for people HOW their money should be spent and cut their taxes.

Unfortunately, the problem with vote-buying schemes is that voters want to be bought.

[Keepitsimple]

Good for them. Shows they are not wasting the money. Maybe the money will be used for the child's education. It's a choice. Not everyone wants to live with their parents.

[Who's Doing What?]

Good for them. Shows they are not wasting the money. Maybe the money will be used for the child's education. It's a choice. Not everyone wants to live with their parents.

These people will be multi-millionaires when they sell their farm. Something which could happen as soon as 3-5 years. They could easily get over a million for it today if they wanted, but with some serious high class development projects being started nearby, within a few years the value will sky rocket.

The Grandfather has admitted to me he already has roughly 1/4 of a million in cash in the bank. Plus other land assets amongst other things.

What do they need child care money for?

You have no problem giving these people your taxes, to simply put in the bank?

Weaponeer:

How about this. Instead of giving $$ to parents each month, why not use that money to help people start Daycare businesses in their towns/cities. Lack of daycare spaces sounds like a great business opportunity for someone....

Just a thought....

I agree. Good idea.

It is definitely one solution.

I believe there is some incentive program in place, to create daycare in the workplace, or something like that. Someone else would know more.

Charles Anthony:

I have a better idea: forget about deciding for people HOW their money should be spent and cut their taxes.

Unfortunately, the problem with vote-buying schemes is that voters want to be bought.

Another good idea, but would people still get tax breaks for having kids?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it was a very blatent vote purchase, and was given additional airtime and exposure through the stupid "beer and popcorn" comment.

This also goes to the tax rebate for putting your kids into organized sports. Thing is you already need to have money to put your kids into organized sports, which not only means the poor families who could have used some subsidized spaces and equipment are shafted again, but you an I are going to pay for these middle to upper class kids to play hockey and baseball somewhere down the road, as the Govt . takes money out of our pockets to cover the rebates.

My(our) taxes going to people who already have more money than me(us).

[Drea]

Who's, I was absolutely disgusted when this $100 a month childcare subsidy was introduced.

The first story I saw was a family - a mom, a dad, a 4 year old, 2 year old twins and a baby. The mom proudly says "We are going to take the money, save up for a year and go on vacation in Disneyland!" (at the end of the year this little family has $4800 extra) Hope they are friggin taxed on the income!

FFS! spending MY tax dollars in a foreign country. Grrr.

The mom was a stay at home mom so they did not need daycare subsidy.

BTW, there are provincial subsidies for daycare calculated by level of income (how sane is that compared to Harpers Idiot scheme)

AND

if you are low income you also recieve a "child tax benefit" from the federal and provincial govts. When I was low income I recieved $278 per month for one child. (I was earning $27,000/year then).

[Keepitsimple]

When you cherry-pick situations to support your dislike for a policy - it cuts both ways. Hypothetically, one of the couple - maybe even both - could have been collecting Employment Insurance - and putting that in the bank while living off Mummy and Daddy. There are a myriad of situations where individuals can take advantage of government support. While EI and Welfare are vital to any caring country, there are plenty of stories of abuse of the system. I'd like to think that by far, far, far, the majority of families that receive funding use it in a way that helps them raise their children. People make choices - we can only hope that most of them are good.

[Saturn]

The cheque never, I repeat never, goes towards food, clothing, shelter, or day care or other baby sitting for the kid. My wife and I have even looked after him ourselves while the couple went out to dinner. Free of charge I might add, and there is no shortage of others who would do the same.

After 6 years when the cheques will stop this child will have about $7000 plus accrued interest in his savings account all coming from our pockets.

Actually that doesn't sound too bad. If the money is used to pay for the child's education (it would make more sense to put it into RESPs instead of into a savings bank account), then it's not bad. What pisses me off is when people are already planning to spend their child-care cheque and tax-savings from income-splitting (which is not into existence yet) on trips to Disney World and other overseas vacations. For one I don't see why other taxpayers should be paying for visits to Disney World and two, I don't like to see our money spent outside Canada.

[geoffrey]

Actually that doesn't sound too bad. If the money is used to pay for the child's education (it would make more sense to put it into RESPs instead of into a savings bank account), then it's not bad. What pisses me off is when people are already planning to spend their child-care cheque and tax-savings from income-splitting (which is not into existence yet) on trips to Disney World and other overseas vacations. For one I don't see why other taxpayers should be paying for visits to Disney World and two, I don't like to see our money spent outside Canada.

Overseas trips can be as big an education experience then sitting in some class. I disagree with your analysis.

Anyways, I think it's quite unreasonable for all the taxpayers to subsidize other's child raising in any form. Why am I paying for Daycare... or sending parents $100 a month? Doesn't make much sense to me. The waiting lists and high prices should be invitations for others to setup care facilities. I'd likely say certification barriers may be the biggest hold up? But what do I know. Something is acting to prevent the market from functioning.

When people make the choice to have children, they know the rules going in, they know the lifestyle they are going to have live afterwards. Earning two incomes is possible, but one might be more practical for the family and give the children the advantage of having their mother at home, at least in the early days.

The women that add value to our society, the female managers and execs... it's not a financial limitation that keeps them from working, they can easily pay the $500-600 for childcare. It's a choice on their part, and I'd really suggest that no amount of subsidy will buy them away from their children and into the workforce.

[August1991]

Actually that doesn't sound too bad. If the money is used to pay for the child's education (it would make more sense to put it into RESPs instead of into a savings bank account), then it's not bad. What pisses me off is when people are already planning to spend their child-care cheque and tax-savings from income-splitting (which is not into existence yet) on trips to Disney World and other overseas vacations. For one I don't see why other taxpayers should be paying for visits to Disney World and two, I don't like to see our money spent outside Canada.

I think spemnding money outside of Canada is a good thing. We send money abroad and the foreigners send us real things (or Disney souvenirs) in return. That sounds like a good deal.

Seriously, if the government is going to mail everyone a cheque, then it accepts the consequences of that. How could the government determine what are "good" things to buy? How could it even enforce this?

If the money were spent on day care spaces, then we'd need a large government bureaucracy to administer the day care centres. In Quebec, this is turning into an expensive mess.

Incidentally, the $100 universal child care benefit is taxable. I suppose we could impose a stricter means test but that would just add more complexity to our tax/subsidy system.

Our governments take billions from us and transfer back billions to us. Our tax and subsidy system is a complex product of political machinations over the years.

[BayLee]

As a wise man said and was ridiculed for...

BEER AND POPCORN

[Riverwind]

Personally I would rather see the daycare down the road expanded to to hold more children for a reasonable rate, than hear about how "Junior" bought his first pickup truck my taxes. But that is just me.

Can you think of a social program that is not abused by some people? I can't. Do you get as exercised about:

1) People who refused to work more than the minimum number of weeks required to get EI in martimes

2) People living in million dollar homes collecting GST rebates MSP premium exemptions because all of the family income is over seas and not reported.

Do you believe we should cancel the EI, GST rebate and MSP premium exemption because some people appear to receive the benefits unfairly. That is the logic you are using here.

What we need to do is allow people to employ their own spouses as daycare providers and to claim the child care costs as a deduction. This would eliminate the discrimination against single income families that exists in the current system. As long as the system discriminates against single income families you will see people demanding programs that help single income families.

[Saturn]

Actually that doesn't sound too bad. If the money is used to pay for the child's education (it would make more sense to put it into RESPs instead of into a savings bank account), then it's not bad. What pisses me off is when people are already planning to spend their child-care cheque and tax-savings from income-splitting (which is not into existence yet) on trips to Disney World and other overseas vacations. For one I don't see why other taxpayers should be paying for visits to Disney World and two, I don't like to see our money spent outside Canada.

I think spemnding money outside of Canada is a good thing. We send money abroad and the foreigners send us real things (or Disney souvenirs) in return. That sounds like a good deal.

And I think that you should be paying your tuition in full because it's clearly going to waste.

[Figleaf]

They have no need for child care, since the Grandfather is retired and the Grandmother only works part time,

That sounds like a need for child care to me. Isn't it time to liberate the old and retired from carrying the burdens of the next generation? Poor old grampa changing nappies and chasing toddlers all day, every day, sounds like a slog, doesn't it? He'd probably rather work at Walmart.

I was just wondering what people thought about the idea that every cheque they recieve of our tax dollars goes into a bank account for the child. Our taxes are are creating a nest egg for this kid.

It's a ridiculously haphazard redistribution scheme. If Stephen Harper is really and economist, he can't possibly believe in this program. It redistributes money from childless to people with children. As a redisribution scheme, it already violates the basic principles of neo-con theory. As a policy it doesn't qualify for support from economic theory because it's too diffuse and imprecise to be effective social/market engineering.

Without either neo-con or economic theory at work, why would Steve-o endorse such a policy? Cynical pandering anyone?

[BayLee]

Personally I would rather see the daycare down the road expanded to to hold more children for a reasonable rate, than hear about how "Junior" bought his first pickup truck my taxes. But that is just me.

Can you think of a social program that is not abused by some people? I can't. Do you get as exercised about:

1) People who refused to work more than the minimum number of weeks required to get EI in martimes

2) People living in million dollar homes collecting GST rebates MSP premium exemptions because all of the family income is over seas and not reported.

Do you believe we should cancel the EI, GST rebate and MSP premium exemption because some people appear to receive the benefits unfairly. That is the logic you are using here.

What we need to do is allow people to employ their own spouses as daycare providers and to claim the child care costs as a deduction. This would eliminate the discrimination against single income families that exists in the current system. As long as the system discriminates against single income families you will see people demanding programs that help single income families.

Does it ever end with you people?

You always fall back on the old tired..

"well they do/did it,so can we

\

This handing out 100 dollars a month a kid to people who simply dont need it and have no interest in day care is a joke.

But so is that overweight Harper

[Borg]

Well, I am of the opinion that institutionalized day care is institutionalized brain washing.

I do not support any tax funds going to day care.

While I do not support my taxes going to people with kids under the age of whatever, I know it happens and I suck it up.

I believe that if you have children, you exercise adult responsibility and support them. If you cannot support them you do not have them.

Borg

Just wanted to get some oppinions on this.

First off I want to make it perfectly clear I have no problem with helping to feed or clothe a child in need.

But here is the scenario:

A friend recently had a child. The mother stays home and the Father works full time making decent money. Both live on the Father's family farm with his parents, paying basically next to nothing for room and board. They have no need for child care, since the Grandfather is retired and the Grandmother only works part time, as well as the mother staying home.

I was just wondering what people thought about the idea that every cheque they recieve of our tax dollars goes into a bank account for the child. Our taxes are are creating a nest egg for this kid.

The cheque never, I repeat never, goes towards food, clothing, shelter, or day care or other baby sitting for the kid. My wife and I have even looked after him ourselves while the couple went out to dinner. Free of charge I might add, and there is no shortage of others who would do the same.

After 6 years when the cheques will stop this child will have about $7000 plus accrued interest in his savings account all coming from our pockets.

I know this can't be the only instance of this happening. I also know there are plenty of people making lots of more money than my friend and are still getting these cheques.

So what does everyone think?

Do you mind creating a nest egg for the neighbour's kids out of your taxes?

Should there be more put into determining who should actually get a monthly cheque instead of a blanket policy?

Personally I would rather see the daycare down the road expanded to to hold more children for a reasonable rate, than hear about how "Junior" bought his first pickup truck my taxes. But that is just me.

[BayLee]

Libs were right.

Harper giving money to people to spend on beer popcorn and a dvd rental.

And a trip to Disneyland

Looking at Harper I would say he has been indulging in beer and popcorn

[Melanie_]

The women that add value to our society, the female managers and execs... it's not a financial limitation that keeps them from working, they can easily pay the $500-600 for childcare. It's a choice on their part, and I'd really suggest that no amount of subsidy will buy them away from their children and into the workforce.

I hope I'm misreading this statement, Geoffrey. Female managers and execs are the women that add value to our society? Are you suggesting that other women do not?

Some women will choose to stay home with their children, and others will choose to work. But the children should have a safe, secure, accessible, nurturing environment either way. Parents can and do pay for the care; this isn't the issue. But the care available should be of high quality. $100/month doesn't do anything to create spaces, and Harper's plan to create 25,000 spaces per year is just hot air at this point - he has no clue how to go about doing this.

[Borg]

Children require a safe and nurturing environment? Agreed.

Perhaps those who want children should pay for this - I sure as heck do not want to provide my tax dollars to allow someone else to have babies - shelve them for the first 6 years in some institution called daycare - then send them off to school to be little automatons - brain washed by some nanny state care centre.

As far as I am concerned Harper did what he needed to do - unfortunately it appears it is in vogue for families to expect the various government agencies to provide for children - when in fact it is a parental responsibility.

Take that 100 bucks and do as you see fit - or send it back to the government.

There is no damn way any government should be raising children or helping people raise children through financial means.

Want kids? Stay at home and look after them.

Borg

---------------------------------------------

The women that add value to our society, the female managers and execs... it's not a financial limitation that keeps them from working, they can easily pay the $500-600 for childcare. It's a choice on their part, and I'd really suggest that no amount of subsidy will buy them away from their children and into the workforce.

I hope I'm misreading this statement, Geoffrey. Female managers and execs are the women that add value to our society? Are you suggesting that other women do not?

Some women will choose to stay home with thier children, and others will choose to work. But the children should have a safe, secure, accessible, nurturing environment either way. Parents can and do pay for the care; this isn't the issue. But the care available should be of high quality. $100/month doesn't do anything to create spaces, and Harper's plan to create 25,000 spaces per year is just hot air at this point - he has no clue how to go about doing this.

[Riverwind]

Perhaps those who want children should pay for this - I sure as heck do not want to provide my tax dollars to allow someone else to have babies

Does that mean you would rather have your tax dollars spent resettling immigrants? Our economy needs a steady stream of new workers - we can breed them ourselves or import them. Whatever you pick comes with a cost.

[Melanie_]

Saying that people who want kids should stay at home and look after them is a very narrow perspective. Life happens, and even those who think they will be at home until their kids start school are often surprised by the twists their roads take. No one is saying that all kids should be in daycare - its great to be in a position to be at home, and many kids benefit from having stay at home moms or dads. But for those kids who do go to daycare, high quality care is the next best thing. I don't expect the government to pay the costs of child care, unless the parents are really low income, but I do think the government should be involved in regulating the quality of programs available to children. Giving parents $100 and saying "find something" is a cop out.

[Borg]

We have not been "breeding" them for years.

We have been re-settling immigrants for years.

Just the wrong kind of immigrant.

Why import a doctor that is not allowed to practise? Bring in one that meets the standards.

Why import the engineer that cannot be considered qualified - bring in one that meets the standard.

Taxi drivers are a dime a dozen - we do not need more!!

Why bring in immigrants that cost money - bring in those that can speak the language and can meet health requirements and can actually support themselves and the beat goes on.

Yeah - call me a racist. Call me a hard liner. Call me what ever.

I like to think I am simply being realistic.

I do not believe in supporting those who cannot support their kids. I do not believe it is cost effective to train immigrants when there are folks right now that that are ready to go.

I know two couples and their families - in the UK - trained and the whole bit - coming with money - but cannot get to the head of the line - probably another two to three years at best. I think they will end up in Australia instead.

Throwing good money after bad is what we are doing.

Borg

[Borg]

Saying that people who want kids should stay at home and look after them is a very narrow perspective. Life happens, and even those who think they will be at home until their kids start school are often surprised by the twists their roads take. No one is saying that all kids should be in daycare - its great to be in a position to be at home, and many kids benefit from having stay at home moms or dads. But for those kids who do go to daycare, high quality care is the next best thing. I don't expect the government to pay the costs of child care, unless the parents are really low income, but I do think the government should be involved in regulating the quality of programs available to children. Giving parents $100 and saying "find something" is a cop out.

Narrow perspective? Horse pucky!!

Do your duty as a parent and exercise those responsibilities.

Government day care is simply an extension of institutionalized brain washing. Little Jonnie and little Suzie will come out with the approved thoughts of the day - government inspected and rubber stamped.

Governments should govern and parents provide care in the house.

If you cannot afford to keep your kids then you cannot afford to have them.

Day care is now expected. As far as I am concerned this is fine - as long as I do not pay for it.

I raised my kids and you raise yours - just keep my tax money out of the picture.

Unfortunately as I stated earlier - I have to suck it up.

Borg

[Melanie_]

Public (read "government") daycare is run by parent boards of directors, who determine what policies and curriculum their own centre will follow. Parents are free to choose among many different philosophies offered by licensed child care centres - there is no "institutionalized" brainwashing involved. Parents have much more input into public child care facilities than they do into private, or for profit, centres.

I stand by the statement that saying that all parents (read "mothers") should stay at home is a narrow perspective. Can I assume you are male, Borg?

[Borg]

Of course you can assume.

Perhaps men stay at home as well - I know I did.

So lets not go down the sexist road please.

Bottom line is government money for day care is not acceptable.

Want kids? Great I support that - but it is not up to me to pay for their upbringing.

Borg