ADQ would pay families with children at home!

[Pat Coghlan]

Gee, here's something for the federal parties to ponder about. The ADQ have suggested that families with a stay-at-home spouse should receive a payment of $100 per *week* for each child cared for at home rather than in a daycare.

I think most families with at a stay-at-home parent would be content just to have the same tax liability as families in which both spouses earn equivalent incomes.

This (tax breaks for at-home parents) is really starting to look like an issue that isn't going to go away.

[blueblood]

I think most families with at a stay-at-home parent would be content just to have the same tax liability as families in which both spouses earn equivalent incomes.

That would be good. Should also completely drop the tax on daycares operating in Canada, I bet a lot of private daycares would pop up if they didn't have to pay tax.

[geoffrey]

That would be good. Should also completely drop the tax on daycares operating in Canada, I bet a lot of private daycares would pop up if they didn't have to pay tax.

I'd bet more doctors and nurses would move here too if they lived a tax free existence, but that doesn't make dropping the tax on specific people the right thing to do. Is their good to society really that good?

People aren't chucking their kids to the curb on garbage day yet. They are coping. People are dying because of a lack of doctors though. Something to consider.

[blueblood]

That would be good. Should also completely drop the tax on daycares operating in Canada, I bet a lot of private daycares would pop up if they didn't have to pay tax.

I'd bet more doctors and nurses would move here too if they lived a tax free existence, but that doesn't make dropping the tax on specific people the right thing to do. Is their good to society really that good?

People aren't chucking their kids to the curb on garbage day yet. They are coping. People are dying because of a lack of doctors though. Something to consider.

If it's that big of a problem, I'd say go for it, at least they contribute to society. People are wanting to fund state run daycare which would cost taxpayers a fortune. I thought one way of encouraging growth was to slash taxes, maybe then slash taxes to a ridiculously low rate. This would only help, With more daycares popping up due to attractive tax rates, the price to the parents would go down due to competition, plus all the money accumulated would be pumped into the economy. People do want daycares though, that might be a price we'd have to pay in the short term.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I fully expect that this will come to happen, being funded transfer payments and equalization from the feds. Smart move on their part, I only wish my seniority was good in Quebec.

[Who's Doing What?]

Why the hell are parents getting all this money thrown at them when additional kids raise the overall cost of education and healthcare?

People who decide not to burden society with their spawn should be the ones getting a kickback. Sure raising a child is tough and expensive, and I am all for making sure a child has a good environment to grow up in, but constantly rewarding people for having children when they are already enjoying the relatively free education and basic healthcare provided by the rest of the country who have already raised their kids, haven't had any yet or don't plan on having any at all is getting frustrating.

People without kids should be the ones getting a bonus every month, for not clogging up the doctors office or overcrowding our schools.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I would rather see everybody get a break actually, something like getting rid of income taxes all together would be nice. But since that isn't likely I will go for tax breaks no problem.

[guyser]

People who decide not to burden society with their spawn should be the ones getting a kickback.

People without kids should be the ones getting a bonus every month, for not clogging up the doctors office or overcrowding our schools.

Careful, those "kids" will be the one feeding you in a nursing home some day.

[jdobbin]

Gee, here's something for the federal parties to ponder about. The ADQ have suggested that families with a stay-at-home spouse should receive a payment of $100 per *week* for each child cared for at home rather than in a daycare.

I think most families with at a stay-at-home parent would be content just to have the same tax liability as families in which both spouses earn equivalent incomes.

This (tax breaks for at-home parents) is really starting to look like an issue that isn't going to go away.

This would apply to single parents too?

[Pat Coghlan]

Gee, here's something for the federal parties to ponder about. The ADQ have suggested that families with a stay-at-home spouse should receive a payment of $100 per *week* for each child cared for at home rather than in a daycare.

I think most families with at a stay-at-home parent would be content just to have the same tax liability as families in which both spouses earn equivalent incomes.

This (tax breaks for at-home parents) is really starting to look like an issue that isn't going to go away.

This would apply to single parents too?

Hmmm, maybe if he/she ran a business at home, but someone on welfare probably would not.

[Pat Coghlan]

I would rather see everybody get a break actually, something like getting rid of income taxes all together would be nice. But since that isn't likely I will go for tax breaks no problem.

Tax breaks come and go. The problem with our system is that families which don't have two spouses earning equivalent incomes can have a tax liability which can be up to $16,000 higher than families with a nice 50/50 income split between the spouses..

We need to follow the US model and create tax brackets for joint income earners which result in all families in similar situations paying similar amounts of income tax - unlike today.

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, maybe if he/she ran a business at home, but someone on welfare probably would not.

Why not if they kept their children out of daycare?

[geoffrey]

Why not if they kept their children out of daycare?

Uhh, that's what welfare is for. It's calculated based on how many kids you have already. Doesn't need a top up.

[jdobbin]

Uhh, that's what welfare is for. It's calculated based on how many kids you have already. Doesn't need a top up.

I hear what you're saying and now that I read the ADQ policy, it refers to tax credit which a single parent wouldn't need if they were unemployed.

Single working parents still require some sort of daycare or childcare. Could they not benefit from a tax credit if a family caregiver took care of the children? Why should two parent families be the only beneficiaries?

[geoffrey]

Ideally my wealth wouldn't be transfered to anyone and we'd all have to pay for our own life choices, but unfortunately that is not the Canada we live in.

If we must go down this path, which I think is ridiculous, we should be offering incentives for employers to open up daycares in the offices. In the job market out here, such things sell and we see many companies doing this (even one company I read up on giving employees free elder care). In less competitive centres (ie. where people need the help), there is little incentive to do anything.

[jdobbin]

Ideally my wealth wouldn't be transfered to anyone and we'd all have to pay for our own life choices, but unfortunately that is not the Canada we live in.

If we must go down this path, which I think is ridiculous, we should be offering incentives for employers to open up daycares in the offices. In the job market out here, such things sell and we see many companies doing this (even one company I read up on giving employees free elder care). In less competitive centres (ie. where people need the help), there is little incentive to do anything.

I don't know company incentives have been that successful at creating spaces. In any event, not everyone works for a company so daycare spaces are needed regardless.

I think what eventually will be accepted is that daycare, like healthcare, has advantages for businesses.

[geoffrey]

I think what eventually will be accepted is that daycare, like healthcare, has advantages for businesses.

When privately provided.

[Michael Bluth]

I think what eventually will be accepted is that daycare, like healthcare, has advantages for businesses.

When privately provided.

Of course the Government providing daycare provides advantages to business.

They don't have to pay for it.

[jdobbin]

When privately provided.

I think GM will say that Canada's healthcare system is advantageous for manufacturing in Canada. The costs of providing healthcare privately by GM in the U.S. is making cars more expensive there.

[geoffrey]

I think GM will say that Canada's healthcare system is advantageous for manufacturing in Canada. The costs of providing healthcare privately by GM in the U.S. is making cars more expensive there.

GM's a terrible example. They only survive because they pay next to no tax and are heavily subsidized and catered to. Most business in Canada would take a tax cut over a tax hike to fund an expensive transfer program.

[jdobbin]

GM's a terrible example. They only survive because they pay next to no tax and are heavily subsidized and catered to. Most business in Canada would take a tax cut over a tax hike to fund an expensive transfer program.

Most businesses in mature manufacturing businesses would like to remove the costs of healthcare from their cost structure. GM is just one example. Other industries are finding their benefit packages are getting extremely costly.

Healthcare in Canada is better for business.

[geoffrey]

Healthcare in Canada is better for business.

I strongly disagree. Maybe in manufacturing, but that's a dying industry. India and China do it better. We need to modernize or we'll lose.

Anyways, it's bad for the individual. Most people are trapped here with no options for better care. That's not fair or just. In fact, it's a violation of human rights in my opinion. Bigger topic of discussion for another thread.

[jdobbin]

I strongly disagree. Maybe in manufacturing, but that's a dying industry. India and China do it better. We need to modernize or we'll lose.

Anyways, it's bad for the individual. Most people are trapped here with no options for better care. That's not fair or just. In fact, it's a violation of human rights in my opinion. Bigger topic of discussion for another thread.

So you think the U.S. system is the best model?

Or something more drastic like government getting out of healthcare altogether?

I don't know that companies are interested in the any healthcare model except ones that also limits choice like the HMO.

[ScottSA]

I strongly disagree. Maybe in manufacturing, but that's a dying industry. India and China do it better. We need to modernize or we'll lose.

Anyways, it's bad for the individual. Most people are trapped here with no options for better care. That's not fair or just. In fact, it's a violation of human rights in my opinion. Bigger topic of discussion for another thread.

So you think the U.S. system is the best model?

Or something more drastic like government getting out of healthcare altogether?

I don't know that companies are interested in the any healthcare model except ones that also limits choice like the HMO.

Why are you using this either/or dichotomy? Are there no options aside from EvIl AmRicAn healthcare or the status quo in canada?

[geoffrey]

So you think the U.S. system is the best model?

Or something more drastic like government getting out of healthcare altogether?

I don't know that companies are interested in the any healthcare model except ones that also limits choice like the HMO.

We don't have to go either or. You still have way more power as a consumer of health care services under an HMO than you do in Canada. You can buy whatever insurance you wish in the US, you cannot in Canada. That is a truly terrible situation.

Many companies struggle under the US system of health care. That's not good either.

Many European countries have found adequate ways to balance universiality with patient rights and individual freedom. A mix of public and private is required for the health care system to function.

Currently, the Canadian system is an absolute failure. I'll really take anything else. I've had better and faster attention and care in Mexico for goodness sakes.