Conservative Child Care

[Sharpen 'Em]

I really disagree with this cash give away. My thought is that they are simply rewarding people for having children. If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you are against abortion and can't afford to raise the child inside you...put it up for adoption. Why should some guy that makes three million dollars a year get an extra $3600.00 a year for his three kids?

Maybe I'll change my tune if they start offering cash to dog owners.

[Frank the Tank]

Well.....to give you some perspective.....

Our son goes to daycare three days a week. My wife works part-time so she can spend more time with the boy. We aren't rich, nor poor, but a part-time income with all of the same expenses we had before child and adding $550-$600 per month for daycare. Well, lets just say that $1200/year will help, but won't go too far.

[transplant99]

Ridiculous.

Its not a "cash giveaway", its for daycare and for parents to decide where its best spent for their kids instead of some bureaucrat in Ottawa....something MOST Canadians need help with.

Canada needs MORE people/births, not fewer.

Raising children is an expensive proposition, no reason not to help out.

[transplant99]

Also, this is one of the issues that Harper was elected on.

nice to see that a PM is actually doing what he said he would do after getting the mandate to do it.

[FireFly]

I like this for stay-at-home moms. My sister-in-law is a stay at home mom, and that money will be used for her and my brother to go out once or twice a month and pay for a babysitter.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by Sharpen 'Em

I really disagree with this cash give away. My thought is that they are simply rewarding people for having children. If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you are against abortion and can't afford to raise the child inside you...put it up for adoption. Why should some guy that makes three million dollars a year get an extra $3600.00 a year for his three kids?

Maybe I'll change my tune if they start offering cash to dog owners.

I don't necessarily agree with the program, but random thoughts...

1. the guy making 3 million dollars a year is probably paying a million plus in taxes...giving him back 3600 is not a huge deal either way

2. having a few kids now...1200 bucks a year is hardly a 'reward'. I guess its extra money...but you don't have kids for the money (if that makes sense)

[looooob]

Originally Posted by fotze

.

But ya they should just scrap tax benefits for being married or having kids.

I've asked this question a few times, and I've never received an answer...I feel stupid asking it

but what are the tax benefits of being married or having kids?

I don't receive them, whatever they are. would be interested to know what I'm missing

[Mr. Ski]

As has been pointed our, if the 'guy' in your example really does make $3,000,000 he gets roughly $1,200,000 lopped off in income tax alone before the money even hits the bank.

To complete the equation then he pays $1,200,000 and gets back $3,600 (which is also taxable) for his three kids. Net payment -> TO -> the government is $1,196,400.00 and that's before the dozens of other taxes we all have the privilege of paying. And besides, for every 'guy' making $3,000,000 a year, there are 1000's of middle class family's that will gladly cash that cheque.

Is it a perfect system, no. (But neither is some Government run Mega-Care system; or no system at all which you seem to be insisting on).

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Sharpen 'Em

I really disagree with this cash give away. My thought is that they are simply rewarding people for having children. If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you are against abortion and can't afford to raise the child inside you...put it up for adoption. Why should some guy that makes three million dollars a year get an extra $3600.00 a year for his three kids?

Maybe I'll change my tune if they start offering cash to dog owners.

Let me guess, you are young, childless and not married. You have no idea on life's larger picture yet. Once you see how families and kids and work play together, I think you'll change your mind rather quickly.

[looooob]

Originally Posted by fotze

I guess they are not a benefit but if the wife makes under a certain amount you can transfer that amount to yourself and get some more money back at tax time.

.

fair enough...I know you weren't implying this, but I hear some people speak of the 'tax advantage' of getting married, and what you are pointing out above is hardly a major tax advantage...in most cases the single person supporting only themselves is probably doing better (financially, maybe not in other ways)than the same person who then gets married, is supporting two people (only in the scenario that their partner makes below threshold) and gets a small tax benefit

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I have 2 kids and I'm still not sure society owes me any help for child care, so I get the prinicipled point.

Practically though, if you want both a) kids and b) women in the workforce something's gotta give.

Selfishly, I figure if the government didn't take all my money to begin with we probably wouldn't need 2 incomes, therefore I deserve all the help I can get.

Is it a perfect system, no. (But neither is some Government run Mega-Care system; or no system at all which you seem to be insisting on).

Well said.

[Crazy Flamer]

I've got one kid in daycare and that costs me about $700 a month. I have a pretty good job and am doing fairly well, but as a single parent, I'll take the help.

There is a real shortage of daycare/dayhome workers, hence the rise in costs. The $1,200 won't make a massive difference, but I think it will offset some of the rising costs due to higher demand and lower supply of workers.

[Radically Red]

I think its better than what the old goverment is was going to do.
This plan give money to all parents to use for child care... The old plan was just giving money to the Day cares only. Folks that were stay at home parents saw nothing... This way allows all parents to benefit.

its not much but something is better than nothing. Kids cost way more than what "help" we parents get back from the government.

Single folks or married folks without kids are typically better of financially than familys with kids. I know I was before my kids came along

[Ace]

Originally Posted by Sharpen 'Em

I really disagree with this cash give away. My thought is that they are simply rewarding people for having children. If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you are against abortion and can't afford to raise the child inside you...put it up for adoption. Why should some guy that makes three million dollars a year get an extra $3600.00 a year for his three kids?

Maybe I'll change my tune if they start offering cash to dog owners.

What your saying is that you are against government money for child care.

Well you need to realize that this money was going to be spent regardless, so do you want big government run institutions, or money going directly to the family.

[White Doors]

It is in our society's best interests to have a healthy birth rate. Having to rely on immigration for population mainenance is not an ideal situation. If you could see farther then the end of your nose you will come to see this.

And it is not fair to only benefit those that are both working parents, stay at home parenting should be 'rewarded' as well.

Oh, the 'Child tax benefit' is a much larger financial 'reward' than this and it is already in effect.

[Lurch]

It is in our society's best interests to have a healthy birth rate. Having to rely on immigration for population mainenance is not an ideal situation. If you could see farther then the end of your nose you will come to see this.

And it is not fair to only benefit those that are both working parents, stay at home parenting should be 'rewarded' as well.

This argument has went around before, but I think the policy is poor. The premise of the plan is that we need a higher birth rate and/or we need to allow women to get back into the workforce when they have kids. I'm all for subsidizing daycare, provided the reason is that the mother re-entered the workforce. I think giving direct subsidy is appropriate in this instance - its not an either/or where its Harpers head bonus or Martins "Mega Care" facilities.

[White Doors]

Well it is an either or. And we're getting Harper's plan which is much more equitable.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Crazy Flamer

IThere is a real shortage of daycare/dayhome workers, hence the rise in costs. The $1,200 won't make a massive difference, but I think it will offset some of the rising costs due to higher demand and lower supply of workers.

See this is the issue that I don't think this policy is going to cover.

I agree that it is nice to be fair and give equal amounts per child to all families, but there are limited Childcare spots and this policy won't directly create any.
The single parents most in need of childcare spots are only getting a little help from this. As many of you mentioned, child care is expensive and this will only offset a small portion of the cost.
I believe additional childcare availability may have helped more of the people who most need the help.

[Frank the Tank]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

See this is the issue that I don't think this policy is going to cover.

I agree that it is nice to be fair and give equal amounts per child to all families, but there are limited Childcare spots and this policy won't directly create any.
The single parents most in need of childcare spots are only getting a little help from this. As many of you mentioned, child care is expensive and this will only offset a small portion of the cost.
I believe additional childcare availability may have helped more of the people who most need the help.

Actually, single parents already get massive amounts of help. At least in Ontario.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Sharpen 'Em

I really disagree with this cash give away. My thought is that they are simply rewarding people for having children. If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. If you are against abortion and can't afford to raise the child inside you...put it up for adoption. Why should some guy that makes three million dollars a year get an extra $3600.00 a year for his three kids?

Maybe I'll change my tune if they start offering cash to dog owners.

Amen. There is absolutely no reason for you to be forced to fund other people`s kids.

This is just a stupid way to buy voters (young parents). Shouldn`t it be called corruption?