Child care options

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Fotze's situation and the current policy debate insired this thread about the Liberals vs Conservatives reagarding a national child care policy.

Which approach do you prefer?

The Liberals who give money to the provinces to build a public child care system....

The Conservatives who want to give families $1200 per child per year plus $250M (over 5 years) in incentives to create new daycares....

IMO I prefer the LIberals approach because:
A: It will create a better system over the long-term...IMO the conservatives will not provide any system building

B: In many cases the extra money will be spent by parents on other, non-child related 'whatever' items. In most cases it won't, but still there is no system to insure that the money will be spent where needed.

On the other hand, I do like the support the Conservative plan gives to parents who are staying at home to look after kids.

Socre this a close win for the Grits IMO

Your thoughts?
________
DairyQueenX

[kermitology]

This looks to me like an effort by Harper to buy votes but in a more acceptable way. The people that really need this kind of help are the ones that are going to use it improperly. Rather than do something for their kids they are going to burn that money on something for themselves.

I don't like the idea of just giving people money and letting them spend it however they want. Put it into the infrastructure to support families that have trouble raising their children.

[Ironhorse]

When we chose to have a baby, we decided that we would raise him ourselves rather than having the child raised in a daycare. I am not a fan of daycares, and am also of the opinion that this is where a lot of children's and teenager's behavioural problems are stemming from over the last two decades.

So my wife became a stay at home mom. From a taxation standpoint, this puts me at a severe disadvantage. I am taxed in a high tax bracket, and I cannot a) claim any "childcare expenses" or b) split my income with my wife. I am punished for wanting to raise my child in the best way that I see fit.

The Liberal government would like nothing better than for my wife to work also, because in the end, they'll have another taxpayer in the workforce and they'll take in more in tax revenue from both of our salaries; hence their "idea" for a national daycare program. Meanwhile, our child knows his daycare workers better than his parents.

Let the parents choose where their child spends their (crucial) formative years, and don't punish that choice. Give me a tax credit equivalent to what people spend on monthly daycare.

BTW, for what it's worth, my wife has absolutely loved spending the last 4 years with our son, and wouldn't trade that time for anything in the world...

[photon]

I agree with Ironhorse, we did something similar; it took a lot of work, planning and saving to get to the point where we felt comfortable with one of us staying home with our son for the first five years at least.

I would like the government and tax system to recognize that and reward that sort of behaviour rather than punish it. It should be a choice.

Refusing to give money back to parents and funneling it into an institutionalized childcare system not only discourages parents to make the choice of how they want to take care of their children, saying that it should be the only choice because there are some people that may not spend the money wisely is flawed.

If that's the case, why are we letting anyone have any of their own money? Why give income tax returns when people will just spend it on smokes, dirty movies and fatty foods!

[fredr123]

Was that $1200 a deduction or a credit? High-income earners benefit more from a deduction than low-income earners, I think, since they high-income earners are taxed at a higher marginal tax bracket. If someone barely above the poverty line is allowed a deduction from their income for child care costs, it won't help them a whole lot since they're probably not going to be paying a lot of taxs anyway. How about a refundable credit to carry-over for years that you would be earning income and paying tax? That seems to be more horizontally equitable.

In any event, I agree with the Ironhorse 100%. Giving the money to the parents and allowing them to choose how to raise their child is the way to go. Funding more daycares with your tax dollars, while Mrs. Ironhorse stays at home to take care of the Ironfoals doesn't seem fair. If you want to support daycares than you can use your own money, in conjunction with the credit the government gives you, to do that.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Good points, if the Liberal plan allowed some tax relief for stay at home parents it would certainly be more complete.

But, to play devils advocate, would an extra $1200 (as taxable income for the parent in the lowest tax bracket) really have made any significant difference to you? Or would it simply be 'nice to have'?
________
BUY VAPORGENIE

[Cheese]

Agreed with Ironhorse and the Conservatives.
Let the parents decide what to do with the credits. If they want to use it as stay at home parents or as a subsidy for daycare that's the best situation. The Liberals method is only a one year plan, and only benefits the corporations...not the parents.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

So my wife became a stay at home mom. From a taxation standpoint, this puts me at a severe disadvantage. I am taxed in a high tax bracket, and I cannot a) claim any "childcare expenses" or b) split my income with my wife. I am punished for wanting to raise my child in the best way that I see fit.

From what I recall hearing about the Conservatives' plan; it would allow you to split your income with your wife. Not sure if you can only direct a certain amount, or if you have to split it 50/50.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

And correct me if I am wrong, but are there not some tax strategies you could use to split your income? i.e. form a company and hire your wife as an employee?
________
ElectricLadyx

[ken0042]

Yes, you could Fozzie. But many people don't. Keep in mind that for many people math and finances are difficult subjects. Should a single income family be punished because they don't know the ins and outs of tax laws?

Also, it raises the question of the legitimacy of hiring your wife. If I'm an assembly line worker; what am I claiming to be hiring my wife to do?

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

And correct me if I am wrong, but are there not some tax strategies you could use to split your income? i.e. form a company and hire your wife as an employee?

This is a very tricky grey area, and only works if I am self employed as a company, and not as a salaried employee. Then I could hire my wife to do the company's "accounting". But even then, you have to actually have her doing something.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Yes, you could Fozzie. But many people don't. Keep in mind that for many people math and finances are difficult subjects. Should a single income family be punished because they don't know the ins and outs of tax laws?

Also, it raises the question of the legitimacy of hiring your wife. If I'm an assembly line worker; what am I claiming to be hiring my wife to do?

No a family shouldn't be punshed for not knowing quirks of the tax system, however by that same token can some families make the difficult choices required to raise children at home? I don't mean to belittle anyone, but sometimes I think that some families don't make quality choices for their kids and that a daycare that meets minimum standards would be a huge improvement for the childs future.

Re: the legitimacy of hiring your wife, As long as you are legally in the right to hire your wife who cares? The point is figure out the a legit way to reduce your taxes. A savvy small business accountant would be worth their weight in gold for some people.

What I do like is the Conservative tax incentive for more daycares in the workplace.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Re: the legitimacy of hiring your wife, As long as you are legally in the right to hire your wife who cares? The point is figure out the a legit way to reduce your taxes. A savvy small business accountant would be worth their weight in gold for some people.

The number of people who can do that legally and meaningfully is maybe 1 in 100.

You're right about the rest though. This comes down to whether or not you think the government can make better choices for your kids or you can. Some people think the government makes better choices than they do and while I disagree its not really a point to argue.

Well, that and whether or not you think the union dominated, government controlled institutions like health care and education are shining modles of what a day care systrem should become.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

The number of people who can do that legally and meaningfully is maybe 1 in 100.

You're right about the rest though. This comes down to whether or not you think the government can make better choices for your kids or you can. Some people think the government makes better choices than they do and while I disagree its not really a point to argue.

Well, that and whether or not you think the union dominated, government controlled institutions like health care and education are shining modles of what a day care systrem should become.

Good points, certainly our health care system and education are far from perfect but, IMO, they are still world-class.

Also, as I understand the Liberal program, the provinces decide how to support child care. Alberta fought pretty hard to ensure that private day cares qualify.
________
Couples Cam

[MarchHare]

Didn't the Trudeau government do something similar to Harper's planned child allowance? And wasn't it a horrible waste of money at the time?

Not having any children of my own, I don't think the government should be subsidizing parents with my tax dollars at all; choosing to have kids is an expensive proposition, and parents shouldn't be depending on the feds to pay for their kids.

While I'm not really a fan of either plan, Martin's does seem slightly more palatable to me, as it's not a direct monetary hand-out with no oversight -- at least we know the money the Liberals have ear-marked for childcare will be spent accordingly, whereas the money Harper plans to give out could be spent willy-nilly, at the expense of childless tax-payers like me.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Martin's does seem slightly more palatable to me, as it's not a direct monetary hand-out with no oversight -- at least we know the money the Liberals have ear-marked for childcare will be spent accordingly, whereas the money Harper plans to give out could be spent willy-nilly, at the expense of childless tax-payers like me.

There is no guarantee that either way will spend the money accordingly. Harper's way gives the families a choice of how to raise their child, instead of forcing them to choose publically funded day cares.
And with the ability to split a single-income with your spouse, would provide more money to the families with single-incomes. It just seems the more flexible option to me.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Here is an interesting 4 pager on the history of child care in Canada.
________
HotCummers

[Lurch]

I think a larger point that is seemingly missed is that the Liberal platform makes more sense as part of a sensible economic/education policy. Several points:

1. Instead of 'daycare', implement early education and extend the hours for schooling. For example, 'school' from age 3 from 8am till 5pm. This does not mean sitting in class 8 hours per day - extended physical activity time, etc. fits in the definition. Canada faces an education gap with a lot of countries, and this is one way to address it starting today.
2. Giving money to parents is rife for potential misuse.
3. Giving money to parents does not have positive economic spinoffs in that one of the goals of public daycare is to increase the size of the labour force. Canada has a labour problem, and one way to sensibly help fix it is to allow more women in the workforce. Simply giving any parent money does not go towards solving this problem as the work/stay at home decision is not altered.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

Well, that and whether or not you think the union dominated, government controlled institutions like health care and education are shining modles of what a day care systrem should become.

Personally, I think it would be a very good thing for Child Care Workers to become unionized. I think it is disgraceful that people think it is okay to pay the people who care for their children a mere $7-8 per hour. If people truly believe that children are a society's most valuable resource then why do we spend so little on their care in the grand scheme of things? Just some food for thought.

[MarchHare]

There is no guarantee that either way will spend the money accordingly.

Uh, no.

If Martin plans to set aside $X billion for childcare and then uses that money to fund daycare programs and the like, we know those billions are being spent for childcare. If Harper plans to give $1200 anually per child to Canadian parents, we have no way to guarantee that money is actually spent on childcare and not something else. As an extreme example, a crackhead parent could even use that money to fuel their drug habit.

Like I said, though, I really don't like either proposal, but of the two, Martin's seems less prone to abuse. Personally, the mere fact that parents get any kind of tax breaks at all irks me. As a childless taxpayer, why should I be forced to subsidize Canadian parents?