Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Regorium

No, it's not.

Daycare cost is $1700/month unsubsidized. $326 a month now, meaning $1374 per child per month of savings.

2 kids and 48 months of daycare = $131,904 of after-tax dollars.

Only mentioning this because I'm listening to The Breakdown talking to disability advocates and the province taking the $200 benefit the feds are giving, but I do find it kind of bizarre daycare gets subsidized that much for people making unlimited money in Alberta, yet AISH recipients only get $1,863 monthly to survive. Only $500 more than daycare for everything you need to survive, vs 8 hours in care 20 days a month.

That's not to say daycare is over-subsidized, but that we subsidize the wrong people, and those really needing help don't get nearly enough. And I know Alberta pays more than any other province. How a society cares for its most vulnerable is ultimately a commentary on it's values.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Regorium

No, it's not.

Daycare cost is $1700/month unsubsidized. $326 a month now, meaning $1374 per child per month of savings.

2 kids and 48 months of daycare = $131,904 of after-tax dollars.

It is an interesting thought experiment to compare just giving out 1700$/child (under 5) to all parents vs putting it into daycare subsidy. It would open up the option for more people to be stay at home parents and still cover the higher earners who want to opt for daycare.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by indes

It is an interesting thought experiment to compare just giving out 1700$/child (under 5) to all parents vs putting it into daycare subsidy. It would open up the option for more people to be stay at home parents and still cover the higher earners who want to opt for daycare.

Sorry, but after what I just posted I find that absolutely absurd.

[Fuzz]

The prairie provinces are the only region the Cons lead in. And given that lead, it distorts the overall country picture. This really looks like a Liberal majority.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sorry, but after what I just posted I find that absolutely absurd.

Well right now they are giving out 1400/mo per kid registered in daycare plus the Canada Child Benefit. I don't see what that has to do with the provincial AISH. We could cherry pick all kinds of things the government spends money on and compare it to other stuff but it's pretty disingenuous to think only two out of thousands of expenses become a zero-sum game.

So I'll have to respectfully disagree that me posing a question about daycare subsidy + CCB is absurd because of disability payments.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by indes

It is an interesting thought experiment to compare just giving out 1700$/child (under 5) to all parents vs putting it into daycare subsidy. It would open up the option for more people to be stay at home parents and still cover the higher earners who want to opt for daycare.

Wow, that's such an interesting idea. Would be a great incentive for great parents.

I suppose the hiccup would be you'd create an incentive to have kids (parents would get $20k a year). You'd attract some of the worst people to become parents who just see a paycheque.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Only mentioning this because I'm listening to The Breakdown talking to disability advocates and the province taking the $200 benefit the feds are giving, but I do find it kind of bizarre daycare gets subsidized that much for people making unlimited money in Alberta, yet AISH recipients only get $1,863 monthly to survive. Only $500 more than daycare for everything you need to survive, vs 8 hours in care 20 days a month.

That's not to say daycare is over-subsidized, but that we subsidize the wrong people, and those really needing help don't get nearly enough. And I know Alberta pays more than any other province. How a society cares for its most vulnerable is ultimately a commentary on it's values.

Yeah but Fuzz - Alberta's already one of the highest in that category! So those vulnerables best be appreciatin' it!

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by indes

Well right now they are giving out 1400/mo per kid registered in daycare plus the Canada Child Benefit. I don't see what that has to do with the provincial AISH. We could cherry pick all kinds of things the government spends money on and compare it to other stuff but it's pretty disingenuous to think only two out of thousands of expenses become a zero-sum game.

So I'll have to respectfully disagree that me posing a question about daycare subsidy + CCB is absurd because of disability payments.

I didn't realize you were combining both, but it still leans into my point. I was saying the amount of subsidy given to parents, and your suggestion to give an even larger amount to all parents, just for daycare. Some people are incredibly wealthy, and would still get it. Meanwhile, the government is clawing back federal support dollars for the disabled(and ironically, only those on AISH who could use it most). And seeing a subsidy payed out to parents to cover childcare reaching close to the level payed out to the disabled to you, know, survive, should be a sobering reminder of priorities. These are both provincial decisions.

And not to forget the most needy parents who now pay more because the province decided the same dollar value supplement should go to everyone, regardless of need or ability to pay.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Regorium

No, it's not.

Daycare cost is $1700/month unsubsidized. $326 a month now, meaning $1374 per child per month of savings.

2 kids and 48 months of daycare = $131,904 of after-tax dollars.

sitting around 40 with 2 teenage kids I can echo this, I think there is easily a counter factual where my net worth is somewhere between double and triple if I had not paid full freight on daycare for what amounted to 14 child years. when they were 7/9 covid hit and we haven't really paid daycare since, so it's hasn't really effected me at all, but certainly believable numbers.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by rubecube

What should the site for Walla Walla County Democrats be called? That's also obviously not where the original article came from.

Ok...Why are you sourcing from Walla Walla County Democrats?

Did you not read GGG's / Snopes post?

https://deanblundell.substack.com/

What's the credentials here? Is he an insider to closed door international meetings? Perhaps he fed off on a conspiracy theory that was initially posted on a crypto site?

https://www.thecanadianpressnews.ca/...e6b7e80bd.html

What is his background?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Blundell

Oh...

The writer may have jumped to conclusions, but it's not like it's something that's ridiculously implausible.

We're likely never going to know for sure until one of Trump or Carney (or both) are out of office.

This is complete misinformation, plain and simple.

And you were criticizing CliffFletcher about sourcing the Atlantic and Economist just last week...

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I'll be voting at SAIT when I go into the office tomorrow. They were out their on Friday handing out flyers telling students to vote early. That was good to see.

Well that was easy. And over 80 people voted this morning already too.

[PepsiFree]

Childcare, like healthcare and all levels of education, should be fully subsidized. I’ll start there, without getting into things like UBI.

For childcare, there should be some cost/benefit balance upheld. That’s why it makes sense to subsidize lower income households more than higher income households. Priority #1 is obviously ensuring children have quality care, but priority #1 on the economic side should be getting people into the workforce. This creates balance by, ideally, gaining some revenue through income tax. Priority #2 is increasing the spending ability of people, gaining additional income through sales taxes.

That’s why a progressive subsidy makes more sense, because you’re giving more to people you expect to bring in more benefits, and less on people who are already providing those benefits. Equal subsidization across the board only makes sense if it is fully subsidized, so everyone pays zero. Having a system where people pay the same as someone making 3x more than them doesn’t work if that number then restricts that person from utilizing the program anyway. It effectively subsidizes higher earners with less return.

[Torture]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, subsidized childcare is the best thing that Trudeau did.

Not only is it a gamechanger for individual parents' wallets, but it's beneficial for the economy because it allows 2x working parents.

[Torture]

nm

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Childcare, like healthcare and all levels of education, should be fully subsidized. I’ll start there, without getting into things like UBI.

For childcare, there should be some cost/benefit balance upheld. That’s why it makes sense to subsidize lower income households more than higher income households. Priority #1 is obviously ensuring children have quality care, but priority #1 on the economic side should be getting people into the workforce. This creates balance by, ideally, gaining some revenue through income tax. Priority #2 is increasing the spending ability of people, gaining additional income through sales taxes.

That’s why a progressive subsidy makes more sense, because you’re giving more to people you expect to bring in more benefits, and less on people who are already providing those benefits. Equal subsidization across the board only makes sense if it is fully subsidized, so everyone pays zero. Having a system where people pay the same as someone making 3x more than them doesn’t work if that number then restricts that person from utilizing the program anyway. It effectively subsidizes higher earners with less return.

I assume you mean something different than your first sentence suggests, because wouldn't fully subsidized mean tax dollars pay for all of it for everyone?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Ok...Why are you sourcing from Walla Walla County Democrats?

Because substack is sometimes paywalled.

I don't think anyone is 100% above being misinformed in this day and age. If it's an L for me, then it's an L.

I came across the article in a YT channel I follow that is generally reliable. I will be more skeptical of them in the future.

And you were criticizing CliffFletcher about sourcing the Atlantic and Economist just last week...

I know you really struggle with reading comprehension, but I wasn't criticizing Cliff for sourcing the Atlantic. I was genuinely asking him what he likes to read.

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...36#post9391136

No, I was more bringing it up because I've seen you refer to The Economist and Atlantic in many posts.

I don't really have a problem with either outfit and The Atlantic in particular has done a pretty good job lately of highlighting the rising tide of fascism.

Wow...some really harsh criticism there. I don't know how Cliff will ever recover.

[rubecube]

In other news, Steve Boots is saying there's quite a bit of internal turmoil with the NDP. Some major allegations of staff/volunteer mistreatment. Trying to find an additional source with more info, but it's definitely making me consider re-evaluating my vote.

I do really like my MP, Laurel Collins, so I may just vote for her personally instead of the party, but it's really going to depend on what the allegations look like.

[MrButtons]

Originally Posted by rubecube

In other news, Steve Boots is saying there's quite a bit of internal turmoil with the NDP. Some major allegations of staff/volunteer mistreatment. Trying to find an additional source with more info, but it's definitely making me consider re-evaluating my vote.

I do really like my MP, Laurel Collins, so I may just vote for her personally instead of the party, but it's really going to depend on what the allegations look like.

More turmoil than Ford and the federal party? https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...aign-1.7510103

I actually loved the rant from Kory and highly recommend listening to it on their podcast.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I assume you mean something different than your first sentence suggests, because wouldn't fully subsidized mean tax dollars pay for all of it for everyone?

I’m saying it makes sense in situations where it isn’t fully subsidized.

I believe it should be fully subsidized, but it’s not, so it should be progressive instead of equalized:

“Equal subsidization across the board only makes sense if it is fully subsidized, so everyone pays zero.”

[MrButtons]

Way back I remember watching the rumble with Jon Stewart and O'Rielly and two things stood out to me. Maybe off topic but I 1) don't have anyone else who cares about politics like you loyal folks do and 2) really think it's what I look for when voting for any party or person.

1) We've already decided that we as a society will help those who need it. It's not a question of why, it's a question of how best to do it. - I like this angle more than give to someone by taking for another. How can we be the most effective with the support we want to give? It's a process, it's not simple, and it's rare there will ever be perfection but continual progress in protecting the most vulnerable.

2) Conservatives think that simple questions have simple answers, the reality is things are much more complex. - JG13, not targeting you but just cause it was the most recent conversation but housing affordability. It's not just build the homes, or waive development fees, or halt immigration, but a combination of all these factors and more.

I used the first one when talking to a coworker today and actually got her thinking, so I call that a win. Carry on with your days peeps