Child care options

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Good point Reaper, as long as those labor costs don't drive up the cost of daycare too much.
________
Betsy_S cam

[photon]

The implementation details don't really concern me much. I agree that just dropping a cheque in the lap maybe isn't the best way to do it.

I just think that the economic benifit should be equal to all parents regardless of how they choose to raise their children. Make it so if people choose the daycare then they get their benifit, but if people stay at home adjust the taxes such that a similar economic benifit is gained by parents who choose to take that role upon themselves.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by Reaper

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.

i completly agree. people will pay $75 an hour for their car to be fixed, but scream bloody murder if the care worker costs more than $8/hr. remember people, you get what you pay for.

as well, neither parties plan covers non commercial form of care. how about those families that take their children to privatly run day homes ? those setting offer a more personalized home syle care and should be recognized as a legitimate option. currently, low income parents can get govt subsidy if they take their child to a commercial day care where children are treated like animals at a kennel, but are not elegible for any subsidy if they are taken to a day home.

finally, why arent stay at home parents given similar benefits and respect that the people who farm their children out get ? well, we know why, punishment for not being a tax payer. in the end though, society is better served by children raised at home and not farmed out. but who really cares eh.

[DementedReality]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a childless taxpayer, why should I be forced to subsidize Canadian parents?

because do you want heathens running the streats or do you feel that using some of everyone's tax dollars to help raise children to be smarter, politer and law abiding is a good use of your money ?

dr

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

As a childless taxpayer, why should I be forced to subsidize Canadian parents?

That's kind of the whole point behind taxes; to spread the cost of things across the whole population to lessen the burden on the individual users.

Why should people who take the c-train be forced to pay for road construction? Why should healthy people be forced to pay for a healthcare system?

The other end I guess would be no taxes and a 100% user pay system.

You gain an indirect benifit from Canadian parents anyway. Already the birth rate is so low we have to import people just to keep the population from shrinking. If there were no kids then you wouldn't have anyone to pay for you when you are a greater burden on society when you are older. Or if you didn't pay taxes for their schooling they'd all be dumb and the economy would collapse.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

I would be in favor of providing stay at home parents and (maybe) private day homes fiscal incentives IF and only if there was a system to insure accountability.

Isn't ironic that on one hand the Conservatives have govenrnment accountability as their mantra and then are suggesting a completely unaccountable system to help with aguably our most precious resource...after oil
________
BIG WOMEN LIVE

[MarchHare]

That's kind of the whole point behind taxes; to spread the cost of things across the whole population to lessen the burden on the individual users.

Yes, I understand as much, which is why I have no problems with my tax dollars funding schools (even though I graduated nearly a decade ago and don't have schoolage children of my own), nor do I mind funding other people's healthcare (even though I'm in great health and haven't been in a hospital, well...since the day I was born).

What bothers me, though, is the tax breaks parents get. Why should my tax burden be greater than theirs (assuming identical incomes) because I chose not to have children? Which is also why Harper's plan -- which is nothing more than wealth redistribution from non-parents to parents -- doesn't appeal to me. What it amounts to is a direct subsidy to Canadian parents from taxpayers without children -- or in other words, the people who are getting the benefit of schools, daycares, etc. are not paying their fair share.

because do you want heathens running the streats or do you feel that using some of everyone's tax dollars to help raise children to be smarter, politer and law abiding is a good use of your money ?

That's precisely my point. It's not everyone's tax dollars. It's the tax dollars of Canadians without children. We don't get to claim dependancy reductions on our income tax, so our tax burden is greater. If everyone was paying their fair share, I wouldn't have anything to gripe about.

[Reaper]

Just as an aside on the tax issue... Are there any tax breaks for married people as opposed to single people?

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

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.

You mean like all the Sponsorship money went towards promoting Canada in Quebec? Or that the amount will stay at $X billion and not $X billion X 100 like the gun registry?

Why give the Liberals another chance to siphon money off to Quebec though another one of their programs?

At least with Harper's plan we know the money will go to parents and not greasy Quebecers with mob ties.

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?

If everyone was like you, who would be running the economy in 40 years? Canada would be one big seniors' residence.

Having kids is a benefit to society.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What bothers me, though, is the tax breaks parents get. Why should my tax burden be greater than theirs (assuming identical incomes) because I chose not to have children? Which is also why Harper's plan -- which is nothing more than wealth redistribution from non-parents to parents -- doesn't appeal to me. What it amounts to is a direct subsidy to Canadian parents from taxpayers without children -- or in other words, the people who are getting the benefit of schools, daycares, etc. are not paying their fair share.

Fair point, but everything the government does is someone paying the freight for someone else.

Talk to the university students - they're full grown adults getting your money.

Originally Posted by Fozzie

Isn't ironic that on one hand the Conservatives have govenrnment accountability as their mantra and then are suggesting a completely unaccountable system

That's not fair criticism. If the money isn't in gov't hands, then gov't accountability isn't the issue. You can argue that the parent's aren't the best stewards of their kids. You can also argue that the moeny isn't enough. But the cons stance is completely consistent with their views of government accountability.

[Lurch]

My main complaint about the Conservative proposal is that it is not logical or even coherent policy, and if the NDP/Liberals proposed it, we would rightly be all over the idea. Handing out cash does nothing to address the policy problem, which is that childcare costs force many women out of the workforce due to economic pressures. If you don't get paid for working (loss of tax credits for the husband, transportation costs and childcare costs may actually result in net loss for pay), why would you work? Harper's proposal does NOTHING to change this equation, so what is the benefit other than throwing away tax dollars.

[photon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What bothers me, though, is the tax breaks parents get. Why should my tax burden be greater than theirs (assuming identical incomes) because I chose not to have children? Which is also why Harper's plan -- which is nothing more than wealth redistribution from non-parents to parents -- doesn't appeal to me. What it amounts to is a direct subsidy to Canadian parents from taxpayers without children -- or in other words, the people who are getting the benefit of schools, daycares, etc. are not paying their fair share.

The thought would be that the tax burden for parents should be less because the cost burden is greater.. The government recognizes the value of investing money to the economy or saving for your own retirement so gives tax breaks and shelters to those who do it.

Having kids benifits the country as a whole and should be encouraged. Plus there's additional costs incurred with having kids and the tax breaks help to offset those.

[JohnnyO]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Just as an aside on the tax issue... Are there any tax breaks for married people as opposed to single people?

Nope its more of an additional tax when you get married you earn X dollars and the wife aka the tax woman takes 50% or more. The feds take pretty much what ever is left from that.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyO

Nope its more of an additional tax when you get married you earn X dollars and the wife aka the tax woman takes 50% or more. The feds take pretty much what ever is left from that.

Actually, there are tax benefits to marriage. I cannot think of a single instance where two married people would pay more tax than two single people with identical incomes - maybe someone can enlighten me as I always hear about the marriage penalty but never saw it when I got married. On the other hand, I can think of a few instances where intelligent planning allows married people to reduce their taxes relative to single people. For example, medical expenses for a couple can be grouped and deducted from the higher tax bracket individual. RRSP's can accomplish the same thing, along with capital gains/losses, etc etc.

[Cube Inmate]

Jeezuz H...bring up Canada's social programs, and suddenly all the commies show up.

I hate to sound like FlameofLiberty, but if the government's not going to get TF out of my pocket for its pet programs, at least allocate the money to private citizens to spend it rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all child-care plan on everyone.

"Soviet Canuckistan" isn't that far off if this is really the way people react when the potential government says it wants to give us back some of OUR OWN money.

[MarchHare]

That's not fair criticism. If the money isn't in gov't hands, then gov't accountability isn't the issue. You can argue that the parent's aren't the best stewards of their kids. You can also argue that the moeny isn't enough. But the cons stance is completely consistent with their views of government accountability.

But the money was in the government's hands. Both parties are proposing setting aside $X billion for childcare. The Liberals' proposal is to use that money to fund daycare centres or whatever and make them more affordable to Canadian parents. Ostensibly, that $X billion will be spent on childcare, although whether you agree that their proposed method is the best or not is certainly up for debate. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are taking thier $X billion and giving it directly to the parents, with absolutely no oversight on how that money can be spent. While we would hope that most parents would indeed use that money for childcare, there's nothing to guarantee that everyone will, and we can be damn sure that many parents will abuse the system.

Anyway, we've had similar programs as the one the Harper has proposed in the past, what with the various "baby bonuses" and family allowances that once existed in this country. At its core, it's a purely socialist wealth-redistribution concept, and Lurch is absolutely correct when he states that had it been the Liberals or NDP suggesting this, the conservative posters on this board would be jumping all over them.

According to my T4, I payed $7260.52 in federal income tax last year. Under Harper's proposal, if I had three children, I would cut my tax burden in half, not counting additional claims I could make for having dependants. Does that seem fair to anyone?

[MarchHare]

"Soviet Canuckistan" isn't that far off if this is really the way people react when the potential government says it wants to give us back some of OUR OWN money.

"givs us back some of OUR OWN money"? Certainly not mine. What Harper is actually proposing is taking my tax dollars and giving them directly to Canadian parents, with no oversight or controls on how it can be spent.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Good debate from both sides apart from a couple nut jobs. IMO, both plans have flaws but I prefer the Libs plan.
The flaws with the Libs plan, are as many have noted, it doesn't consider those who keep their kids at home. The problem with the Conservative plan is that it doesn't really consider daycares. It's great for those who will keep their kids at home and use the money wisely, but what about those who still want/need to send their kids to daycares. Unless I'm mistaken, their plan doesn't have any ideas to ensure daycares recieve the funding they need or keep checks on what standards the daycares are run with. This could lead to some really shinguard daycares and force parnets out of the workforce.
Ideally, I would like to see a system like the Lib's that is government regulated/funded but in addition, would have assistance available to stay at home parents as well.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

That's not fair criticism. If the money isn't in gov't hands, then gov't accountability isn't the issue. You can argue that the parent's aren't the best stewards of their kids. You can also argue that the moeny isn't enough. But the cons stance is completely consistent with their views of government accountability.

I respectfully disagree....one can argue that if the government has $X allocated towards improving early-childhood education they should be accountable for insuring that is how that money is used. If they give it to parents it can be used for whatever the parent wants, some parents will use it as it was intended and some won't. But there isn't accountability there.

If they made certain child-rearing expenses tax deductible up to $1200 a year that would be quite different.
________
Easyvape vaporizer

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

Jeezuz H...bring up Canada's social programs, and suddenly all the commies show up.

I hate to sound like FlameofLiberty, but if the government's not going to get TF out of my pocket for its pet programs, at least allocate the money to private citizens to spend it rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all child-care plan on everyone.

"Soviet Canuckistan" isn't that far off if this is really the way people react when the potential government says it wants to give us back some of OUR OWN money.

So, you just hear "give us back money" and you sign the ballot. Great idea!!
No need to concern yourself with the actual issues and how any party plans to solve them.