Child care options

[Lurch]

The flaws with the Libs plan, are as many have noted, it doesn't consider those who keep their kids at home.

I don't think this is a flaw at all. If the issue is daycare, stay at home parents do not have the issue. Daycare is supposed to allow mothers to return to the workforce, not compensate stay at home mothers. It's akin to saying the northern tax allowance is unfair b/c you have to live in the north to collect it. In order to collect the daycare benefit, it should be a service you require. Canadians have an unhealthy obsession with fairness and equal access to gov't programs - you can see it with healthcare as well. Simply, what possible reason can you give that suggests stay at home parents need money to subsidize their daycare expenses? If you want to call it a baby bonus cheque with the goal of increasing the birthrate, fine - then it makes sense as a 'head subsidy'.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

"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.

The gov't is already taking your tax dollars, and there's not a damn thing you can do about that right now. In Canada, and most (if not all) Western nations, if you're above the average income level, you contribute more than you receive. So your only choice relates to how you want someone to spend that money.

You'd prefer that the governments retain control of the spending, because then at least you'd know that it goes towards child care instead of cigarettes and booze. That's a valid opinion. However, I can't agree with it because a huge increase in *program spending* like this is perpetual. It will lead to permanently higher taxes. Program spending has proven to be seriously addictive, as demonstrated by the current health care system.

On the other hand, if the government gives cash directly to citizens, it isn't really "program spending," but simply an unequal tax refund. This kind of thing isn't nearly as addictive as spending. Over time, this "refund" can be slowly converted to plain old tax credits, thereby cutting out the federal government "middle man," with no net change in government spending.

We HAVE to wean the government off of its spending addiction, and the only way to do that is to give them less control over our money. A socialist "private-wealth-redistribution" is preferable in the short term as opposed to a long-term chain around the neck of all of us (again, health care as example).

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I don't think this is a flaw at all. If the issue is daycare, stay at home parents do not have the issue. Daycare is supposed to allow mothers to return to the workforce, not compensate stay at home mothers.

It's called "opportunity cost."

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Daycare is supposed to allow mothers to return to the workforce, not compensate stay at home mothers.

You are forgetting the reason many mothers become stay at home moms. I know of some instances where the mom is losing 50% or more of her pay in order to put the kid in day care; especially once you factor in take home pay, transportation costs, etc.

Are you saying that a mom who decides to not burden a partially funded day care system should not receive some sort of compensation?

[fredr123]

See, if it's a credit or a deduction then you don't really get anything back from the government (unless your income is so low you aren't paying any taxes in the first place). The idea behind a credit is you calculate how much you owe to the government in income taxes and then subtract from that the amount of your credit. A deduction reduces the amount of income you make which, in turn, means you pay a smaller amount in taxes.

The government would be forgoing a certain amount in tax revenue that they would otherwise collect from parents who could claim the credit/deduction. The Income Tax Act already provides a bunch of credits and deductions for different child-care-related expenses but the amounts are woefully low and the process for claiming it is needlessly complicated.

OH, and on the topic of income splitting and hiring your wife. The income tax act does its best to prevent that kind of thing. There's nothing stopping you from starting your own business and paying family members income but there are complicated attribution rules and income splitting provisions that prevent illegitimate family businesses. Just because someone you know is doing it, doesn't necessarily make it legitimate. Maybe they just haven't been caught yet. After all, you don't get a speeding ticket every time you drive over the speed limit...

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

[quote=Lurch] Simply, what possible reason can you give that suggests stay at home parents need money to subsidize their daycare expenses? [quote]

A couple easy reasons. The first is the exact same reasoning that others use to decry any parental subsidies. If Bob works and Susan stays home, why should they subsidze the day care costs for Dick and Jane who both choose to work and probably enjoy a higher standard of living because of it? Or the flip side of the tax fairness argument. Take your pick.

The second is simply parental choice. If the goal is better childcare for our kids, then who is the best judge of where to get that? Parents, or government? If the choice is to be real, you can't punish parents who choose to have one stay home.

You don't have to agree with those positions, but you're assuming that goal is getting women in the workforce. For a lot of people that's not the goal. The goal is giving families the choice.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

It's called "opportunity cost."

Well no kidding, but since when should gov't compensate a private individual for a choice freely taken. If I choose not to go to university, should I get the portion of costs covered by the gov't? Really, it's a ridiculous idea that I cannot believe is supported one iota. Take it one step further if you want to see how ridiculous your opportunity cost point is. The opportunity cost of not having children would be $1200 per year - why not just give that to everyone since we are now compensating based on opportunity cost?

You are forgetting the reason many mothers become stay at home moms. I know of some instances where the mom is losing 50% or more of her pay in order to put the kid in day care; especially once you factor in take home pay, transportation costs, etc.

Is it me that is forgetting this, or you? I think you compensate the person that makes the choice to work so you don't force them out of the work force - you suggest everyone should get equal treatment even if they choose not to incur the costs.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lurch

I don't think this is a flaw at all. If the issue is daycare, stay at home parents do not have the issue. Daycare is supposed to allow mothers to return to the workforce, not compensate stay at home mothers.

I don't agree with you at all. To me, daycare is a service of taking care of kids during the day, no matter who does it.

If one of the parents (mother or father) wants to stay home with the kids, it should be possible. Not everyone wants to do that. For those that don't, there are services where they can take their kid for care during the day. It's a choice and they shouldn't be forced into making one choice or the other for financial reasons.

At the end of the day, the parents have all the responsibility for their kids. They, and not the government, should be the ones allowed to decide how their kids would best be raised.

[calculoso]

On the tax benefit side, I am of the opinion that there should be no tax benefits for getting married, but there should be for having a kid. Having a kid benefits the country in the long run (one more worker) whereas getting married doesn't benefit the country at all.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

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.

I belive child rearing expenses are deductible, incidentally.

Yours is a very interesting take. To me its going way beyond the extreme. In the same vein then the government should make NO tranfers to individuals because they don't know how the money will be spent. No welfare. No EI. No OAS. They should just provide housing and food stamps because thats the only way to ensure accountability.

I don;t think thats what most people mean when they say 'government accountability'. I think they mean is the government ****ing away millions in phoney programs and fradulent schemes. Maybe thats just me though.

[Lurch]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I don't agree with you at all. To me, daycare is a service of taking care of kids during the day, no matter who does it.

If one of the parents (mother or father) wants to stay home with the kids, it should be possible. Not everyone wants to do that. For those that don't, there are services where they can take their kid for care during the day. It's a choice and they shouldn't be forced into making one choice or the other for financial reasons.

At the end of the day, the parents have all the responsibility for their kids. They, and not the government, should be the ones allowed to decide how their kids would best be raised.

Really, this is just an odd point. Are you arguing that the government should be paying for all services regardless of whether they are done by paid labour or by an individual such as a stay at home mom. Maybe we should give everyone a $1200 housecleaning allowance as well - how is that any different. I clean my own house, but you choose to hire out. Maybe I'd like the option of Saturday being free and clear which you so unfairly get while I'm stuck doing chores.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I don;t think thats what most people mean when they say 'government accountability'. I think they mean is the government ****ing away millions in phoney programs and fradulent schemes. Maybe thats just me though.

It may not be a phoney program or scheme, but Harpers daycare plan certainly could lead be government ****ing away money. Is it a good idea but it honestly wastes money, instead of behind our backs?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Really, this is just an odd point. Are you arguing that the government should be paying for all services regardless of whether they are done by paid labour or by an individual such as a stay at home mom. Maybe we should give everyone a $1200 housecleaning allowance as well - how is that any different. I clean my own house, but you choose to hire out. Maybe I'd like the option of Saturday being free and clear which you so unfairly get while I'm stuck doing chores.

And my point was an odd point?

How does living in a clean house benefit the country?

Raising a kid, and raising a kid properly (ie: to not be a criminal, etc) is in the country's best interest. There should be incentives to have kids, and there should be incentives to raise a kid to the best of a person's ability. If raising a kid best means having both parents working and the kid in childcare, then that's the right of the parents to decide that. If raising a kid best means having one parent stay home and one at work, then that's the right of the parents to decide that.

Obviously, the Liberal program is designed to get everyone back into the workforce, regardless of whether the parents think that is best for their kids or not. I think the choice should be with the parents, and on the basis of what is best for the kid and not what is best for their pocketbook. I'm not saying that *all* expenses for childcare should be paid by the government.... but the monetary factor should be lessened severely.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

It may not be a phoney program or scheme, but Harpers daycare plan certainly could lead be government ****ing away money. Is it a good idea but it honestly wastes money, instead of behind our backs?

So, every day people wasting away money (buying food and clothing instead of daycare services in most cases) is bad, but government bureacracy, management, monitoring, inspection, and certification systems is good?

Sure there are going to be people who spend the money on drugs instead of on their kids. It happens with people's paychecks every day. It will also be a whole lot less than the overhead needed for a clear daycare system though.

[Lurch]

[quote=calculoso]And my point was an odd point?

How does living in a clean house benefit the country?

quote]

Lower health care costs, less likely for pathogens to spread, etc. Really, it's not hard to make up benefits for gov't programs if you want to. You could make the same point in any number of ways but gov't should not compensate for opportunity cost.

[MarchHare]

There should be incentives to have kids

I'm sure most parents will tell you that having a child is its own reward. I don't believe the government should be giving out financial incentives to encourage more pregnancies.

Obviously, the Liberal program is designed to get everyone back into the workforce, regardless of whether the parents think that is best for their kids or not. I think the choice should be with the parents, and on the basis of what is best for the kid and not what is best for their pocketbook. I'm not saying that *all* expenses for childcare should be paid by the government.... but the monetary factor should be lessened severely.

Parents can already choose to have one stay out home. The Liberal plan isn't forcing both parents to work, but it does provide childcare assistance to those parents that do choose that option. Honestly, I don't really like that plan either (as my previous posts have stated), but of the two that have been proposed, it seems far less ripe for abuse than giving out $1200 per child cheques with no further accountability. Under the Liberal plan, parents can still choose to have one stay at home, but they don't get compensation for daycare costs because they're not incurring any daycare costs.

And for parents that do opt for childcare, how much of a dent is Harper's $1200 going to put into their expenses? Granted, I've never looked into the costs of daycares, but $100/month doesn't seem like it would go very far. On the other hand, what exactly are the Liberals proposing, and how much would it offset the costs of daycare?

[Lurch]

Raising a kid, and raising a kid properly (ie: to not be a criminal, etc) is in the country's best interest. There should be incentives to have kids, and there should be incentives to raise a kid to the best of a person's ability. If raising a kid best means having both parents working and the kid in childcare, then that's the right of the parents to decide that. If raising a kid best means having one parent stay home and one at work, then that's the right of the parents to decide that.

I agree with you - but what does getting $1200 per year do towards this goal? Does it make an existing stay at home parent any better? Will it improve the currently existing daycares? Really, in what way does money in your pocket improve your parenting. I might buy that parents would be slightly less stressed financially, but it seems weak that $100/month would improve enough parents lives that suddenly they will become better parents.

[KipperIsGod]

I see this not happening...Remember a time when Chretien promised us he would get rid of GST?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm sure most parents will tell you that having a child is its own reward. I don't believe the government should be giving out financial incentives to encourage more pregnancies.

If this is the stance you take, then you should also believe that the government shouldn't be encouraging immigration either.

Having incentives for each (immigration and having children) is designed to get more workers into the country, which long-term means a better country and more taxes.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Parents can already choose to have one stay out home. The Liberal plan isn't forcing both parents to work, but it does provide childcare assistance to those parents that do choose that option. (snip) Under the Liberal plan, parents can still choose to have one stay at home, but they don't get compensation for daycare costs because they're not incurring any daycare costs.

Sure parents can already choose one way or the other. That's a given. Changing this (ie: subsidizing one vs the other vs both) just means that the government is trying to convince more people to lean one way instead of the other.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And for parents that do opt for childcare, how much of a dent is Harper's $1200 going to put into their expenses? Granted, I've never looked into the costs of daycares, but $100/month doesn't seem like it would go very far. On the other hand, what exactly are the Liberals proposing, and how much would it offset the costs of daycare?

For those that stay at home, how much of a dent is $1200 going to put into their expenses either?

Do you really think that the Liberals (or any government for that matter) could really come up with a viable, practical, accountable, and efficient system for the same amount of money?

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

I belive child rearing expenses are deductible, incidentally.

Yours is a very interesting take. To me its going way beyond the extreme. In the same vein then the government should make NO tranfers to individuals because they don't know how the money will be spent. No welfare. No EI. No OAS. They should just provide housing and food stamps because thats the only way to ensure accountability.

I don;t think thats what most people mean when they say 'government accountability'. I think they mean is the government ****ing away millions in phoney programs and fradulent schemes. Maybe thats just me though.

Yes there is deductions for Child Care expenses although they do leave something to be desired for a stay at home parent.

I have also found that in 1999ish the Government (?Liberals?) introduced the Child Benefit Tax Plan I haven't read it all, but it seems that the govenment ponies up $$$ already if you have a kid

(BTW if you have a kid and don't use this, you should read it maybe you can have some of more of Cube Inmate's money ).

I am learning alot just by having this discussion...

So it seems that there is already a program introduced recently that mirrors some aspect of Harper's plan (you have a kid? Have some $) that was introduced by a Liberal government.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS