Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

This is my point.... I don't believe that the filter between society paying for other kids daycare and not paying for it should be are you well off or not well off.

A family with a household income of 100,000 and 1 child can live comfortably. Not well off but certainly not needing a government assisted program paid by tax payers. Perhaps this is a way to stimulate an economy with too many job vacancies but we are nowhere near that (despite some claiming this will help put people back to work)

It is such a touchy subject that I can see why it was brought up.... Solid political move imo. I sound like a bad guy being against it when the majority would benefit from it.

It's funny that you keep on the 100K mark saying they can make it work. If you want to stick with this narrative might I suggest you do some digging and see how much it costs for a family of 3 to live?

We menu plan and take lunches to work, rarely eat out, watch for sales before we make purchases, have a strict budget. Why? Because we have to, and we make over your 100K threshold. I'm not looking for a hand out, but man it's quite annoying when someone who has no idea about life with a kid thinks they have it all figured out.

[PepsiFree]

I imagine a household pulling in 100K is very very tight budget wise when you factor in rent/mortgage, bills, and especially if you add in student loans (before you even get to childcare costs).

100K just is not a lot of money for two people.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Its a garbage idea. You either subsidize all child care or you subsidize only those low-income earners.

Subsidizing based on type of daycare (including NPOs and day homes but not private daycares) makes zero sense and all of the sudden makes a rush on being in the "right" daycare for subsidy rather than what works best for the family or will have the best outcomes.

And that doesn't even get into the whole cost side of things. As someone with 2 day care aged children, this would be a great win for my family, but I'm at least responsible enough to acknowledge the stupidity of giving away free money at a time when the province has none. Many low/mid income earners will fall for this ploy given it may net them thousands a month.

They did say that eventually all child care would be subsidized (obviously they didn't say when). I do wonder though what will happen to private daycares though, will a bunch of parents jump ship to dayhomes and NPO's? If the gap was long enough I think that could be a real possibility and could be an issue.

[Weitz]

Would the 'threshold' be before or after your partner returns to work? That would be a huge factor into whether I could support such an idea or not.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

I just think the take of “others peoples kids” is silly.

They’re Allbertans. Who will grow up and contribute to the economy... you want people to be well cared for, healthy, and educated. So they can contribute positively.

How is saying that government subsidized day care is Albertan citizens paying for "other peoples kids" out of line?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the idea, it is 100% the general population, regardless of income subsidizing other peoples kids day care.

PepsiFree, I sit corrected if we have not had multiple debates in other threads. I do not have time to go back and look but apologize if it was not you but will go edit my last couple of comments that mentioned you by "username".

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I imagine a household pulling in 100K is very very tight budget wise when you factor in rent/mortgage, bills, and especially if you add in student loans (before you even get to childcare costs).

100K just is not a lot of money for two people.

Our kid is heathly and has no special needs. I really couldn't imagine having a kid with issues and making 100K work.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I imagine a household pulling in 100K is very very tight budget wise when you factor in rent/mortgage, bills, and especially if you add in student loans (before you even get to childcare costs).

100K just is not a lot of money for two people.

Just a potential scenario many could take advantage of...
What about $90,000 on one income with a spouse at home?
Send the kids to $25 day care and start a business while leaving the money in the business paying yourself the minimum to remain below the threshold?

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Just a potential scenario many could take advantage of...
What about $90,000 on one income with a spouse at home?
Send the kids to $25 day care and start a business while leaving the money in the business paying yourself the minimum to remain below the threshold?

Come on now, most people aren't out to game the system. Of course there will ALWAYS be people who do it but it will be minimal.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Just a potential scenario many could take advantage of...
What about $90,000 on one income with a spouse at home?
Send the kids to $25 day care and start a business while leaving the money in the business paying yourself the minimum to remain below the threshold?

Where’d they get the bank roll to “start a business” on $90k between two people with “kids”?

Honestly what % of the population would you think this scenario would apply too? Sorry, I’m honestly not deliberately arguing with you, I just disagree with your points holding any weight.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

It's funny that you keep on the 100K mark saying they can make it work. If you want to stick with this narrative might I suggest you do some digging and see how much it costs for a family of 3 to live?

We menu plan and take lunches to work, rarely eat out, watch for sales before we make purchases, have a strict budget. Why? Because we have to, and we make over your 100K threshold. I'm not looking for a hand out, but man it's quite annoying when someone who has no idea about life with a kid thinks they have it all figured out.

The 100k mark is because I believe it is what the proposal was (110k maybe?) and not because I am pulling it as a random number.

Supporting 3 kids on 100k is different than supporting 1 kid on 100k. Supporting 1 kid on 100k income is not "barely getting by".
What about supporting 1 kid on 100k coming from 1 spouse?

Is it really fair that tax payers subsidize the household with 1 person working making 100k and 1 kid the same way they would subsidize a household with 4 kids with 2 people working making 50k each?

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Where’d they get the bank roll to “start a business” on $90k between two people with “kids”?

Honestly what % of the population would you think this scenario would apply too? Sorry, I’m honestly not deliberately arguing with you, I just disagree with your points holding any weight.

I never said it was a likely common scenario but 1 of many ways to take advantage of it. What I find even more funny is that a household with 1 person making 100k and the other spouse not working will pay $30 daycare while a household with a combined income of 30k will pay $25 daycare?

Maybe I have this wrong (again as calling Pepsi out was) but thats what I recall reading.

It is easy to start a business with a few hundred dollars nowadays. I am not talking bricks and mortar but online service but that is a completely different topic.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

The 100k mark is because I believe it is what the proposal was (110k maybe?) and not because I am pulling it as a random number.

Supporting 3 kids on 100k is different than supporting 1 kid on 100k. Supporting 1 kid on 100k income is not "barely getting by".
What about supporting 1 kid on 100k coming from 1 spouse?

Is it really fair that tax payers subsidize the household with 1 person working making 100k and 1 kid the same way they would subsidize a household with 4 kids with 2 people working making 50k each?

The NDP plan had no limit on income. I believe the AP plan may have but I have no idea where you got your numbers from.

How do you know supporing 1 kid on 100k is barley getting by? You literally have no idea how much a kid costs so I don't think you can make that statement.

Sorry it's really hard to talk with you about this subject because you really aren't informed on it and you don't seem to be open to seeing it from the other side.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

I never said it was a likely common scenario but 1 of many ways to take advantage of it. What I find even more funny is that a household with 1 person making 100k and the other spouse not working will pay $30 daycare while a household with a combined income of 30k will pay $25 daycare?

Again.... $100K between two people with a kid could absolutely use assistance.

And you said “a scenario MANY could take advantage of”. Which is why I asked how you see that as a likely scenario.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Just a potential scenario many could take advantage of...
What about $90,000 on one income with a spouse at home?
Send the kids to $25 day care and start a business while leaving the money in the business paying yourself the minimum to remain below the threshold?

"The NDP plan excludes rural families, shift workers, parents who work at home, and those who prefer less formal kinds of child care."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/albe...tley-1.4351243


Sounds like you wouldn't be able to do that.

[Travis Munroe]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

Again.... $100K between two people with a kid could absolutely use assistance.

And you said “a scenario MANY could take advantage of”. Which is why I asked how you see that as a likely scenario.

Yes, I stand by that.. many COULD take advantage as in anyone who has 1 spouse working COULD try this although someone later posted the details on exclusions and it appears that it would require more workaround than just opening a service business from home.

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

The NDP plan had no limit on income. I believe the AP plan may have but I have no idea where you got your numbers from.

How do you know supporing 1 kid on 100k is barley getting by? You literally have no idea how much a kid costs so I don't think you can make that statement.

Sorry it's really hard to talk with you about this subject because you really aren't informed on it and you don't seem to be open to seeing it from the other side.

Huh?

How do I know supporting 1 kid on 100k is barely getting by? I never said that. I said supporting 1 kid on 100k is much different than supporting 3 or 4 kids on 100k.

While I don't have kids, I have plenty of friends who do. I have a decent understanding of the costs involved and it doesn't appear that my friends who have 1 spouse working for 100k a year while the other is at home with the baby are "struggling".

Anyway, agree to disagree ...I am going to bow out of the daycare debate. I walk away more informed on the topic and knew my opinion wouldn't be a popular one as the majority seem to have children. Until the next topic

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Supporting 1 kid on 100k income is not "barely getting by".

You literally said right here that supporting 1 kid on 100K is not barely getting by. I'm saying that you really don't know how much barely getting by is because you aren't informed on how much a kid costs.

Originally Posted by Travis Munroe

Huh?

How do I know supporting 1 kid on 100k is barely getting by? I never said that. I said supporting 1 kid on 100k is much different than supporting 3 or 4 kids on 100k.

While I don't have kids, I have plenty of friends who do. I have a decent understanding of the costs involved and it doesn't appear that my friends who have 1 spouse working for 100k a year while the other is at home with the baby are "struggling".

Anyway, agree to disagree ...I am going to bow out of the daycare debate. I walk away more informed on the topic and knew my opinion wouldn't be a popular one as the majority seem to have children. Until the next topic

I don't know your friends or their situation, I am telling you my situation. We aren't struggling, but we have very little wiggle room and we are above your threshold. If there was a subsidized childcare progam it would give us the ability to put more money back into the economy in other areas, which is what my original point was pages ago.

[Jiggy]

I see both sides of it. I had a single mom who raised two kids with no help from the government and it was tough for her financially. But as a family we got through it and now both of her kids are in a position to help her out. I feel if she got through it a lot of families can in this day and age. My main concern would be how is the province going to pay for this? The deficit is ballooning out of control and there is no end in sight.

[AltaGuy]

As has been shown in Quebec, daycare subsidies come out to be revenue-neutral over time.

[OMG!WTF!]

Offering it to everyone gets you more votes than offering it to a smaller group of people who were likely voting your way anyway.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Jiggy

I see both sides of it. I had a single mom who raised two kids with no help from the government and it was tough for her financially. But as a family we got through it and now both of her kids are in a position to help her out. I feel if she got through it a lot of families can in this day and age. My main concern would be how is the province going to pay for this? The deficit is ballooning out of control and there is no end in sight.

Good for your mom for getting through it. You're right that a lot of people can get through it. But that's not really the point is it? I personally have a distaste for this sort of argument. Nothing personal against you, a lot of people make similar statements such as "well, I had to work 18 hours a day, live in squalor, eat expired dog food and I made it so you can too!" It isn't a valid argument. Nobody makes it on their own. Everyone has different degrees of help. Everyone has different degrees of luck. Everyone has different degrees of skills and knowledge. Some people need more help than other people.

As a society, we have to decide how much help we collectively provide and to which people and under which circumstances. It's hard to determine the best path and it's usually messy and we usually get it wrong. But over time we tend to get it a little less wrong until it starts to make more sense. This is why dialogue is important where we hear all opinions, look at facts, examine precedents, see how it's done elsewhere and try to make an objective opinion. Unfortunately, most people aren't objective but pretend to be. Every political thread we have here is a clear example of that. I think I could have told you how 80% of CP would vote before the election was called, the platforms were issued or even the candidates were selected. I could have told you this based on the name of the Party alone. Elections are important: we should take them seriously and not vote based on the colour of the lawn sign.