NationStates Jolt Archive

People bring up Universal Child Care...and Harper comes up with this $1200 per child per year thing. Huh? What the heck is THAT going to pay for? I'll tell you what...about a month and a half. That's it. Average child care costs are $650 per child. There are provincial and territorial subsidies that may come into play for low-income families...but $1200 just doesn't cut it! And he makes all these grand speeches about, 'the opposition can try to pull us down if they don't support this'...like it's a monumental move, and like the leaderless opposition is actually in any shape to do SQUAT.

No good, Harper. What you're talking about is a drop in the bucket...NOT UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE.

What...there are no Canuks on right now? WAKE UP PEOPLE!

That's why I voted NDP.

The Liberals may have been crude in their comparison when they said that, "Canadians will spend the money on beer and popcorn.", but at least it makes sense in a way.

That's all the money will be good for. $1200 won't do anyone any good.

Sorry, just someone from south of the border here with questions...

What is the current state of child care in Canada? I seem to recall reading something about Quebec having a subsidized model that differs from the rest of the country, but I don't know how it differs, or if that's even accurate.

Then why is the media just gushing over it, like it's a big huge stinking deal? I mean...Harper seems convinced that this is going to save the country...but the media doesn't have to buy into the delusion. No one seems to want to point out the obvious (beside Rick Mercer), that this is a joke.

I think it's one of the dumbest things to come out of his mouth in a long time.
It doesn't even address the issue of daycare because it's too small an amount for people who need it, and it's $1200 too much for people who don't.

I have issues with subsidised daycare, but I still feel that Quebec's 7$ a day system is better than nothing for single mothers and others who need daycare and have a limited income. For those people, Harper's deal is insulting.

Sorry, just someone from south of the border here with questions...

What is the current state of child care in Canada? I seem to recall reading something about Quebec having a subsidized model that differs from the rest of the country, but I don't know how it differs, or if that's even accurate.
Québec has a subsidised child care system for all parents (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and so child care costs about $5 (GOG's saying $7) a day. But other provinces also have child care subsidies for people who are low to middle-income. In Alberta, daycares tend to be pretty expensive ($650 per kid, per month), but there are dayhomes which are subsidised more. They can only charge you a maximum of $380 per child, per month. The government makes up the rest of the amount to the child care provider. That's an automatic subsidy. You can get more if you simply can't afford that. At one point, when my husband was studying, and I didn't get paid for a month, I got a full subsidy, and free child care.

But if I have one more kid, it will cost me the bulk of my salary just to have them in child care. It wouldn't make financial sense to keep working.

Sorry, just someone from south of the border here with questions...

What is the current state of child care in Canada? I seem to recall reading something about Quebec having a subsidized model that differs from the rest of the country, but I don't know how it differs, or if that's even accurate.
Quebec has subsidised daycare where parents pay 7$ a day, while the provincial government pays the other ±18$ required. The waiting list for the CPEs, as they are called, is about two years.

In comparison, 1200$ a year works out to about 4.80$ a day. So it wouldn't even pay for the cheapest and most accessible daycare in Canada.

Why should upper income folks get the $1200? That's what I don't get. I'm upper income right now, and I sure as hell don't need the money. Oh, don't get me wrong...it'd be nice and all...but I'd really rather it went to the people to whom that sum would make a real difference. In this case....the truly, truly destitute, because it's a pretty paltry amount.

Québec has a subsidised child care system for all parents (someone correct me if I'm wrong), and so child care costs about $5 (GOG's saying $7) a day. But other provinces also have child care subsidies for people who are low to middle-income. In Alberta, daycares tend to be pretty expensive ($650 per kid, per month), but there are dayhomes which are subsidised more. They can only charge you a maximum of $380 per child, per month. The government makes up the rest of the amount to the child care provider. That's an automatic subsidy. You can get more if you simply can't afford that. At one point, when my husband was studying, and I didn't get paid for a month, I got a full subsidy, and free child care.

But if I have one more kid, it will cost me the bulk of my salary just to have them in child care. It wouldn't make financial sense to keep working.
Child care in Quebec cost 7$, not 5$. It was raised two or three years ago.

I am far from impressed about Harper's deal. I am even less impressed about the consequences that this deal will have. You can say bye-bye to bilateral deals on childcare that Quebec and a few other provinces made with the liberals. That means that current, exisiting programs will see their revenue dry up and will scramble to find another source. I expect child-care in Qc to raise to 9-10$ soon.

Harper's childcare scheme is an ideological spin on an idea they probably wouldn't have implemented in the first place. Frankly, the only reason the Liberals would have done so was because of their minority position and relying on the NDP for support.

Personally, having been raised by a single mom, I find it kind of funny that Canadians finally find it imperative for the government to hand over the funds to take care of their kids. Those of us who grew up without it managed just fine.

My brother and his wife have two children under 6. $200 a month, is $200 a month. It's nothing to scoff at. (Of course, it's something to scoff at if taxes are deducted.) My brother who can't work due to a disability will be watching the kids once mom is finished maternity leave, so they won't be requiring a day care service.

But what about parents who decide to both work? Obviously someone has made a choice there, that they're willing to make some extra money, spending some of that money to take care of your kids only makes sense.

If anything, I think that 'childcare cash' should apply to single parents only. But that's just my bias.

Bottom line, is that it's a campaign promise, and if they want to be reelected, they intend to keep it. But they should listen to some of the criticisms of the NDP and modify it to some extent.

Child care in Quebec cost 7$, not 5$. It was raised two or three years ago.

I am far from impressed about Harper's deal. I am even less impressed about the consequences that this deal will have. You can say bye-bye to bilateral deals on childcare that Quebec and a few other provinces made with the liberals. That means that current, exisiting programs will see their revenue dry up and will scramble to find another source. I expect child-care in Qc to raise to 9-10$ soon.
That's the problem...Harper is talking about making this the ONLY way. So he's actually taking away with one hand, and giving back a tiny morsel with the other.

I'm pretty freaked about it. As it is, childcare is a problem for me. If it goes up much more, even without an extra kid, it won't make sense for me to be working until the kids are school-age.

But it seems when people point out the flaws, Harper turns it into, "YOU DON'T SUPPORT CHILD CARE!!!"

Typical political-twisting...but sheesh!

If anything, I think that 'childcare cash' should apply to single parents only. But that's just my bias.

I know in my case, my decision to work is in order to provide my family with stability. My husband's profession is rather volatile...one month he can bring in $10,000...then be without work for two months. My job ensures that at least one of us will have some sort of pension, and that our family has health-care coverage.

I don't think the money should only be for single parents...but it should be for the lowest income parents...and in many cases that will be single parents. Childcare costs make up 35% of my salary. That's a pretty big chunk. If I was on my own, I would not be able to cover my mortgage, my childcare expenses, and actually put food on the table. My husband's income allows us to do this...but even making the money we are, we don't have much left over.

I make $25 an hour, roughly. Consider what two parents, each bringing in minimum wage are making...and what percentage of that double income goes into childcare. This is why I really don't think that single parents alone need the help.

I know in my case, my decision to work is in order to provide my family with stability. My husband's profession is rather volatile...one month he can bring in $10,000...then be without work for two months. My job ensures that at least one of us will have some sort of pension, and that our family has health-care coverage.

I don't think the money should only be for single parents...but it should be for the lowest income parents...and in many cases that will be single parents. Childcare costs make up 35% of my salary. That's a pretty big chunk. If I was on my own, I would not be able to cover my mortgage, my childcare expenses, and actually put food on the table. My husband's income allows us to do this...but even making the money we are, we don't have much left over.

I make $25 an hour, roughly. Consider what two parents, each bringing in minimum wage are making...and what percentage of that double income goes into childcare. This is why I really don't think that single parents alone need the help.

I realize that it's hard for anyone with low income, and you're right, it should be tied to income. My industry is similar to your husbands, in the sense that it's very seasonal. It's also relatively low-paying for most of my employees. A lot of these guys have kids, in some cases only on weekends, etc. However, during our busy season, when push comes to shove I tell them to find a babysitter - no choice. How does 9 to 5 childcare help these people when they work uncertain hours and rarely 9 to 5?

It's difficult, but they manage. Some extra funding helps for certain, but I don't think massive amounts of cash handed over to the provinces to spend 'as they see fit' is really the right answer either.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I understand the need to help out low-income families, but I don't think massive state-funded daycare centres are the answer. And yes, there should be a cut-off for people over a certain income.

If we don't have some sort of tax-funded daycare system, tied into income, then what do we do? The fact is, it's getting harder and harder to make it on a single income. Many couples decide that both partners will work, because they have to. This work fuels our economy...but it could swiftly become impossible if families can no longer afford childcare. So what do we do?

If we don't have some sort of tax-funded daycare system, tied into income, then what do we do? The fact is, it's getting harder and harder to make it on a single income. Many couples decide that both partners will work, because they have to. This work fuels our economy...but it could swiftly become impossible if families can no longer afford childcare. So what do we do?

I see where you're getting at, and I suppose the end-game is that we end up really needing a publicly-funded childcare system. I just have these fears of 20 years down the road the public talking about reforming the childcare sytem and massive childcareworker strikes. Meanwhile, the cost to implement a truly national daycare system would be staggering. That money has to come from somewhere; obvioulsy working people.

Whatever happened to family looking out for each other? (geez, I'm starting to sound like a Republican... help me...)

The problem with family caring for your children is the reality of our family structures in Canada. Many family members live far away from one another. Often the move is made in order to study, or to find work. Many families have no relatives near by.

As well, people are working longer. Grandmothers you might wish to raise your children are probably still making minimum wage at WalMart, or teaching, or checking your letters for sufficient postage at Canada Post.

For many of us, family is just not an option.

I agree that a publicly funded child care system could become a nightmare...but it's better than the alternative! Public funds are already being spent to subisise daycares for low income families. Instead of handing out $400 prosperity cheques, idiots like Ralph Klein could use some of that excess cash to fund a scheme like this. We need to look at things like how our oil revenue gets siphoned off south...because we don't build refineries, and let the US sell our oil back to us. This province of Alberta in particular is rolling in the cash, but it's not trickling down. We need to make these systems more efficient, less corrupt, and look at ways of better utilising the billions we have.

I for one begrudge no one a hefty slice of my income. What I object to is the cronyism, the inefficiency and the bloated bureaucracy that turns my dollars into cents.

The problem with family caring for your children is the reality of our family structures in Canada. Many family members live far away from one another. Often the move is made in order to study, or to find work. Many families have no relatives near by.

As well, people are working longer. Grandmothers you might wish to raise your children are probably still making minimum wage at WalMart, or teaching, or checking your letters for sufficient postage at Canada Post.

For many of us, family is just not an option.

Point taken. Although there's this idea that one could always think about this stuff before they have children. *waits for flying bricks*

I agree that a publicly funded child care system could become a nightmare...but it's better than the alternative! Public funds are already being spent to subisise daycares for low income families. Instead of handing out $400 prosperity cheques, idiots like Ralph Klein could use some of that excess cash to fund a scheme like this. We need to look at things like how our oil revenue gets siphoned off south...because we don't build refineries, and let the US sell our oil back to us. This province of Alberta in particular is rolling in the cash, but it's not trickling down. We need to make these systems more efficient, less corrupt, and look at ways of better utilising the billions we have.

No argument here. It amazes me that Klein would stick to his ideological guns when he's flush with cash. Senseless.

I for one begrudge no one a hefty slice of my income. What I object to is the cronyism, the inefficiency and the bloated bureaucracy that turns my dollars into cents.

I think that's supposed to be part of the idea of direct payment to parents. Take the middle-man out. (okay, it's obviously about buying votes, but you know what I mean.)

Point taken. Although there's this idea that one could always think about this stuff before they have children. *waits for flying bricks*

Alright...but who is to say your parents WANT to care for your kids while you work? What...they didn't do enough work raising you, that they should get to do it again? What if your parents, or aunts and uncles simply aren't qualified to raise your kids. Perhaps they are disabled, or have addictions issues, or are just bad parents, period. Perhaps they are just too old to manage young children. What if they don't want to move, and you can't find work in that area?

People don't make these choices based on nothing. I think that most families would prefer to have a relative caring for their children. I know I would. But it just isn't possible for us. Should I remain childless because of that? What an empty life this would be without my girls.



I think that's supposed to be part of the idea of direct payment to parents. Take the middle-man out. (okay, it's obviously about buying votes, but you know what I mean.)And I like the idea of cutting out the middlemen, but just not in this way. If the money is slated to be for childcare, make sure it's spent there...and that the funds are sufficient. This money, no matter how you try to stretch it, isn't every close to being what is needed to fund a workable child care system.

I don't know what the answer is, to ensure that the money is maximised, and not frittered away in secondary costs. I'm sure there are groups out there that have really reserached this and looked into alternatives though...I wonder if we could find any information on those alternatives?

Clearly this is an issue that is evolving as our nation evolves. It wasn't an issue fifty years ago, because most women weren't working, they were caring for their kids, or a relative was nearby to do it. We can't go back to those times even if we wanted to. The paid work of women is vital to our economy, and that is not going to change. Once upon a time, we didn't need a lot of things...but as things come up, we have to adapt. This is one of those things. Time to figure out a real solution, instead of trying to recreate the past.

This discussion appears to be about daycare. Which is wrong. With Harper you get what Americans got with Bush and his unfounded No Child Left Behind that almost every state - even Utah - is opting out of.

Any discussion of national daycare programs will have to wait until the Liberals remake their image and take back the government. Which could be in six or more years... And even then, after 13 years of Liberal leadership, we had to wait until they were against a wall at 6 months until election for them to start making significant deals.

Yes well, while we're holding our breath on that one:D we can just go on ahead and think of how a Universal Child Care plan would actually work, rather than believing that Harper's got it wrapped up!

that woudln't even cover my dental bills.

My chiropractor laughs about Harper, and Canadian Conservatives in general. The Liberals were working to create a plan, and what do the Conservatives do? They throw money at people. Just like Klein's Conservatives --their solution is to throw money at people. How conservative is that?

Yeah! Good point! What kind of fiscal responsibility is involved in cutting cheques for people, no questions asked??

My chiropractor laughs about Harper, and Canadian Conservatives in general. The Liberals were working to create a plan, and what do the Conservatives do? They throw money at people. Just like Klein's Conservatives --their solution is to throw money at people. How conservative is that?

The liberal plan was to throw money at the provinces, and let them figure it out. (There weren't any real stipulations, just 'spend it on childcare'.) As far as I understand, there was even a 1 year clause for either the federal of provincial governments to back out. (Not to mention that the liberals promised childcare several times over their 12/13 years in power).

I'm not excusing Harper's scheme. I'm just saying the Liberals were big on promises and short on delivering. (Unless they promised to take your money.)

I'm not excusing Harper's scheme. I'm just saying that politicians are big on promises and short on delivering. (Unless they promise to take your money.)
Corrected:D

My husband always asks why these people can't be sued for the outrageous promises they make...he says it's nothing but a bigger version of selling snake-oil, and we don't let that go on unregulated any more...

Corrected:D

My husband always asks why these people can't be sued for the outrageous promises they make...he says it's nothing but a bigger version of selling snake-oil, and we don't let that go on unregulated any more...

Too true! I once contemplated the idea that politicians would be accountable by law to keep the promises they made during election time. Then I envisioned the Natural Law Party getting into power and tax money being used to build Maharajaland and making Elephants disapear. (I don't know if anyone else remembers them...)

Too true! I once contemplated the idea that politicians would be accountable by law to keep the promises they made during election time. Then I envisioned the Natural Law Party getting into power and tax money being used to build Maharajaland and making Elephants disapear. (I don't know if anyone else remembers them...)
Oh yes...they'd also have to have initiated their defence program which involved yogic flying...

Okay, some CBC commentary on the subject;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/

(Funny that this thing has been bouncing around since 1970, and we're talking about the fears of a two-tier system before it's even really off the ground...)


I'll see if I can't find some alternatives out there...

Oh yes...they'd also have to have initiated their defence program which involved yogic flying...

LOL! I forgot about that... Damnit, why weren't they around this time? Hell, they got more coverage than the green party ever did! I want my yogic flyers...

I wonder what their daycare scheme would have been like?

LOL! I forgot about that... Damnit, why weren't they around this time? Hell, they got more coverage than the green party ever did! I want my yogic flyers...

I wonder what their daycare scheme would have been like?
Probably children would be left unatended in gymnasiums while government-paid psychics monitored them from Iceland.

The liberal plan was to throw money at the provinces, and let them figure it out. (There weren't any real stipulations, just 'spend it on childcare'.) As far as I understand, there was even a 1 year clause for either the federal of provincial governments to back out. (Not to mention that the liberals promised childcare several times over their 12/13 years in power).

I'm not excusing Harper's scheme. I'm just saying the Liberals were big on promises and short on delivering. (Unless they promised to take your money.)
I've been reading a bit about Day Care. The National Day Care program was first promised by Brian Mulroney's government in 1994. Quebec opened the first private Day Cares in 1997 and since then, there are about 600,000 across Canada, one third of those in Quebec. Although they are regulated, the quality of Day Care differs radically from business to business, not just in care of the children, but promoting and nuturing development. The Liberals' plan was to introduce institutionalized Day Care, similar to public schooling, probably with similar Authorities that would have provinces hold Day Cares to particular standards of education, similar to curriculum for schools, something federal regulation doesn't do. Regulation just deals with things like infrastructure and conduct within the law.

From what I could tell by Internet search, the Liberals had done *nothing* practical about implementing the National Day Care plan that would fund this, simply because it was not on the budget ticket until this upcoming year (budgets are set up years in advance, at least in the provincial government, where I work). Of course, now it won't happen at all unless, as Weinbia pointed out, a different party can get itself elected.

Probably children would be left unatended in gymnasiums while government-paid psychics monitored them from Iceland.

They can do that? :eek: I wonder if you can pick up a psychic monitor from WalMart. I imagine it would be less noisy than the standard baby monitor.


This article from the childcare advocacy association of Canada is kinda convincing (but then again, my brain is like play-doh and very malleable.)

http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/resources/pdf/framework_cc.pdf

Gotta hate it when people start comparing you to Europe and they start saying 'try that, it works.' Because they're often right...

1% of GDP seems like an awfully small amount for the dividends that it would pay off.

I think that any sort of system would have to take into account that not everyone works 9 to 5 jobs anymore. What about parents who work graveyard shifts? I think it would be a more costly endeavour than anyone would think... but probably more beneficial to everyone in the long run.

This article from the childcare advocacy association of Canada is kinda convincing (but then again, my brain is like play-doh and very malleable.)

http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca/resources/pdf/framework_cc.pdf
Cool, thanks.

I grinned when I got to the 2nd paragraph on page 10. I wonder if the Conservatives got only that far in the document before deciding on their strategy, as it seems to be designed to address that, and only that.

Cool, thanks.

I grinned when I got to the 2nd paragraph on page 10. I wonder if the Conservatives got only that far in the document before deciding on their strategy, as it seems to be designed to address that, and only that.

In all honesty I doubt any of them have read it. They needed a way to compete with the Liberals and NDP on childcare and figured out a way to disguise a 'tax refund' as 'child care'. If it wasn't on the agenda, they never would have brought it up.

Politicians are just a lying bunch of old fat chums. Always has been...with some exceptions...but they broke so many promises that it's not even worth it anymore.

I heard the $1200 is taxable as well. I have not been able to confirm that one way or the other, but just imagine. $1200 is a pittance to begin with, and then the government claws back some of it.

People don't make these choices based on nothing. I think that most families would prefer to have a relative caring for their children. I know I would. But it just isn't possible for us. Should I remain childless because of that? What an empty life this would be without my girls.


But just to play devil's advocate here, it is, at the end of the day, a subsidy for having children. One could question whether that is a good policy on an already overcrowded planet.

I don't question the value children add to people's lives. But should it be subsidised out of the public purse?

The baby bonus will just encourage nasty selfish "beer & popcorn" parents to have more kids..

making life easier for poor people is a good thing from the worldpopulation point of view --families stuck in the cycle of poverty tend to have more children. Affordable daycare would allow both parents to work steady jobs, but unfortunatly Harper comes from a "traditional values" party. (You know, The man is supposed to work late provide for the family...woman is busy producing conservative spawn)

Is anyone else unimpressed with Harpers Child Care dealio?Rick Mercer got an answer: :D

http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/video_player.html?happy_fun_kids

People bring up Universal Child Care...and Harper comes up with this $1200 per child per year thing. Huh? What the heck is THAT going to pay for? I'll tell you what...about a month and a half. That's it. Average child care costs are $650 per child. There are provincial and territorial subsidies that may come into play for low-income families...but $1200 just doesn't cut it! And he makes all these grand speeches about, 'the opposition can try to pull us down if they don't support this'...like it's a monumental move, and like the leaderless opposition is actually in any shape to do SQUAT.

No good, Harper. What you're talking about is a drop in the bucket...NOT UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE.
The fuuny part is, the Liberals and NDP's plan was to spend money to open new daycares. It is not that people cannot afford daycare, the problem is that waiting lists in urban centers are approaching a year in length. All this money is going to do is fuel the current bidding war and push rates higher.

The fuuny part is, the Liberals and NDP's plan was to spend money to open new daycares. It is not that people cannot afford daycare, the problem is that waiting lists in urban centers are approaching a year in length. All this money is going to do is fuel the current bidding war and push rates higher.
It is also a part of the Conservative's plan to spend money to open new daycares. That is one thing they all have in common.

It is also a part of the Conservative's plan to spend money to open new daycares. That is one thing they all have in common.

From what I understand, it's a significantly smaller portion of those funds, something like 20%. I know they're looking at providing tax incentives to business for creating spaces, although the critics don't particularly like that idea.

Personally, the more I look into it, the more a national daycare strategy seems inevitable, and needed. I think that it should be part of the education system, but not mandatory. For intance, if there is a stay-at-home parent, one could decline the early portion of the education system in return for the taxes that one would have spent on childcare. That way, parents who wish to raise their children in a more 'traditional' fashion can do so, with little difference in their pocket books. Also, it would give parents choice; take a second job for the income, or watch the kids for a slightly lower 'income'.

Although there seems to be some compelling arguments for traditional forms of raising children, society is increasingly becoming a 2-income family. The benfeits would far outweigh the costs of universal daycare.

I heard the $1200 is taxable as well. I have not been able to confirm that one way or the other, but just imagine. $1200 is a pittance to begin with, and then the government claws back some of it.
Alarm bells went off for me the other day when it was described as a 'tax break'. Tax breaks never mean that you get back the full amount of the break...so $1200 could swiftly become $0.

But just to play devil's advocate here, it is, at the end of the day, a subsidy for having children. One could question whether that is a good policy on an already overcrowded planet. It may be a crowded planet, but crowded is not a word we can use to describe Canada. We are already feeling the effects of the strain of underpopulation as baby-boomers head into retirement. If we don't encourage Canadians to have more kids, then our other solution is immigration. Consider how much money is spent on helping immigrants integrate into Canadian society, and compared it to this 'child subsidy'. It won't look that scary anymore.

But hey...I'm pro-immigration, so if that's the route we want to take, I'm fine with it too. It's just not going to be any cheaper.

I don't question the value children add to people's lives. But should it be subsidised out of the public purse?Considering those children do not exist in isolation, but rather also become fruitful members of society...then yes. Just like education is subsidised out of the public purse, because the last thing we need as a society is a bunch of undeducated little punks running around. Even childless couples benefit from children, when those children grow up, get jobs, and start running the country:D

The baby bonus will just encourage nasty selfish "beer & popcorn" parents to have more kids.. Nice 'first' post.

Let's consider the cost of having, and raising children:
- one parent, usually the mother, can not work for a certain period of time after the birth. They may, or may not have been eligible for maternity or parental benefits, but even if they were, it is only a percentage of their regular income. Therefore, that recovery time is lost wage time.
- a package of diapers costs about $17. I'm talking the smallest package. A baby will go through a package in about a week, if not earlier. Let's just say a week, and consider that the child will be in diapers likely until they are a year and a half old, some potty train sooner, some later. That's $204 per year.
- baby clothes aren't cheap...even if you manage to find second hand clothing (which you should...does baby really need Gap? No.) Consider that the way babies grow out of things, you're looking at about $50 minimum monthly in clothing. $600
- you need a baby seat, and likely a stroller. $150
- if you go the cheaper route and buy a play pen with a bassinette instead of a crib, you can spend $150 instead of about $350-$400.
- the kid has to eat! Even assuming you breast feed, they still start needing more around six months. Whether you buy premade food, or make you're own, you're spending about an extra $60 a month on groceries. $720 a year.
- kids get sick. A lot. If you're not covered under a health plan (most people aren't), budget about $25 per month on medicine, as an average. $300
- if the child is in childcare, you'll be paying about $650 a month.

So far, with the barest of expenses, we have $7800 a year, per child. Minus the $1200, assuming it's straight cash, that still leaves you $6600 in the hole.

Wow! What a financial benefit there is in having kids!

making life easier for poor people is a good thing from the worldpopulation point of view Don't worry...rich families will get the money too, because they really, really need it. families stuck in the cycle of poverty tend to have more children. Affordable daycare would allow both parents to work steady jobs, but unfortunatly Harper comes from a "traditional values" party. (You know, The man is supposed to work late provide for the family...woman is busy producing conservative spawn) Hear Hear! I absolutely think affordable daycare is more important than this silly scheme.

Rick Mercer got an answer: :D

http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/video_player.html?happy_fun_kids
That's what started this whole thread:) I love this quote:

"Remember, kids are are an investment. And investments shouldn't COST money, they should MAKE money!"

The fuuny part is, the Liberals and NDP's plan was to spend money to open new daycares. It is not that people cannot afford daycare, the problem is that waiting lists in urban centers are approaching a year in length. All this money is going to do is fuel the current bidding war and push rates higher.
Correction...the problem is both that people can not afford daycares, and/or that they can't get into daycares.

Found a good resource: Childcare Canada http://www.childcarecanada.org/

Alarm bells went off for me the other day when it was described as a 'tax break'. Tax breaks never mean that you get back the full amount of the break...so $1200 could swiftly become $0.

I am really not clear on what it is. If it is a $100 a month payment, then it might well be taxable. Or it might be a tax credit, and you would get to deduct the full amount from your taxes. But if it is just a $1200 deduction from your taxable income, then how much you actually end up with depends on your tax rate.

I am really not clear on what it is. If it is a $100 a month payment, then it might well be taxable. Or it might be a tax credit, and you would get to deduct the full amount from your taxes. But if it is just a $1200 deduction from your taxable income, then how much you actually end up with depends on your tax rate.

Isn't it a $1200 taxable benefit? The whole idea was that people in upper income brackets would get far less because it would be eaten up in taxes (trying to appear populist and 'fair' by giving everyone the same amount in the first place.)

The problem with that, is that if it is treated as 'income', it may very well push you into the next tax bracket and you end up paying more than you did in the first place. For people with multiple children under 6, it would be even more noticeable.

Unless they're changing things...

It may be a crowded planet, but crowded is not a word we can use to describe Canada. We are already feeling the effects of the strain of underpopulation as baby-boomers head into retirement. If we don't encourage Canadians to have more kids, then our other solution is immigration. Consider how much money is spent on helping immigrants integrate into Canadian society, and compared it to this 'child subsidy'. It won't look that scary anymore.

But hey...I'm pro-immigration, so if that's the route we want to take, I'm fine with it too. It's just not going to be any cheaper.

Considering those children do not exist in isolation, but rather also become fruitful members of society...then yes. Just like education is subsidised out of the public purse, because the last thing we need as a society is a bunch of undeducated little punks running around. Even childless couples benefit from children, when those children grow up, get jobs, and start running the country:D

I was being a bit disingenuous with that argument ... I don't seriously believe it. The thought had merely crossed my mind.

But, while Canada is not "crowded" per se, we are already near the carrying capacity for our vast country. Mind you, that is because of our overconsumption, not our overpopulation. So we need to take steps to address that if we want to be able to increase our population. Plus we can't just ignore the fact that on a global scale, there is overpopulation, and we have a role to play in addressing that. Does immigration help there? I'm not sure ... it can spread the population over the planet more evenly so that the detrimental effects aren't as concentrated, but it can also alleviate population pressures in some areas, to which people might respond by just having more children. Hard to say. Either way, I don't think having more children is bad, provided we are prepared to make the sacrifices in terms of consumption that are necessary.

I am not sure where the baby-boomers fit into all of this. Part of me says ... let them support themselves. They have been the most priveleged generation of all time. They got cheap publicly funded post-secondary education, a good health care system, great job market, etc., and then they took these privileges away from subsequent generations because they wanted tax cuts, then had the nerve to tell us we were slackers. On the other hand, I know not every baby boomer benefited, and that there are people who will need looking after. But part of me thinks we should help out those that need supporting (based on socioeconomic status) and let the rest fend for themselves.

Isn't it a $1200 taxable benefit? The whole idea was that people in upper income brackets would get far less because it would be eaten up in taxes (trying to appear populist and 'fair' by giving everyone the same amount in the first place.)

The problem with that, is that if it is treated as 'income', it may very well push you into the next tax bracket and you end up paying more than you did in the first place. For people with multiple children under 6, it would be even more noticeable.

Unless they're changing things...

I think it is a taxable benefit, I have just not been able to confirm it one way or the other. The Tories are keeping quiet about that aspect of it, and I'm not sure the media even understands how it works.

But I have never understood the complaint about being pushed into a higher tax bracket. That merely means your marginal rate increases, not your overall rate. So they may pay a higher portion of the $1200 in taxes, but their after-tax income will still be higher. It is the fact that it is so low to begin with, and then they are taxing a portion of it that makes it ludicrous.

It is being touted as Choice in Childcare, but it really gives no-one the choice to do anything. It is not enough to afford childcare if you couldn't already.

I was being a bit disingenuous with that argument ... I don't seriously believe it. The thought had merely crossed my mind.

But, while Canada is not "crowded" per se, we are already near the carrying capacity for our vast country. Mind you, that is because of our overconsumption, not our overpopulation. So we need to take steps to address that if we want to be able to increase our population. Plus we can't just ignore the fact that on a global scale, there is overpopulation, and we have a role to play in addressing that. Does immigration help there? I'm not sure ... it can spread the population over the planet more evenly so that the detrimental effects aren't as concentrated, but it can also alleviate population pressures in some areas, to which people might respond by just having more children. Hard to say. Either way, I don't think having more children is bad, provided we are prepared to make the sacrifices in terms of consumption that are necessary.

I am not sure where the baby-boomers fit into all of this. Part of me says ... let them support themselves. They have been the most priveleged generation of all time. They got cheap publicly funded post-secondary education, a good health care system, great job market, etc., and then they took these privileges away from subsequent generations because they wanted tax cuts, then had the nerve to tell us we were slackers. On the other hand, I know not every baby boomer benefited, and that there are people who will need looking after. But part of me thinks we should help out those that need supporting (based on socioeconomic status) and let the rest fend for themselves.

Don't be too quick to discount the boomers. They'll remain an important market demographic for some time to come. One of our accounts is CARP (Canadian Association of Retired Persons) and they already hold a lot of sway. Once the majority of the boomers are in that age bracket, they are still going to run the show with their spending habits.

Also, although I understand the generational disgruntlement, the boomers at least tried to make this country a better place to live, and it largely is so. We're just left with the bill...

Don't be too quick to discount the boomers. They'll remain an important market demographic for some time to come. One of our accounts is CARP (Canadian Association of Retired Persons) and they already hold a lot of sway. Once the majority of the boomers are in that age bracket, they are still going to run the show with their spending habits.

Also, although I understand the generational disgruntlement, the boomers at least tried to make this country a better place to live, and it largely is so. We're just left with the bill...

I understand that they are an important market demographic, not to mention the dominant political force. The slag younger people for not voting, but it is easy enough when the politicians cater to your every whim. When do politicians ever say anything that speaks to young people? How often did the issue of the environment and international human rights (issues young people care about more) come up in the last election vs. tax cuts and health care (issues for the oldsters).

They did make the country a better place to live ... for them. And then refused to pay for it, as you stated. We should turn them all into soylent green when they hit the age of 70. :)

I understand that they are an important market demographic, not to mention the dominant political force. The slag younger people for not voting, but it is easy enough when the politicians cater to your every whim. When do politicians ever say anything that speaks to young people? How often did the issue of the environment and international human rights (issues young people care about more) come up in the last election vs. tax cuts and health care (issues for the oldsters).

They did make the country a better place to live ... for them. And then refused to pay for it, as you stated. We should turn them all into soylent green when they hit the age of 70. :)

All that soylent green would put the Gen X farmers out of work!!

Maybe it could be used as baby food in order to pay for national daycare...

Harper; tories: incompetent? NEVER. ;)

All that soylent green would put the Gen X farmers out of work!!

Maybe it could be used as baby food in order to pay for national daycare...

Gen Xers are too lazy to farm. :) (It has nothing to do with the fact that Boomers insist on paying so little for food it is economically impossible to run a farm).

That is an awesome idea ... I wish I'd though of that. Should we get together a proposal for the PM? :)

Gen Xers are too lazy to farm. :) (It has nothing to do with the fact that Boomers insist on paying so little for food it is economically impossible to run a farm).

That is an awesome idea ... I wish I'd though of that. Should we get together a proposal for the PM? :)

Hey! I'm a Gen Xer.... wait... you're right.... we're doomed...

I'm not so sure I'm ready to turn my more frequent customers into Soylent Green yet. Maybe if I can ship the product?

Hey! I'm a Gen Xer.... wait... you're right.... we're doomed...

I'm not so sure I'm ready to turn my more frequent customers into Soylent Green yet. Maybe if I can ship the product?

It's a deal. We'll give Harper a little brown envelope to make sure you get the contract. I know people in the PMO. :)

It's a deal. We'll give Harper a little brown envelope to make sure you get the contract. I know people in the PMO. :)

Sweet. The elderly get too many discounts anyway. And this way, they pay back to society and our young ones are fed!

Ah, the circle of life...

Why do people think that the $1200 has anything to do with the actual cost of daycare???

It's simply directing the funds differently. Instead of assisting with the costs by funding daycare providers witht his money, they are opting to use those funds to directly assist the users of daycare.

There's merit in both approaches for different reasons, but it isn't meant to imply that anyone can entirely pay for their daycare needs with this money.

Let's consider the cost of having, and raising children:
- one parent, usually the mother, can not work for a certain period of time after the birth. They may, or may not have been eligible for maternity or parental benefits, but even if they were, it is only a percentage of their regular income. Therefore, that recovery time is lost wage time.
- a package of diapers costs about $17. I'm talking the smallest package. A baby will go through a package in about a week, if not earlier. Let's just say a week, and consider that the child will be in diapers likely until they are a year and a half old, some potty train sooner, some later. That's $204 per year.
- baby clothes aren't cheap...even if you manage to find second hand clothing (which you should...does baby really need Gap? No.) Consider that the way babies grow out of things, you're looking at about $50 minimum monthly in clothing. $600
- you need a baby seat, and likely a stroller. $150
- if you go the cheaper route and buy a play pen with a bassinette instead of a crib, you can spend $150 instead of about $350-$400.
- the kid has to eat! Even assuming you breast feed, they still start needing more around six months. Whether you buy premade food, or make you're own, you're spending about an extra $60 a month on groceries. $720 a year.
- kids get sick. A lot. If you're not covered under a health plan (most people aren't), budget about $25 per month on medicine, as an average. $300
- if the child is in childcare, you'll be paying about $650 a month.

So far, with the barest of expenses, we have $7800 a year, per child. Minus the $1200, assuming it's straight cash, that still leaves you $6600 in the hole.

Wow! What a financial benefit there is in having kids!

Truth of that aside, you have to admit there are some people out there in desparate situations who don't think things through so well (hence why they're in a desparate situation in the first place). I don't think we need to be providing them anything that they can construe as being a reason to have a child. The reasons for having children should be entirely internal.

Which, when it comes down to it, is yet another reason the Harper plan is ill-advised, and the plan of simply making day-care more subsidized a better one.. people who aren't figuring in the cost of day-care under Harper's plan won't be figuring it in under the subsidized version either. Hence, no incentive.

Why do people think that the $1200 has anything to do with the actual cost of daycare???

It's simply directing the funds differently. Instead of assisting with the costs by funding daycare providers witht his money, they are opting to use those funds to directly assist the users of daycare.

There's merit in both approaches for different reasons, but it isn't meant to imply that anyone can entirely pay for their daycare needs with this money.

Well, possibly because the proposal was sold as providing "Choice in Childcare". As I pointed out already, if you couldn't already afford childcare before, you probably can't now. If you could afford it, then the $1200 is gravy. There are very few people that fall in the middle and are all of a sudden going to be able to afford childcare whereas they could not before. So it does not really offer much choice to anyone. That is the lie.

Well, possibly because the proposal was sold as providing "Choice in Childcare". As I pointed out already, if you couldn't already afford childcare before, you probably can't now. If you could afford it, then the $1200 is gravy. There are very few people that fall in the middle and are all of a sudden going to be able to afford childcare whereas they could not before. So it does not really offer much choice to anyone. That is the lie.


Again, you're making an unfounded assumption that the money, whether used like this or not is actually PAYING for this Childcare.

By not funding the providers directly, it is assumed that the cost may slightly increase. This credit offsets that and means that the parents ar ethe ones that decide which providers get the "funding". So the choice IS there.

If you could afford chilcare before, this will ease the costs, freeing funds to other costs, the kibnds of costs outlined recently in this thread.

If you could NOT afford childcare before, then with an extra $1200, perhaps you can now.

If you could NOT afford childcare before and you STILL cannot afford childcare, well, at least you have an additional $1200 to help out as you are obviously in dire straights finacially.

But ALL the people that could not previously afford Childcare were left out in the cold as far as assistance if you funded providers and they still could not afford them. This plan helps them some, even if it's still not enough.

But ALL the people that could not previously afford Childcare were left out in the cold as far as assistance if you funded providers and they still could not afford them. This plan helps them some, even if it's still not enough.

No, many of the people that could not previously afford childcare could because the cost was being reduced to about $7 per day. The $3/day the Harper Government is offering is a pittance by comparison.

No, many of the people that could not previously afford childcare could because the cost was being reduced to about $7 per day. The $3/day the Harper Government is offering is a pittance by comparison.


?????

I can't properly respond.

Could they or couldn't they?

If the cost WAS $7/day, how much were they short? All $7?

If the cost was $7/day and this plan gives them $3/day, then the new cost to them is $4/day.
If they still can't afford $4/day, well, then they still have an extra $3/day in their pocket that they did not have before.

Why should upper income folks get the $1200? That's what I don't get. I'm upper income right now, and I sure as hell don't need the money. Oh, don't get me wrong...it'd be nice and all...but I'd really rather it went to the people to whom that sum would make a real difference. In this case....the truly, truly destitute, because it's a pretty paltry amount.

What do you do for a living?

?????

I can't properly respond.

Could they or couldn't they?

If the cost WAS $7/day, how much were they short? All $7?

If the cost was $7/day and this plan gives them $3/day, then the new cost to them is $4/day.
If they still can't afford $4/day, well, then they still have an extra $3/day in their pocket that they did not have before.

No the cost of the subsidised program which the Conservatives scrapped to pay for the $1200 a year was $7 a day (at least in Quebec, it may have varied slightly from place to place). I can guarantee you that the privately provided daycare on which people will now have to rely costs a heck of alot more than $7 a day (I think $28 a day was the figure offered earlier). Which is why what the Conservatives are offering is such a pittance.

I just don't plan on sending my kids to daycare when I have them. :p By the sounds of it, it'd be cheaper for either me or my wife to quit work and take care of the kids than to try to put them in a place with strangers who I don't know that I'd actually trust to look after my kid, anyway.
So, for people who don't use daycares, this $1200 is a nice little bonus. Opposition parties are trying to get more money though, so who knows? Maybe they'll squeeze some blood out of the stone. ;)

So, for people who don't use daycares, this $1200 is a nice little bonus.

Agreed. The Liberal plan provided nothing for people who choose to stay home with their kids. Which is why I never understood why this was an either or proposition. Why couldn't they offer subsidised daycare for those who need it and a tax credit for stay-at-home parents? It seems like either extreme tries to force everyone into the same mold.

Correction...the problem is both that people can not afford daycares, and/or that they can't get into daycares.
Meh,I over locallized the issue. Here, people are mostly concerned about the fact you need to book the childs daycare the day the mother gets pregnant.

Meh,I over locallized the issue. Here, people are mostly concerned about the fact you need to book the childs daycare the day the mother gets pregnant.

OMG ... is the free market failing to provide enough daycare spaces to meet the demand? I am deeply shocked.

OMG ... is the free market failing to provide enough daycare spaces to meet the demand? I am deeply shocked.

That's a good question...

I see them sprouting up like crazy around here. I know that ECE training was highly popular some time ago, and a lot of people who took this in college aren't in that field. I'm guessing it's just a matter of the marketplace trying to feel out the volatility of the business. I'm sure there are a lot of potential customers, but maybe not enough who could afford it.

At any rate, I doubt they suffer from having to competitively reduce their pricing.