[VioletlightHeron]

Is the $1200 a direct contribution from the state or is it a tax deduction one could claim later? It would almost make more sense to me to have a childcare deduction so that lower income people could have their tax burden lowered. This may not be applicable to the Canadian system, but when the state of Wisconsin was experimenting with welfare reform, one of the things they did to help single mothers get back into the workforce was to give them cash vouchers to give them an immediate helping hand and after they had found a job and had a steady source of income, they switched the voucher to a tax deduction for state income taxes, with a larger deduction for lower income families. Would that work in Canada? I dunno, but i think it would help more than state built cookie-cutter daycare programs.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Is the $1200 a direct contribution from the state or is it a tax deduction one could claim later?

It's a direct contribution from the state, so that if you have no other income, and therefore pay no taxes, you will get to keep it tax-free.

A tax deduction would make more sense, because you'd be able to make sure it was applied to those with lower income. As it is, this profoundly unconservative Conservative baby bonus plan is going to benefit those families that can afford to have one member stay home, and who have no additional child care expenses.

One of the federal parties is actually proposing to use the existing Child Tax Benefit to provide up to $1000/child to lower income families. That's roughly equivalent to the Conservative plan, but it makes sure that the money goes to those who need it most -- so that the taxpayer's dollar is well spent, and is not used to buy video games for middle-class kids.

The same party is also promising a national daycare plan that, unlike the Liberal plan, will impose standards on how the provinces can spend the money, again to make sure the taxpayer's dollar is well spent.

That party would be the dirty socialist NDP, the only party in this election campaign that's not trying to spend money like water.

Go figure.

Okay, that's enough blatant partisanship for one day.

[Sam]

That party would be the dirty socialist NDP, the only party in this election campaign that's not trying to spend money like water.

Go figure.

Okay, that's enough blatant partisanship for one day.

Hey! What's a little blatant partisanship amongst online friends? :wink: Do you have the "Don't blame me, I voted NDP" button? Honestly, I should just get that tattooed on my forehead and be done with it.

[j-monster]

While one can argue whether the amount provided by the Conservatives' announced child-care plan is enough, I'd still argue that this plan is better than the national daycare plan advocated by the Liberals. What if a family with young children does not want to put them into institutionalized daycare? What if they want to sacrifice and have a stay-at-home parent, or what if they want to have a relative like a grandparent look after the child when the mother goes back to work? Then the Liberal plan gives you how much in daycare? A big fat zero.

Skippy, I see where you mention the NDP would use the existing Child Tax Benefit to provide additional benefits to lower income families... and I think that's great. But otherwise the NDP is still trying to create a national daycare program when many parents don't want their children enrolled in daycare. I think many parents want to try to have parents stay at home and are willing to sacrifice the additional monies a two-income family would provide in order to make that happen. Also where families have relatives who can look after the children, then that is a valid option as well. I understand that where a two-income family cannot sacrifice the income or for single-parent families, for example, that daycare is a necessary option. But parents should have as much choice as possible in raising their children. Having just a national daycare program does not provide that choice... having government benefits where you can choose how the money is spent does.

[skippy the wonder dog]

j-monster, first off, nobody is going to force anyone's kids into daycare. So the complaint that a national daycare program is being created when some people don't want their kids in daycare, well, I don't see the relevance.

Second, to use the kind of rhetoric that conservatives usually use when criticizing the fuzzy-headed socialists -- in other words, in all cases outside of this bizarro election -- I'm not responsible for paying for other people's kids. If you choose (one a them good, conservative words) to have kids, and you choose to quit your job and stay home with them, why should the state be giving you $100 a month -- particularly if you live in a $225,000 suburban house?

Jesus! Why am I making that argument? Did I fall through the looking glass?

The point of a national daycare program is that it serves the public good -- i.e., unlike the Harper plan, you benefit even if you don't have kids under 6. You benefit because more parents (mostly mothers) are able to work if they so choose, save money, pour water all over the economy to make it grow, and so on.

At some point, the cost of daycare, compared to the wage you take home, makes it simply not worth the trouble to go to work -- you might as well stay home with the kids. Subsidizing daycare lowers the income threshold here, and lets more people stay at work. They are still free to quit their jobs, if they choose, but that's their problem, not ours.

[j-monster]

Skippy, I realize that no one will force children into a national daycare program... that's not my argument. My argument is, if government is going to further subsidize childcare (and obviously all the major parties are planning to make this happen in some form or another), shouldn't it do so in a way that all children, or at least as many children as possible, benefit? The Liberals, and to a lesser extent the NDP, are putting all their eggs in one basket... institutionalized daycare. That's great for families who want their children in daycare, or who have no other choice but to do so. But that is still a relatively small percentage of children in Canada, and it doesn't do anything to benefit parents who want to have a parent stay at home or have some other childcare arrangement in mind.

There is also the argument of whether putting children in institutionalized daycare is more or less effective in developing them at an early age than if a parent or relative stays at home to take care of them. I think most would agree it's better if at all possible if a parent can stay at home to care for their children. If so, then perhaps the public good is better served by encouraging this rather than focusing only on institutionalized daycare.

[sherpahigh]

I'm only comparing the political will of the wartime gov't versus the political will of the current gov't. When they want to act, they can and do. They even do things that are smart and efficient. It can happen.

As for national daycare being a priority - it is for people who lack affordable, safe daycare but require 2 incomes to stay financially afloat.

I still don't see the relevance. A government at war is vastly different monster than a government trying to win an election. There was a real need during the war to get those women out into the workforce. Now, it's just a matter of opinion whether or not a nationalized daycare would be a good thing. I'm of the opinion that it is not.

[skippy the wonder dog]

My argument is, if government is going to further subsidize childcare (and obviously all the major parties are planning to make this happen in some form or another), shouldn't it do so in a way that all children, or at least as many children as possible, benefit?

This argument doesn't really make sense. If I keep my kids at home, why does the government have to step in to give me something extra?

What this proposes, essentially, is that families can have assistance paying for daycare, or on the other hand, extra cash if they keep their kids home. Extra cash for what?

The cost of daycare, at an average $25 a day nationally, is not comparable to any additional cost imposed on a family in which one parent stays home.

Someone has foolishly proposed that it is, because there is an opportunity cost in the latter case. Please, don't try to pursue that line of reasoning. If the government is to compensate us for the opportunity costs involved in the choices we make, we'll be bankrupt in no time. The taxpayer should not be paying anyone's opportunity costs. If you want money, take the opportunity instead -- for a conservative to argue otherwise would be, well, just plain odd.

There is also the argument of whether putting children in institutionalized daycare is more or less effective in developing them at an early age than if a parent or relative stays at home to take care of them.

This is a favourite ploy of the "daycare is evil" crowd, and again, the argument goes nowhere.

The big problem, leaving aside the question of how $100 a month is an incentive to stay home in the real world, is that you need to make the case that the benefits of keeping kids home are significant. Pointing to studies that suggest those kids are less violent or a little smarter at age 5 doesn't do it. Using those studies to make inferences about future crime rates, as social conservatives do, is bunk. Those kids will not grow up to become antisocial losers.

I'd suggest that the variability within the population of stay-at-home kids is greater than the observed differences between the populations.

The economic benefits of letting people get to work, on the other hand, are real.

[VioletlightHeron]

This is a favourite ploy of the "daycare is evil" crowd, and again, the argument goes nowhere.

The big problem, leaving aside the question of how $100 a month is an incentive to stay home in the real world, is that you need to make the case that the benefits of keeping kids home are significant. Pointing to studies that suggest those kids are less violent or a little smarter at age 5 doesn't do it. Using those studies to make inferences about future crime rates, as social conservatives do, is bunk. Those kids will not grow up to become antisocial losers.

I'd suggest that the variability within the population of stay-at-home kids is greater than the observed differences between the populations.

The economic benefits of letting people get to work, on the other hand, are real.

It's not so much that "daycare is evil" but more along the lines of giving parents a Hobbesian choice of having cheap daycare so more people can enter the workforce or being more involved in your child's educational growth by staying home or having relatives babysit. My sister and husband have two pre-teen boys and they were extremely leary of daycare as the boys grew older because the government-subsidized ones here were terrible and they were not convenient in terms of distance and time schedule. Terrible in the sense that the first one they were in for after school programs wanted to get the youngest on Ritalin because he was so rambunctious. I'm sorry but a 6 year old is going to be a mild basketcase on a good day! :lol: I also think the government-subsidized daycare and after school programs tend to label rambunctious or independent kids as problem kids or slow learners way too fast and they do that because they either dont have enough staff or have an attitude. The other question is why should higher income single earner families be hit with a higher tax bracket because they followed the rules, got a good education and a good job? Isn't it the government's job to promote success and stable families?

[skippy the wonder dog]

Terrible in the sense that the first one they were in for after school programs wanted to get the youngest on Ritalin because he was so rambunctious. I'm sorry but a 6 year old is going to be a mild basketcase on a good day! :lol: I also think the government-subsidized daycare and after school programs tend to label rambunctious or independent kids as problem kids or slow learners way too fast and they do that because they either dont have enough staff or have an attitude.

Extrapolating from a sample size of one?

This problem is already said to exist in the school system. It's not inherent to daycare. Whether it's a real problem, and how widespread it is, is open to debate.

There will always be good and bad daycares. This leads to a question: given that some parents need daycare, is it better to have a framework that establishes standards of training and standards of delivery, or to just leave parents to look around and see what they can find?

The Conservative Party proposes to leave parents to look around and see what they can find. The Liberal Party proposes to pour money on the provinces, and leave parents to look around to see what they can find.

Only one party is proposing national standards. But I guess that's because the NDP doesn't believe in offering parents the freedom to choose substandard care.

The other question is why should higher income single earner families be hit with a higher tax bracket because they followed the rules, got a good education and a good job? Isn't it the government's job to promote success and stable families?

Honestly, VLH, I don't even see what you're getting at there. Are you proposing that those families are being treated unfairly because income tax is based on individual income, rather than family income?

If so, separate issue.

[sherpahigh]

Only one party is proposing national standards. But I guess that's because the NDP doesn't believe in offering parents the freedom to choose substandard care.

Obviously the government knows best how to provide superior service. Things really went downhill around here after the government got out of the booze hawking business.

Who's to say that the government needs to run the day-cares in order to establish national standards? Couldn't this be done by enforcing licensing regulations?

[skippy the wonder dog]

Who's to say that the government needs to run the day-cares in order to establish national standards? Couldn't this be done by enforcing licensing regulations?

It could. But the Conservatives aren't offering that option, because they don't believe in it -- so what's your point? You agree that there should be national standards, but don't want non-profit daycares?

No need to clarify. I've got a pretty good idea.

Where do you get the idea that someone is saying that establishing national standards requires that daycares be government-run?

Nobody is saying that. The argument for government-run daycares (actually, the proposal doesn't specify this, rather requiring only that they be non-profit) is about cost, not quality.

The requirement for national standards surrounding how the taxpayer's dollar gets spent is a separate issue.

It's just a coincidence that the same party that wants those national standards is also the party that wants subsidized daycares to be non-profit, for cost reasons. And it's unfortunate that the other parties just want to throw money at child care, no strings attached.

But you know, that's them pesky fucking socialists in the NDP again.

[VioletlightHeron]

Only one party is proposing national standards. But I guess that's because the NDP doesn't believe in offering parents the freedom to choose substandard care.

Obviously the government knows best how to provide superior service. Things really went downhill around here after the government got out of the booze hawking business.

Who's to say that the government needs to run the day-cares in order to establish national standards? Couldn't this be done by enforcing licensing regulations?

That's a good point; even though the provinces are getting the money and are supposed to be running the programs, you can bet Ottawa would be highly involved in all aspects of the program. Given that Quebec's program doesn't have enough spaces to meet demand and the provincial government is paying 82 percent of the real cost and is budgeted at 1.7 billion dollars this year alone, how can 5 billion dollars realistically cover the other 10 provinces cost of building, hiring and training the number of day care workers? The problem, as I see it, is that the Liberal proposal will become a political sacred cow because parents think that they would be getting a good deal for only paying $7 a day, when the hidden cost is much more. Other concerns include the questionable quality of the day care centres and the possibility of long waiting lists.

[VioletlightHeron]

It's just a coincidence that the same party that wants those national standards is also the party that wants subsidized daycares to be non-profit, for cost reasons. And it's unfortunate that the other parties just want to throw money at child care, no strings attached.

But you know, that's them pesky fucking socialists in the NDP again.

Not true, the NDP and those pesky socialists are demanding a non-profit monopoly on day care because they are worried that foreign (read American) corporate day care providers will jump into the market if a national day care program is launched. Quebec's day care program intially banned private providers from joining the program, which costed them out of the market. Only after the private providers complained did the PQ allow them to join, but it forbade the entry of newly created day care businesses from entering the program.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Not true, the NDP and those pesky socialists are demanding a non-profit monopoly on day care because they are worried that foreign (read American) corporate day care providers will jump into the market if a national day care program is launched.

Well, you'll have to share the mindreading technology you're using to reach the unequivocal conclusion that cost is not a factor.

VLH, let me spell this out for you: the concern is that if public funds are directed to for-profit daycare, whether the businesses are American or not, the cost per space will be higher.

If you want to debate that, say, for example, by using actual real-world examples instead of the usual ideological free-market bullshit, be my guest. But don't start playing the anti-American card, as if the NDP's sole motivation is to keep Americans out. That's kid stuff.