Apolitical Staples

Greg, when you are saying “it is the parent’s responsibility” and therefore even the CPC plan is wrong, because it subsidises young children, you should bear in mind that most families pay more income tax than other Canadians in comparable economic circumstances. This is true regardless of whether one or both parents work.

Mark, that sounds wrong. I take into consideration the deductions for childen, tax credits, education credits, family allowance, etc…

Can you provide some numbers?

Colin, for children who are not in child care (for example, in the 12-16 age range at least), there are no deductions for children or tax credits, no family allowance, no education deduction (unless they are paying university tuition). For lower income families, there is the national child tax benefit, but it goes to zero with a total family income above $90,000, and is only about $100 a month with two kids at a family income of $60,000 (for whom income taxes would be in the $1000 a month range). These are not high incomes, for families of four living in the big cities.

Above about $90,000 family income a family of four with both parents working pays exactly the same tax as a childless couple on the same income. Since the family of four is obviously poorer than the childless couple, and our tax system is progressive, this means that families are taxed more heavily than others.

I checked this by working out different tax returns, using the forms from the CCRA website, and using CCRA’s child tax benefit calculator.

Further, if the total income of the family was split among the adults and children, and taxed separately, the total tax paid would drop by about 50%. This is an indication of how strongly progressive our tax system actually is.

“Others feel it is the responsibility of the state to lessen the burden of choice.”

That just isn’t so, Greg. I believe quality day care should be available if a parents choose to use it. I am not in favour of manditory state child care.

I also reject that this is an either/or situation. Some kind of blended system with both payments to parents and child care on offer is the way to go.

What about the current situation is not blended?

There is quality day care available to those who choose it.

This “National” (for which it is anything but) Child Care Plan does NOTHING for people who happen to be shift workers. It does NOTHING for people who would live too far away from a Gov’t daycare.

Harper’s plan, while not a lot of money right now, is at least a start into building towards something in giving me and my family choice because we choose not to use a daycare centre.

It helps us in our choice of raising our children at home with one parent; where they are better off during their formative years. I have not yet met one person who can convince me that a daycare is better than mom or dad. The Liberal’s plan doesn’t even offer a choice. It doesn’t even come close.

“I believe quality day care should be available if a parents choose to use it.”

It is. Or alternatively, if you think there’s a market, start a day care. Or alternatively, if you think there are a lot of people who require day care but are unable to pay for it, start a not for profit charity day care. I’ll help you get it registered. Just stop pickpocketing me to raise your kids.

What needs to also be remembered is that it is different across Canada. Here in SK, 80% of working parents use care other then a daycare. { Home care is the most popular} The liberal plan would not have helped very many families here, as most of Sask’s alloted dollars are to go to wages { and trust me, these poor workers are VERY underpaid} and operating costs. You have to be lower-income to receive any subsidies here. I believe I saw stats from 2002\03 that said 1\3rd of Canadian children used some form of 3rd party care. If only 1\3rd of children are in 3rd party care, what about the other 2\3rds? Equal Funding for Children of Equal Value????

Greg, I used to think the way you do, but if we don’t encourage and assist people to have children, we are heading for trouble. The demographics show that we are increasingly going to have to rely on immigration to sustain ourselves. Immigration has some positive aspects, but I think we also want some population increase within our own country.

Greg, you do know that Mike Harris tried the tax incentive route? It just didn’t work. So, the CPC “pledge” to create child care spaces is just so much smoke.

if you fund the child, it will open the daycare spaces up to those who need it…

yes we are over taxed and it needs to be corrected…

thank you all so much for this..

“Immigration has some positive aspects”

Just for informational purposes, what are they?

If people need to be encouraged to procreate, should they?

Occam, I assume these are rhetorical questions, but in case you’re serious:

“Just for informational purposes, what are they?”

Canada’s birthrate is declining seriously. Who do you think is going to pay for all those social programs in the future if we don’t at least replace ourselves? That isn’t happening except for certain immigrant populations, and poor single mothers in the North. Not a bright scenario.

Not only do we need to increase the birthrate here, but we need to allow qualified immigrants to be able to use their skills when they arrive there, so that we can increase the number of doctors available, etc.

“If people need to be encouraged to procreate, should they?”

I think so. This society is not condusive to valuing children and families. That has to change first.

Let’s try not discouraging procreation first for a while, and see how that goes. If the tax system treated children as well as seniors, say, I’ll bet we’d see more kids bornn.

I’ve had 3 children, is that not contributing to society?

I don’t get a pension for it though

Who do you think is going to pay for all those social programs in the future if we don’t at least replace ourselves?

All of this wailing and gnashing of teeth about the future viability of welfare programs is really just an acknowledgement that they are nothing but pyramid schemes. In our socialist system those who concern themselves with their own future by working hard, saving their money, and investing their money either in businesses or by raising children, are punished. Their money is confiscated from them so that it can be transferred to people who don’t work, who don’t save any money, and who don’t give a damn about the future. Here is the Trudeaupian message to Canadians: even if you drop out of school, and only work 10 weeks a year (or zero weeks a year), and you don’t bother saving and investing any of your money, and you don’t bother going to the tremendous pain and effort and expense of raising children, the State will take care of you. You will get unlimited free medical care for life, you will get welfare and/or pensions and/or EI forever, you will get free or subsidized housing, and you will get free or subsidized placement in a senior’s home. The less you do, the more you are given.

In the short term, no wonder so many people say, to hell with working, to hell with saving, to hell with raising kids. All of the wealth in this country has been pooled, and I’ll make out just fine whether I kick anything into the kitty or not.

In the long term, no wonder so many people say, “Who do you think is going to pay for all those social programs in the future?”

Justzumgai, just to be clear (wow, sounds like a politician talking), I am not in favour of the “cradle to grave” dependency that socialist espouse.

However, the very platforms that the Liberal and NDP promote may ironically serve to destroy that concept.

Anything that destroys the integrity of the family and devalues children is going to have a negative consequence on our national birthrate. I would suggest that gay marriage, abortion, and the lack of recognition of the difficulty in raising kids these days all contribute to this mindset. Even child pornography is an extreme consequence of this lack of regard for the rights of the child.

If we don’t start supporting policies that value children and families, then there will be little incentive for people to have them. Why not go for the big toys instead? Self-gratification is our new mission statement.

O.K. That’s all for today’s sermon.

I want to know how many $100 per child per month cheques will be sent to Bountiful, British Columbia. Home of the completely stay-at-home-mom’s and the multitudes of home-taught children. Personally, though I as a parent have no children under 6, I think it would be better to put the money into sources who will provide good child-care at an approved place, and have parents pay a sliding-scale sum, or a reasonable flat fee, rather than just send money to ppl who like to have their children home/schooled and need no choice in daycare. Also, the CPC bill does not take into account any after-school care working parents might need after the child reaches 6 and in the hours between 3 and 5-6 pm school days.
I think putting taxpayer money into childcare spaces that people can choose to use or not makes more sense. And for pete’s sake anonymous, Canada has been standing up for children for ages, not just standing up for the people who don’t have children. Stupid argument. So, kidless wonders, are you going to nickle and dime your way out of other social services, like fire-fighters, police, and coast guard cuz you don’t smoke, don’t cause trouble or live near water? Get with the program, eh. Canada has supported social programs since it’s inception. If you don’t like it, leave. There are gated, no children allowed, communes for you in other places of the world. What exactly do you think you pay taxes for?

I want to know how many $100 per child per month cheques will be sent to Bountiful, British Columbia.

Where is this list of verboten ideologies and beliefs we’re going to make up and agree on that determines which families in Canada get state support and which do not?