Apolitical Staples

As Jack Layton says you can’t have choice in child care if there are no child care spaces. C’mon Greg, let’s do both.

And as Health Care costs mount and when CPP busts budgets and when economies turn south lets predestine ourselves to massive deficits by taking up the room.

As you know I am pretty ideological on this one.

If you want government run daycare talk to your Premier.

I would not object to the Cons providing a one-off “startup” payment to the provinces interested in such a scheme but it should be made clear that it is not a new national program. We don’t need Ottawa central planning making our daycare decisions.

I’m all for the GST cut and keeping the income tax reduction.

I’m AGAINST a national daycare system… I SUPPORT STAY AT HOME PARENTS, who have been unsupported for decades! (no lefties, it’s not the rich right-wingers that prefer stay at home parents… it’s the regular middle income Joe’s that do)

I SUPPORT STAY AT HOME PARENTS

So do I. I support all families regardless the choices they make in child care.

I’d argue that the tax incentives of 10,000$ for companies to create ‘spaces’ would be mor effective than yet another union run government program.

Any wonder why the only people protesting the childcare allowance are unions?

And as Health Care costs mount and when CPP busts budgets and when economies turn south lets predestine ourselves to massive deficits by taking up the room.

If this is what you think will happen, they why are supporting tax cuts that drain government revenues? Hello cognitive dissodence.

Because excessive taxation lowers government revenues and targeted tax cuts increase government revenues.

And yes, I believe that. Mike Harris had more revenue than any other Premier in Ontario (up to that point) and he still increased funding to health care.

“Hello cognitive dissodence”

Hello English language.

The government never ever has extra money. It’s our money. I want some of mine back, notwithstanding Socialist Greg’s quaint ideas about me paying to raise his kids.

Robert: It’s going to happen whether we cut taxes or not - the current model is unsustainable (see here, here, here, etc). And quite frankly the sooner we shrink the nanny state the better. If you feel that you need a huge bureaucracy to look after you you can feel free to pay for it. I have better things to spend my money on than big government.

Maybe income splitting would be a better (fairer) way to disperse the extra cash? Having families file taxes as a single entity just makes so much sense.

Where did the Myth come fromn that ONLY the Government can created child care spaces?

Demand creates supply. This is a proven fact of economics. So if people have money to help pay then they will create the demand that will lead to MORE spaces.

The choice for healthcare plan include additional child care spaces (25,000?). The problem is the liberal universal doomed-to-become-another-bloated-government-system program doesn’t do anything for stay at home parents.

Child care choice aside, I would agree with the recommendation to lower taxes, particularly income tax.

One wonders how much extra dough is going to be found as government is cleaned up going forward.

I draw the line at doing your laundry, O.C.

Because excessive taxation lowers government revenues

Yes, but I deny any claim that we are excessively taxed. Canada is well within the range of taxation levels of every other industrialezed nation.

and targeted tax cuts increase government revenues.

No it doesn’t and you have no evidence to back up such a specious claim whereas I have a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And yes, I believe that.

I don’t doubt that. But policies based on beliefs are bad policies.

the current model is unsustainable

No it isn’t.

I have better things to spend my money on than big government.

Like what? Private health insurance that will cost you more than you pay in taxes toward healthcare. Healthcare costs are not going to disappear simply because the government is no longer the one providing it. And it’s been repeatedly proven that private healthcare costs more.

as a taxpayer I object to paying for my neighbours daycare costs.

If you cant afford children dont have them.

Refute that Robbo.

Until then ** off.

You guys/gals that demand government run daycare should stop whining and take responsibility for the fate you’ve chosen for yourselves. You’re all suffering from Society-Owes-Me syndrome. Grow up.

You guys/gals that demand government run daycare should stop whining and take responsibility for the fate you’ve chosen for yourselves. You’re all suffering from Society-Owes-Me syndrome. Grow up.]

Potato, I salute your stand on principle. I expect you will take that same line the next time farmers come looking to government for a bailout or when the prairie residents ask government to pipe them water.

The reason it’s hard to find all-day day care is because there aren’t many people who are interested in raising other people’s kids for $10-12 an hour. That’s the long and the short of it.

So some two-income families and the daycare lobby have decided the solution is for the government to initiate and supply a service they are not willing to pay more than 2 cappucinos a day for. Quebec gives you a good idea of what it will look like: unionized workers making $20/hour and going on strike when they want more.

And didn’t even Lucien Bouchard come out not that long ago saying that the Quebec Day care model is not sustainable?

Quebec gives you a good idea of what it will look like: unionized workers making $20/hour

You’re delusional, Joan. Daycare workers do not make (pdf) nearly that much. $20/hr translates to $40k per year. Daycare workers make in the range of $20k-$25k per year, or roughly half of what they do in your fantasy world.

Robert: What does your link prove? It appears to me that we have the 3rd highest spending on healthcare. Is our healthcare system any better than the ones that are spending less?

Like what? Private health insurance that will cost you more than you pay in taxes toward healthcare. Healthcare costs are not going to disappear simply because the government is no longer the one providing it. And it’s been repeatedly proven that private healthcare costs more.

Obviously health care costs are not going to disappear but there are better ways of doing things than one-payer-government-megabureaucracy. Health Savings accounts, for example, are one way of doing it.

Since I am young and healthy I prefer to sock my money away in an array of investments that make me a healthy return so that I can hopefully afford the best possible medical care when I’m old and not so healthy. Under our current scheme I’m not making as much as I could (should) be.

“Potato, I salute your stand on principle. I expect you will take that same line the next time farmers come looking to government for a bailout or when the prairie residents ask government to pipe them water.”

The proposed government daycare program is not a “bailout” nor is it an essential element of life.

It’s a middleclass entitlement to appease the children who live in socialist fantasy land where there are always more tax dollars to be collected and more pockets to be picked.

“The proposed government daycare program is not a “bailout” nor is it an essential element of life.

To quote further from potato: “stop whining and take responsibility for the fate you’ve chosen for yourselves.”

So, if your industry can’t survive without government largess, move to the city and get a job in one that can.

If your grandparents moved to an area without water, tough, that’s not my fault. Don’t expect my tax money to help you correct their bad lifestyle decision. Pick yourself up and move to an area with water.

Now, I don’t believe any of this, but that’s the reasoning you guys are presenting. At least be consistent.

Greg,

I think that if you want to make accusations of inconsistency then you should accuse the author. Nobody else has advanced nor supported my reasoning.

When farmers become a group of middleclass whiners looking for another handout I’ll have about as much sympathy for them as I do with the daycare crowd.

I’ll have more sympathy for the daycare crowd when choosing to become a parent leaves you destitute and on the verge of bankruptcy due to unforeseen circumstances.

What seems inconsistent to me is suggesting an equivalence exists between the affluent looking for a handout and those at the end of their rope looking for a lifeline. The former are in a position to live up to their responsibilities while the latter, through no fault of their own, have run out of options.

“through no fault of their own, have run out of options”.

They have options. They could move to a city and get a job. But wait, then they would need day care.

Greg, the point I was trying to make is that there’s a distinction to be made between subsidizing the affluent and helping out the destitute. If you believe that these are equivalent then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

I agree there is an option and I’m sure you’re well aware that many have opted to quit farming. But I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that moving to the city automatically implies they “need” daycare. Even within cities many families prefer other alternatives.

Is this really an issue of “need”? Or is it an issue of “want” masquerading as “need”?

Private health insurance that will cost you more than you pay in taxes toward healthcare…And it’s been repeatedly proven that private healthcare costs more.

Yep. I’m going to pay more for the health care I receive now. Then I’m going to pay more again on top of that to receive more health care than I do now. Sweet. Do you like that, too?