# Healthy Debate: National Childcare Program



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2005)

See the story, below, from to-day's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050203.wxday0203/BNStory/National/

$5 billion from the surplus for a daycare trust fund because it is an election promise.   I seem to recall a promise of 5,000 new soldiers (mostly soldiers, I hope) which, at about $100,000 per soldier per year (salary + benefits + support + personal equipment + training) equals about $0.5 billion ... but I guess there are not many votes at stake so the Liberals do not need to *show progress* on that file.



> Ottawa to put part of surplus toward daycare, sources say
> 
> By BRIAN LAGHI
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

ahh but soliders are baby killers not baby sitters    just ask anyone in BC who has never served.

Money=Men 

Money=Equipment

Men+Equipment=Moral

Liberal Party+Military=NO MONEY


----------



## Long in the tooth (3 Feb 2005)

What will be the true cost of socialist daycare when all the workers belong to CUPE?  Will these workers be required to educate the children in liberal dogma?  Will those wealthy enough to employ nannies be forced to put their children in public childcare, or will there be a (gasp!) two tier system?  This must be a good thing however, as our health care system is the best in the world.


----------



## x-grunt (3 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> See the story, below, from to-day's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050203.wxday0203/BNStory/National/
> 
> $5 billion from the surplus for a daycare trust fund because it is an election promise.   I seem to recall a promise of 5,000 new soldiers (mostly soldiers, I hope) which, at about $100,000 per soldier per year (salary + benefits + support + personal equipment + training) equals about $0.5 billion ... but I guess there are not many votes at stake so the Liberals do not need to *show progress* on that file.



Sorry Rusty Old Joint, I don't understand the point of your ref. to the childcare thing. Is it the money going there instead of the CF?

Much as the CF needs the cash, IMO the childcare thing is also greatly needed by many. The government has a much larger set of responsibilities then just the CF, this is one of them. They are not mutually exclusive (I hope).

Did I misunderstand you?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

right you are X-grunt but you should not pick and choose your promises to keep.  But again that is the luxury of politics i guess.  Promises to the CF by liberal party............ priceless.

And i thought Martin understood our needs and priorities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Feb 2005)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> Sorry Rusty Old Joint, I don't understand the point of your ref. to the childcare thing. Is it the money going there instead of the CF?
> 
> Much as the CF needs the cash, IMO the childcare thing is also greatly needed by many. The government has a much larger set of responsibilities then just the CF, this is one of them. They are not mutually exclusive (I hope).
> 
> Did I misunderstand you?



I have said, before, in these fora, that:

"¢	Defence spending is, always, down at the bottom of the government's (and people's) priority list - with ballet companies and symphony orchestras; and

"¢	There is stiff _*competition*_ for each dollar you, as a grateful taxpayer, send to a needy government, and the people who oppose defence spending do so because they have other, "better" ideas re: how to use your money to meet the 'needs' of their constituencies.

PM made several election promises ... he "needs to show progressâ ? on some of them, but that does not include adding any of the promised 5,000 new soldiers.

Yes, x-grunt, I do think it is either/or ... I agree that some parents can and will benefit from subsidized child care; I suspect that those who benefit most will be those whose *need* is questionable.   I object, on principle, to state run child care - if people need help then use a means test and give them money to buy private sector child care.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (3 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> right you are X-grunt but you should not pick and choose your promises to keep.   But again that is the luxury of politics i guess.   Promises to the CF by liberal party............ priceless.
> 
> And i thought Martin understood our needs and priorities.


No - what Martin understands is his need to pander to his constituency - those who would suckle the teat of the nanny-state and for whom the promise of more gubmint cheese means the purchase of a vote.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

Why should my tax dollars go to daycare for others?   The Great Socialist experiment continues; someone should send Ottawa 10,000 copies of Hayek's The Road to Serfdom....


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

politicans can't read (otherwise they would know how canadians feel about them)so you would have to hire someone to read it to them wasting more of your tax dollars.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2005)

Wiz

You are wrong....You'll have to hire One to read, one to translate, and one to supervise.

Even more waste, as Official Bilingualism means everything must be in both Official Languages, and then someone has to verify that all translations are correct, not just literal.

GW


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2005)

Infanteer has inadvertently released his plan: he will use the government run daycare to indoctrinate the next generation with readings of Hyeck and Ayn Rand just before nap time..... ;D


----------



## buzgo (3 Feb 2005)

You know, I'm serving right now, in the regular force, so I would be more than happy to see more troops more money more everything. 

But...

I am also live in Canada and if the government is going to spend money on a program that is going to help me and my family, then bring it on. I don't want to spend $1000 a month for child care!

I really honestly agree that SOMETHING needs to be done, but I'm sure that we can have the best of both worlds. Remember as well, its not just defence that needs money. Look at all of the infrastructure crumbling around us - bad roads - bad bridges - understaffed hospitals... on and on and on.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (3 Feb 2005)

But the problem in most cases is the waste caused by bureaucracy not so much the lack of cash.  But when Cash is injected into a project so much of it disappears into other slush funds and such that is the problem.

The government doesn't just need to be changed it needs to be fixed.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I don't want to spend $1000 a month for child care!



Neither do I and this is why I don't have children right now.   Why should my thousands of dollars in taxes go to take care of other people's children?   What's next, create a Ministry to Wipe our Asses for us since no one seems to be able to do anything themselves anymore?

Here's a better idea, how about a tax cut so that more money is available in the household income to pay for someone to look after their children.   I'd rather have you manage your families money then some Ottawa gaggle manage all of our money.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

It is on topic.   Basically, two of the three biggest issues (the other being more money down the health care drain) of the last election were:

1) Increase our defence capabilities to live up to our international responsibilities.

2) Nationalize parenting so that domestically, we don't have to live up to any responsibilities.

Obviously, we've made our choice.   Like you, CFL, I think it is going to be a pile of body bags coming home before we grow up.

Enjoy the Fetters.


----------



## dutchie (3 Feb 2005)

Whether you like it or not, national childcare is a necessity. With the women's lib movement, our society has adapted to a '2-income' household society. We now EXPECT women to go out and contribute financially to the household. Just as the average Joe when he gets a raise increases his spending to match the raise, so have we as a society raised the cost of living to a point where the average Canadian family needs 2 decent incomes (or 1 quite good one) to support a wife (or husband) and 2.2 kids. 

Here in Vancouver, the average townhouse costs in the neighborhood of $325,000 for Vancouver, $245,000 in the valley.   An actual house in Vancouver will run you around $750,000 in Vancouver and around $400,000 in the valley. My mortgage is about $1300/month for a friggin townhouse in the valley, plus strata fees and utilities. In order just to pay the mortgage and live reasonably comfortably, we need an income of around $60,000/year with no kids. You add kids, and you need a 2nd income, a really good job, or government assistance ( in the way of tax subsidies or direct subsidies) for childcare. 

Looked into the price of quality childcare lately? Try $1600 a month for a registered daycare, fulltime (40 hrs/wk), for a child under 18 months. If we have 2 kids, both under 5, the cost is around $1600 for one, $1200 for the other, for a total of $2800/month. This is not 'top end care' either, you can spend as much as $3000/month/kid or more if you really want. If my wife makes $25/hour, working 37.5 hrs/wk, it turns her wage into $7.75/hour. 30 years ago, I could make enough doing what I'm doing now to buy a HOUSE, not a townhouse, and my wife would stay home to raise the kids. 

I don't want government *run* childcare. I am also naturally wary of creating a program that would allow people to simply get knocked up in order to collect more government money. 

I do think there is a huge problem with cost of living, childcare costs, and the price being paid by children. Maybe a suibsidy, an EI program, or workshare....I don't have the solution, but I know there's a problem.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Feb 2005)

As I said before, create tax cuts in order to allow those with children to use more of the income they bring in to support their needs.

Would you rather have $1,000 tax cut per child for day care needs, putting all of it where it needs to go, or would you like to pay $1,000 of taxes to which $500 goes to supporting the government bureaucracy to administer the program and the other $500 reaches your children.

Basic economics - government programs are a - and not a + for the economy.

That's the economics of the issue, how about the morality of it.  The more children family X has, the more I have to pay in taxes to support his family.  Maybe I should just give family X my wallet and VISA card instead....


----------



## dutchie (3 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I said before, create tax cuts in order to allow those with children to use more of the income they bring in to support their needs.
> 
> Would you rather have $1,000 tax cut per child for day care needs, putting all of it where it needs to go, or would you like to pay $1,000 of taxes to which $500 goes to supporting the government bureaucracy to administer the program and the other $500 reaches your children.
> 
> ...



Re: 'give me the $1000 and let me raise my kids myself' - that is what I would prefer, but oddly, that is not in the tradition of our 'program heavy' Liberal Gov. I guess it's too fiscally responsible.

In regards to your morality question - you raise an important point, and one that I can't entirely refute. Of course, the idea is that those kids will grow up to be good citizens and contribute to the Federal kitty, allowing PM Trudeau (Justin) to propose Bill I031 - the 'Infanteer Plan' - to pay some poor sod to wipe your bum in your old age, under your proposed 'Ministry To Wipe Our Asses for Us' or course.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Feb 2005)

I wonder if Goodale feels clean yet after suggesting a political promise should be kept.  My observation is that Liberals seem coincidentally most able to keep a promise if defence can be screwed - consider what happened to helicopters and the accompanying fanfare of keeping a pledge, but did not happen to GST and the free trade agreement.

National childcare is not a necessity.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either unaware of anything people did before 1980, unable to correctly interpret simple evidence, or dishonest.  Larger families were raised with considerably less purchasing power.  A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children; you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.  If you feel both parents must work to sustain a particular lifestyle, guess what: it's your choice, and your responsibility - not mine or anyone else's.  Your _expectations_ - whether gross income or the desire to have family and career - are assuredly not my problem.

National childcare, if it fulfills all the dreams of its proponents, will be all of these things: a vote-buyer; a public sector union employer; a state pre-school socialization program.  Any one is sufficient reason to bin it.  What is really needed are increased personal income tax deductions for dependents.


----------



## RCA (3 Feb 2005)

> Basic economics - government programs are a - and not a + for the economy


. That is not always true, as gov't spending in times of depression can spur the economy ie Roosevelt's TVA   program during the 30's (sort of priming the pump so to speak). Although this isn't the case now as the economy is good, there are times when gov't spending is a +.

   Without knowing what form the program will take, all we have is speculation about how it will operate. Will it be a direct subsidy to pararents, funding for actual spots or daycares, increasing Childcare is actually a provincial responsibly so who it might be the feds giving the prov the money and setting so paremeters, who can really say. As my wife is in the field I do know a little about it. Childcare so be seen as the first stage of a child's education as opposed to a baby sitting service. I know in Manitoba, that is the goal. Therefore you are funding education not someone's baby sitter. Privatized daycare will cause a lot of fly by night operations to spring up, and and like opus weapons do you want our children to look after by the lowest bidder? 

    Second point is that with two incomes, it will increase consumption, causing the economy to grow therefore in the long term causing the program to fund itself through an increase in gov't revenue. Allowing both parents to be employed increases their disposable income, increases their savings, increases money avail for investment etc. The Canadian labour market is tight these days, so a broaden base is good for business. There is a lot of things we are taxed for that doesn't use, ie education (my kids are finished, health care (I don't get sick). It is for the greater good, and a bit myopic to say, since I don't use it., why do i have to pay for it. 

 And lastly, a lot are assuming that this is a zero sum game. If the daycare program gets the money, the military won't. I don't think so. From what I'm hearing, we will get the 5,000 and have even heard how the allocation is broken down between the Services and Areas. The new CDS has been pushing the PM directly in some face-to-face meetings.


----------



## buzgo (3 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> National childcare is not a necessity.  Anyone who claims otherwise is either unaware of anything people did before 1980, unable to correctly interpret simple evidence, or dishonest.  Larger families were raised with considerably less purchasing power.  A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children; you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.  If you feel both parents must work to sustain a particular lifestyle, guess what: it's your choice, and your responsibility - not mine or anyone else's.  Your _expectations_ - whether gross income or the desire to have family and career - are assuredly not my problem.



Things have changed so drastically in 25 years. There is no way that we would be able to afford a home in Ottawa if my wife wasn't working. If we bought outside of Ottawa (like an hour outside) where its cheaper, the cost of GAS would kill us. Plus there is the fact that my wife attended post-secondary education for 12 years in order to be qualified for her dream career, which she has.  You can tell her to stay home and raise the child.

Really, we have NO problem with being able to afford childcare. Having a national childcare subsidy would really make things alot easier though, and we wouldn't have to make as many sacrifices - thereby contributing to the economy.

As RCA said, we have no idea what form the program will take.  I just hope they can make a decision!


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2005)

John Maynard Keynes is like a "B" movie vampire; he just refuses to die. Poorly researched history and  dishonest "history" keep ideas that priming the pump and Government Spending are *"good things". 
*
Government interference in the economy is not a good thing, the history of the Great Depression should be enough to teach us that. Interfering with the Federal reserve created the wildly speculative boom at the very end of the 1920s, the "slamming of the brakes" in response to the British gold crisis started the depression, inappropriate taxation and spending policies by both Democratic and Republican administrations just prolonged and deepened the depression. (The Republiccans ran a budget surplus and raised import tarrifs. The New Deal was particularly ineffective, as the number of unemployed increased due to the constant tax hikes, distorting effects of massive government spending and ever changing regulatory environment). Despite all this evidence, which is not difficult to find, most students are told that the cause of the Great Depression is mysterious.....

On the other hand, there is another economic model which has demonstrated consistent results: low tax, low regulatory market economies. In the United States, an economic boom was started with a tax cut in the early 1920s (The Roaring 20s), with JFK's tax cuts (The Go Go Sixties), Ronald Reagan in the 1980s (the "Seven Fat Years") and of course in the early 2000s. The same effect was seen in Singapore, South Korea, Tiawan and Ireland. Ontario during the Mike Harris years also had a mini boom, and tax revenues climbed as never before. (The new Liberal government is raising taxes, but the economy is contracting. Does anyone not see the connection?)

The failure of our political class to act on this  unambiguous evidence, or our media class to make this case loudly and forcefully is really the flip side to ideas like National Daycare or the Kyoto accord. On the surface, they are touted as a means to solve a "problem" but the actual mechanics of these and other programs is to gain and maintain control over the national economy and to shape and control personal choices. *The correctly political name for this state of affairs is "Welfare Fascism".*


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2005)

Don't know if anyone else has commented yet but:

The Globe and Mail is running an On-line poll just now on this subject.  71% of the respondents think that the 5 Billion is a lousy use of their tax dollar.  Go figure.  

I found that normally G&M readers never saw a social programme they didn't like.  

Anybody else got thoughts?


----------



## Big Foot (4 Feb 2005)

I see the government has very selective memory when it comes to the promises they make. I guess daycare is more important than 5000 new soldiers. Glad we have our priorities straight.


----------



## 48Highlander (4 Feb 2005)

I know I'm supposed to be pro-military-spending and all, but I'd much rather see that $5 billion turned into tax-cuts than have it thrown at the military.  As has been pointed out, low taxes equal a grwoing economy.  If we decrease taxation now and streamline some of the waste out of existing government programs, the increase in the economy will provide much larger surplusses in following years.  The better the economy does, the more moey there will be available for military spending in the future.  And as someone else pointed out, it's not an either/or scenario.  There's a $9 billion surplus.  Throw a billion to the army, use 4 or 5 for tax cuts, and throw the rest into reducing the national debt.  That'd be a much better use for the surplus than a national daycare system.


----------



## x-grunt (4 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children; you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.



You have GOT to be kidding. In some areas it may be easier - but in many areas the cost of living has increased so much that single income families are rare. Maybe I can buy goodies at less than I could 30 years ago in adjusted dollars (I'm not sure that's really accurate) but doesn't change the fact that my rent and services have skyrocketed. I used to rent an entire house for $300, now I rent an apartment for $1500 and have no hope at all of buying in my area, that average home is nearly a half a _million_ dollars here. Can one of us stay home to raise the kids? Sure, if we give up eating. God help us if for some reason I lose my job. 

I know   people who are desperate to find secure full time jobs and live on multiple part-time jobs and /or short term contract work. That's not a good stable income, and two people working help with financial security. I know of a family that was suddenly "downsized" and have ended up with Dad, Mom, and the oldest teen all working odd jobs trying to pay the bills.

Yes, some people can raise kids the old-fashioned way, but that's increasingly hard to do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Feb 2005)

....just another kick to the groin to those of us who went without new "toys" and trips to the sun so that we could raise our children with a stay-at-home Mommy..............your children need to be raised by you and not by the State.


----------



## x-grunt (4 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As I said before, create tax cuts in order to allow those with children to use more of the income they bring in to support their needs.
> 
> Would you rather have $1,000 tax cut per child for day care needs, putting all of it where it needs to go, or would you like to pay $1,000 of taxes to which $500 goes to supporting the government bureaucracy to administer the program and the other $500 reaches your children.
> 
> ...



Tax cuts do not necessarily bring greater income to families, this depends on how the cuts are distributed. And since I'm paying $1200 a month in daycare - and that's relatively inexpensive here -   that would have to be a helluva tax cut to make any sort of real difference to my family.

And to be blunt some families would spend savings on beer and big screen tv rather than their kids. The kids aren't at fault if this happens but they do suffer the consequences.

I am a big believer in community responsibility for certain things. National defense, healthcare, justice system are examples. The education and welfare of children is another. 

What I do not want is a US style economy where the rich get most of the breaks and the average or below average income families are left out.
 This is a quote from the US CIA factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html concerning the US economy:
"those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."

I know we aren't the US, and I'm not taking a jab at them. I merely want to point out that what some people here seem to want is a similar system, and it ain't all that great at times either.


----------



## x-grunt (4 Feb 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> your children need to be raised by you and not by the State.



I think it safe to assume then that your children have never been to school, but have been educated at home by you or your spouse from age 5 to 16?

Get real. No one is saying take the kids away and raise them in state boarding homes. We are talking basic child care here for working families. And that is a real need for many, and optional if you do not want or need it.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> I know I'm supposed to be pro-military-spending and all, but I'd much rather see that $5 billion turned into tax-cuts than have it thrown at the military.   As has been pointed out, low taxes equal a grwoing economy.   If we decrease taxation now and streamline some of the waste out of existing government programs, the increase in the economy will provide much larger surplusses in following years.   The better the economy does, the more moey there will be available for military spending in the future.   And as someone else pointed out, it's not an either/or scenario.   There's a $9 billion surplus.   Throw a billion to the army, use 4 or 5 for tax cuts, and throw the rest into reducing the national debt.   That'd be a much better use for the surplus than a national daycare system.



At this point in time, that is the solution I'd go for as well.   Considering that the military treats public funds about as well as the Liberal government (go see the Navy thread on ship contracts) I'm not really optimistic about seeing the money going down the crapper of either some National Daycare program or the NDHQ trough of patronage and vote buying.   Debt reduction and tax breaks seem to be the best option for ALL Canadians and for securing a stronger future.



			
				x-grunt said:
			
		

> Tax cuts do not necessarily bring greater income to families, this depends on how the cuts are distributed.



Well, I felt my example was quite clear.   It seems that a $1000 tax break would give you enough to cover most of your needs.   As well, because there is a direct link between you and your money you will probably have the incentive to find a more efficient way of spending on daycare (different daycare, bring in a sitter, local family, etc) to further cut your costs and increase your expendable income. 

With a government program, the usual perverse incentives will follow because the cost relationship associated with consumer/producer link has been distorted or completely blown away - _"Of course we can go to the expensive day care, after all, we're not paying for it!"_.   End result, rampant inflation of the costs, more taxes and even less money for you and your family.



> And since I'm paying $1200 a month in daycare - and that's relatively inexpensive here -   that would have to be a helluva tax cut to make any sort of real difference to my family.



Honestly, what can I say.   If daycare and housing costs are too much, have you considered moving?   My girlfriend has raised a child, lives on her own, and works for a wage (nothing stellar) at a local clinic and she seems to be doing fine with minimal assistance (definitely not a 5-billion dollar trust fund).   Perhaps if people are finding the cost-of-living prohibitive in the area they should do what humans have done since the dawn of civilization and moved on to "greener pastures"?



> And to be blunt some families would spend savings on beer and big screen tv rather than their kids. The kids aren't at fault if this happens but they do suffer the consequences.



So, because some people are retards it is up to the rest of us (and our wallets) to pick up after them?   And you wonder why there is such a culture of entitlement these days, no one seems to be willing to hold anyone accountable anymore - _"Geez Bob, you fucked up (again), that's alright, someone else will foot the bill - should we go buy your groceries as well?"_



> I am a big believer in community responsibility for certain things. National defense, healthcare, justice system are examples. The education and welfare of children is another.



I'm a big believer in the fact that we are all grown ups and should be willing to accept the consequences of our actions.   If one is to have a child, they should consider the costs of raising one.   Community effort is fine (a local daycare set-up by community members) but when budget money is needed elsewhere (defence, debt reduction, education), these foolhardy social cushions are the not in the community interests.

Besides, who is this program really aimed at?   You've said yourself that you can pay for you child's daycare.   It is hard, but you can manage.   Why is it hard?   Because you pay about 50% of your income in taxes (not just income - GST, PST, Gas, etc, etc).

No, this program is probably aimed at three types of people:

1) Joe Schmo who feels that if the government is paying for his daycare rather then him, then he is better off, despite the fact that he pays more due to the fact that his tax dollars pay for both his daycare and the bureaucracy to set it up.   But, the government is doing something for him, so it must be good and worth the vote - now all he has to do is grumble about all the taxes he payed this year....(As Brad Sallows said, pandering to this guy is a perfectly good reason why we shouldn't accept this program)

2) A collection of Interest Groups (Feminists, etc) who see this as a way to get away from men, the patriarchy, or the bourgeoisie (met these types before). 

3) Those who are stupid enough to start having children without stopping to think of the responsibilities of their actions (and who are already serviced by a plethora of social spending) - I've met these types before as well.   Now we are forcing ourselves to jumpstart another social program to further fatten the cushion for them.   It won't help a good portion of these types of people though, because nothing ever will - I personally know a girl who was on Welfare for ten years, living in social housing and bouncing from job to job because she get getting fired - finally she gets booted off welfare for not trying hard enough.   What does she do next?   She gets knocked up and has a kid, with no father in sight (he pays a measly amount of child support along with his two other offspring with strangers - another idiot).   Now you and me are paying for her and her child because she is an idiot, plain and simple.   As harsh as it may seem, there are alot of idiots in this country, and no amount of money or social assistance is going to help them.

None of these groups seem to really indicate a dire need for the sudden influx of massive amounts of subsidization.   The only logical outcome of this is going to be the next demand of entitlement, which will probably be subsidized gas because operating a car is too expensive in modern society.

Honestly, like Signalsguy said above, he can afford the daycare; it is just a big expense and it would be nice for a little relief.   I'm sure you're in the same boat, and I have no doubt that I'll be there some day too.   If it is a little relief from the burdens of raising a family in an Information Age economy, tax breaks should be right up our alley - you, me, signalsguy and most of the rest of us are probably smart enough to know what to do with the extra money.   We don't need some bureaucratic driven, ideological social program run by Ottawa or the Provinces to figure that out for us, as they're already doing a good enough job in screwing up the Health Care system and ensuring that the Canada pension plan will be next to useless when it comes time to collect on our investment.



> What I do not want is a US style economy where the rich get most of the breaks and the average or below average income families are left out.
> This is a quote from the US CIA factbook http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html concerning the US economy:
> "those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households."
> 
> I know we aren't the US, and I'm not taking a jab at them. I merely want to point out that what some people here seem to want is a similar system, and it ain't all that great at times either.



I don't want a Soviet style economy where everything is planned in the Rideau...err...Kremlin.

As well, those problems are not strictly economic, but mainly rooted in cultural issues and a history of segregation.   We've got the same problem to, just look at many of our Native reserves (I believe you said you were Ojibwe) - I come from a town with 4 reserves and it really is shitty to see the condition that part of my community lives in.

Is giving Blacks and Hispanics in the US or Natives in Canada more social programs going to fix anything?   Look at how well our Department of Indian Affairs is doing.


----------



## Recce41 (4 Feb 2005)

Well as a father and have gone through this. I say, you have them you pay for them. I would like to see the money in a fund for post sec education and not day care. My wife and I were in the military together. And we had to pay. We payed a sitter and received a tax refund. That is the way to go. NOT DAY CARE! (It's like welfare a lil off topic). If you support the lazy, unwilling to work crap. You pay them. If not your tax dollars go to something better like better CPP. Or a tax cut. 
 Yes the poor guy who has worked for yrs and looses his job and needs help yes. HELP. If he is willing to work. I know people that have worked and their job closed. And they were working washing dishes, just to off set their morgage. But are looked to get back in a good job. I say HELP them. Not a person on a free ride. And thats how I think of so called free day care.


----------



## LowRider (4 Feb 2005)

Add this one to the list of overbloated liberal social programs.Instead of delivering desperately needed tax cuts to middle income familes,the Liberals would rather keep both parents in the workforce to futher their anti-family initiative.


----------



## dutchie (4 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> National childcare is not a necessity.   Anyone who claims otherwise is either unaware of anything people did before 1980, unable to correctly interpret simple evidence, or dishonest.   Larger families were raised with considerably less purchasing power.   A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children; you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.   If you feel both parents must work to sustain a particular lifestyle, guess what: it's your choice, and your responsibility - not mine or anyone else's.   Your _expectations_ - whether gross income or the desire to have family and career - are assuredly not my problem.
> 
> National childcare, if it fulfills all the dreams of its proponents, will be all of these things: a vote-buyer; a public sector union employer; a state pre-school socialization program.   Any one is sufficient reason to bin it.   What is really needed are increased personal income tax deductions for dependents.



So Brad, I'm either ignorant or dishonest? Nice.

Larger families were raised with considerably less purchasing power...you can buy more for less than at any previous point in human history.  

Where do you get that from? The price of housing has skyrocketed in the last 20 years. My inlaws bought a house in Surrey in 1983 for $93,000. Today it is worth $450,000 and they have done nothing to it. It is in desperate need of renovations. That's an increase of 383%.The average house in the area is now $525,000.   Did wages increase by 383% in the last 20 years? No. According to StatsCan in 1983 the Avg Family Income was $50,300 in 2002 it was $60,500, for an increase of 20%.

I have clearly demonstrated with factual data from a reliable source that your first point is plain wrong('less purchasing power'). Please provide SOME evidence for your second point ('...human history').

A family needs only one breadwinner and one at-home parent raising the children

If by need you mean, 'we really need to have one parent at home in order to properly raise your kids', I agree completely. If you mean 'you need only one average income to support a family' you're completely and totally wrong. See stats above.

If you feel both parents must work to sustain a particular lifestyle, guess what: it's your choice, and your responsibility  

My 'particular lifestyle' involves coupon clipping, no-name food, no dinners out, $100 limit for Christmas, a 1500 sq. ft townhouse in the burbs, and 1 car. We don't have many luxuries. I don't buy Christmas presents for my siblings or neices/nefews because it means I wouldn't be able to buy my daughter a Christmas present. I have a good Government job where I earn aprox $45,000/year (including my second job - PRes)

Also note I have not advocated a Government delivered Child-care program. 

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/famili.htm#hng


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2005)

Actually, while Ceasar might be quite correct with specific cases, Brad is actually correct in general. While my schooling is in economics, there are so many factors at work that it would take "economics.ca" to go over the ramifications, but here are a few general points:

Inflation has devalued the purchasing power of the dollar immensely over the last 20 years, even the "moderate" 2% inflation is compound interest in reverse. Fixed assets and capital goods have appreciated because they have "real" value, unlike financial instruments.

The ever increasing share of the economy consumed by taxes also reduces the real purchasing power of the consumer. In Ontario we used to have a 7% sales tax, since the 1980s we now pay 15% sales tax (PST + GST). Other forms of taxation, such as the pernicious "user fees" also take a big chunk of our purchasing power.

Differential tax treatment of various financial categories also influences prices. When you sell your house, it is a tax free capital gain, hence house ownership is financially rewarded. If you sell "a" house, the capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than if you made the same amount of money through collecting dividends, which is taxed at a lower rate than wages or interest on your savings. If Canadians have a low savings rate, it is because saving is discouraged by the tax code.

The real question should be, *why is saving discouraged by the tax code*? Perhaps it is because people who have independent means are not dependent on government handouts like "free" daycare and "free" healthcare or "free" government pensions. This goes back to my earlier point that encouraging dependency and controlling economic choices available to the citizenry is a form of welfare fascism, and the means for the rueling elite to maintain their hold on power.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Feb 2005)

>So Brad, I'm either ignorant or dishonest? Nice.

You decide, or choose your words more carefully.  You wrote: "Whether you like it or not, national childcare is a necessity."  A necessity is something you, or we, can not do without.  As of what time did Canadians cease to be able to raise children without national daycare?  As of what time did Canadians have to raise the white flag and admit we can't do what most people are doing and have done for centuries?

If single income families are rare, it's because people don't want to make the lifestyle sacrifices.  Raising a child to adulthood is estimated to cost about $200,000 - say, over $10,000 per year - in Canada right now.

Since Stats Can started tracking its LICO measure (first series using 1959 data), the expenditure share of food, clothing, and shelter for the "average" family has fallen from around 50% to 30% of pre-tax income.  Not too much should be taken from that rough measurement, but at least one can see that the cost of essentials relative to income has been generally decreasing.  It is also worth noting that the after-tax LICO measure is even more favourable owing to current tax and benefit structures for low income earners.


----------



## Long in the tooth (4 Feb 2005)

a majoor - right on.   As recent news reports have stated, average income has increased under 3% over the last 15 years as the governments eat up a larger and larger slice of our income.   As for Keynes, his theories gained legitimacy when FDR primed the pumps in the thirties.   However, the unemployment rate was 25% and there was clearly what could be termed surplus capacity.   That's a far cry from what it is now.   Each and every tax dollar has been coerced from citizens by threat of force.   If you think our health care is great, you'll love nationalized (or is that provincialized?) daycare.   Does anyone know which will have jurisdiction under the BNA???


----------



## dutchie (4 Feb 2005)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So Brad, I'm either ignorant or dishonest? Nice.
> 
> You decide, or choose your words more carefully.   You wrote: "Whether you like it or not, national childcare is a necessity."   A necessity is something you, or we, can not do without.   As of what time did Canadians cease to be able to raise children without national daycare?   As of what time did Canadians have to raise the white flag and admit we can't do what most people are doing and have done for centuries?
> 
> ...



My choice of words stand. I provided relevant data and some admitidly anecdotal evidence that the cost of raising a family has risen higher than that of wages over the same period. You can try and twist and skew the facts all you like, but the hard truth is that one needs an income in excess of $60,000/year to raise a family in a decent (not affluent) neighborhood in the GVRD in a detached dwelling, with 2 or more kids (and one spouse). 

You do the math:

average house in GVRD: $500,000. Mortgage on $350,000 (@6%): $2,239.32 /month.
average townhouse:$300,000. Mortgage on $250,000:$1,599.52/month.

If I make $60,000/year, I'll take home ~$3125/month. Take away $1600 for mortgage, another $125 for property taxes, another $125 for Strata, another $250 for utilities, $350 for food, and $500 for car (incl insurance). That's $2900 a month, and leaves me with a whopping $175 to pay for clothing, other debts, and incidentals (car repairs for example). God helop me if I want to take my kids to Kelowna for a week in the summer. 

Oh yeah, that's in a townhouse in the burbs. I didn't use the example of a detached dwelling in Vancouver because, quite frankly, I'm not stoned.

Clearly one needs to earn at least $60k a year to support a family of 4 in the GVRD....unless they have lots of equity in real estate already. 

Since Stats Can started tracking its LICO measure (first series using 1959 data), the expenditure share of food, clothing, and shelter for the "average" family has fallen from around 50% to 30% of pre-tax income.    

please provide a link/source......and a definition of LICO. I have no clue what that is.


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Feb 2005)

> You can try and twist and skew the facts all you like, but the hard truth is that one needs an income in excess of $60,000/year to raise a family in a decent (not affluent) neighborhood in the GVRD in a detached dwelling, with 2 or more kids (and one spouse).



So you are saying with some certainty that there is not a single family doing just that, with an income of less than $60,000 ?? So if someone(income-earner) gets sick, or dies, or divorced - the family either moves away or self-destructs? I think the arguments we are dancing around is wants vs needs - and we all have different perceptions and definitions of both...

Why do you live there? Posting? (Not a jab - I'm genuinely curious)


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

Caesar, I understand you said you don't support the childcare program, so we'll leave that behind for a second.

But, as I alluded to before, there is a fundamental weakness in basing your theory of increasing costs for living by using calculations based off of living in the GVRD.

Calculating the cost of owning and maintaining a car by using a Ferrari as an example is going to put "car ownership" out of the realm for most people.   Likewise, using one of the priciest areas in Canada as your basis point doesn't paint a fair and accurate picture of household economies in Canada.   In my community, 60,000 dollars means a good standard of living.   Many areas outside of the the few (5-10) major urban centers in Canada offer houses for half the price, auto insurance and gas at half the price, and lesser municipal taxes.   As well, alternatives exist in a major urban center to help cut costs - mass transit or a bike offers a suitable alternative to the cost (high in the GVRD) of owning and maintaining an automobile (although admittedly, Vancouver's "Translink" could use some work, but I am referring to large cities in general).

If it is too expensive to pay for the Lexus, one is always free to either upgrade and increase income (schooling, new job/career) to keep the Lexus or to cut costs and move to a Toyota.   There is no "natural right" to live in a high-cost-of-living area that requires, no *necessitates* (your words), that the public pocket be used to sustain lest society collapse in a heap of bourgeoisie domination.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Feb 2005)

If $60K doesn't cut it, it prices teachers - and there are plenty of them out there - out of the single-income family.  Do you believe it to be the case that teachers are not raising families with one stay-at-home parent in the GVRD?  The rule-of-thumb for housing, unless it has been rethought, is not to exceed 1/3 of gross income (monthly mortgage payment or rent).  I suppose financial advisors and mortgage agents have learned is the threshold over which people start to have difficulty maintaining financial discipline.  Not everyone can afford a large detached home on an urban lot.  Quel surprise.  Most of the people who own such homes in my neighbourhood seem to fall into one of these categories:

1) Sub-letting what is probably an illegal suite.
2) Extended family (grandparents = built-in day care).
3) DINKs (double income, no kids).  That includes me, except I own a 1940 home.

Here is a drill-down into a list of some of the available (online) papers in this subject area:

http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/downpub/freepub.cgi?subject=3868#3868

I think this paper will give you some background:

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/75F0002MIE/75F0002MIE1999009.pdf

Note that if you go looking for comparable international stats (eg. OECD figures) I believe you will find the LIM in broader use.  The LICO is, AFAIK, a Canadian tool.  Another stat to look at is purchasing power parity (PPP).


----------



## Infanteer (4 Feb 2005)

I always thought you were a bit of a DINK, Mr Sallows.... ;D  

(Of course, my goal is to be a TWAT - Two Wives and a TV....)


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Feb 2005)

Brad, I think the 1/3 figure you quoted is the overall debt servicing ratio. 1/3 to taxes, 1/3 to debt and the remainder to beat Maslow into the ground.


----------



## dutchie (4 Feb 2005)

I don't have a lot of time, so I'll   get right to then point(s).

1-Yes, I live in the GVRD, one of the most expensive areas in Canada.
2-Does that mean I should have to move if I want my wife to stay at home until the youngest is in Grade 1?
3-I certainly don't have a 'Lexus' life. I gave you a snippet of my life in a previous post. More like a Honda.
4-Yes. I am willing to bet my left nut that upwards of 80-90% of all teachers have either 2 incomes, or an ex-spouse that pays alimony/childsupport to support kids.
5-No, I don't believe that NO-ONE can support 2 kids and a wife on 60k, just that it is really tough, and not likely to be sucessful.
6-I live in vancouver (the valley actually), because I was born here, my family is here, and my wife's family is here. I am not 'posted' here, I'm Res.
7-I would prefer that the Fed Gov give middle income families with kids tax breaks so that my wife can stay home and raise our kids. To have PSAC workers provide childcare would be horrificaly expensive. The 1000 bucks a month that Infanteer threw out there would do it. Either that or create a program to pay parents to stay at home to raise kids to school age, using the massive EI surplus....we already pay moms for the first year, why not extend it 4 years?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Feb 2005)

Caesar said:
			
		

> 2-Does that mean I should have to move if I want my wife to stay at home until the youngest is in Grade 1?



As I said, there are alternatives if a person wishes to remain in a higher costing area.   Until the kids get off to school, perhaps foregoing the expensive option of owning a car and using mass transit; when you factor in purchase, fuel, maintenance and insurance, this is probably thousands of dollars a year.   Or perhaps, until the kids are off and dual income is more feasible, renting as opposed to buying a house may be the cheaper option.   I never lived in a house we "owned" until I was 10 (back in the early 80's when things really sucked).

I'm not trying to tell people how to live their lives, I'm trying to highlight that people are going to have to be extra frugal with money if the income level doesn't go good with the cost of living in the area - we shouldn't have to rely on government funded programs so people can have the luxury of owning a car and living in a city.



> 3-I certainly don't have a 'Lexus' life. I gave you a snippet of my life in a previous post. More like a Honda.



The analogy may not of come off right (this is why analogies usually suck).

Two people have $60,000 - one buys a Lexus and spends $55,000, leaving him with little left over in disposable income ($5,000).   The other buys a Toyota for $30,000 dollars and has $30,000 left over.

Two people have $60,000 - one chooses to live in Vancouver and spends $55,000 in basic costs, leaving him with little left over in disposable income ($5,000).   The other chooses to live in a smaller community for $30,000 dollars in basic costs and has $30,000 left over.

Two people with the same income base are buying the same thing (a car or basic living costs) and one is better off then the other.   Options exist to remedy this.



> 4-Yes. I am willing to bet my left nut that upwards of 80-90% of all teachers have either 2 incomes, or an ex-spouse that pays alimony/childsupport to support kids.



It's funny, most of the teachers I know seem to be married to other teachers.   Work schedule and holidays click, etc, etc.   Nothing verifiable, just a personal observation from school.



> 7-I would prefer that the Fed Gov give middle income families with kids tax breaks so that my wife can stay home and raise our kids. To have PSAC workers provide childcare would be horrificaly expensive. The 1000 bucks a month that Infanteer threw out there would do it. Either that or create a program to pay parents to stay at home to raise kids to school age, using the massive EI surplus....we already pay moms for the first year, why not extend it 4 years?



And this is where we agree, my friend (and I think you'll have Brad Sallows nodding as well). Like I posted before to "Signalsguy", we all could use a break - rich, poor, businesses (I take the Revenue Canada payments of our family business to the bank every month - not pretty) or average joe plugging away to pay the mortgage.

When all the taxes we pay are added up, you pay between 45-50% of your income towards taxes (the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation does an annual calculation on this).   Go figure the everybody is feeling overburdened - they only really get to enjoy half of what they earn!

I'd much rather have taxes ensure that we all have a basic safety net in case of emergency (Universal Health Insurance, UI if economic doldrums hit) and ensure that sufficient public institutions are maintained (infrastructure, education, defence) and leave us with most of what we earn in order to decide how we wish to distribute our income (Medical Service Accounts, Private Pension Plans, Private Education Plans, Investments, etc) instead of thinking it can do a better job then us.


----------



## bossi (5 Feb 2005)

More grist for the mill (and, a Canadian army brat is in the mix ...)
And, as the article suggests, if the Liberals are "poised" to spend $5 billion on daycare ... I'm thinkin' the only way the Army'll get a slice of that is if we aggressively expand our MFRC's ... or have "Take Your Kid To Work Days" 365 ...

*Canadian mines `big-box' daycare*
Made fortune in Aussie child care Ottawa deal may spur for-profits
Laurie Monsebraaten, Feature Writer (Toronto Star, Feb. 5, 2005. 01:00 AM )

Meet Eddy Groves:
The 38-year-old Canadian citizen who drives a Ferrari and owns the Brisbane Bullets basketball team is one of Australia's richest people under 40.

He made his fortune in day- care.

Groves was spurred on by the Australian government's decision in 1991 to invest heavily in child care and give commercial operators access to public cash. As a result, Australian child care is no longer a folksy field of community-based centres and mom-and-pop operations. It's big business.

Today, more than 70 per cent of centres are owned by commercial interests. And Groves, whose ABC Learning Centres merged with its biggest corporate competitor last fall, is the undisputed king of the hill.

He controls about 20 per cent of Australia's 4,400 child-care centres. His private fortune is reportedly worth $175 million and his publicly traded company is valued at about $1.2 billion.

Could Eddy Groves be coming to a daycare near you?

"It sounds like a great opportunity," said Groves in an interview from Brisbane yesterday.

"What a great excuse to go back to that beautiful country that I love so much," he added. 

"There's something about Canada that Australia doesn't have. It would be great. A great opportunity."

Those are terrifying words for Canadian child-care experts who have been urging Ottawa to protect this country from so-called "big-box" daycare by restricting funding for new centres and daycare spots to non-profit operators only.

If Ottawa signs a $5 billion national child-care agreement with the provinces next week that allows new federal money to flow to commercial daycares, they say Groves or someone like him will start making millions here too.

"I don't think Canadians want public money for child care lining the pockets of big corporate child-care operators," said Martha Friendly of the University of Toronto Child Care Resource and Research Unit. "But that's a very real risk if we don't get this right from the outset."

In Ontario, less than 20 per cent of centres are run by private companies. About 30 per cent of child-care centres in Toronto are commercially operated. The vast majority of them are individually owned.

Groves, who grew up in Australia, but lived in Victoria, B.C. as a baby while his father served in the Canadian Army, says only large publicly traded companies like his can access the kind of money needed to provide high-quality child care.

"I don't doubt that (Canadians) have their reservations about corporations getting into child care," he said. "If people gave it the chance â â€ and people need to broaden their horizons â â€ and if it's run by the right people, it is the greatest thing for lifting standards in early childhood education."

Next Friday in Vancouver, Canada's Social Development Minister Ken Dryden is hoping to forge a long-awaited national child-care agreement with his provincial and territorial counterparts. The deal is to be based on the principles of quality, universality, accessibility and developmental enrichment.

Dryden has said he views child care as Canada's next national social program in the spirit of Medicare and public education. But he is reluctant to exclude commercial daycare from expansion plans and argues the system must be allowed to evolve into a public one over time.

Most commercial child-care centres in Canada are small, family operations that are not much different than the non-profits, he told reporters at a national child-care conference in Winnipeg last fall. And in many parts of the country, there is no non-profit child care sector ready to take on this role, he said.

But Friendly and others say Dryden is naive to think Canadian child care will be immune to the market pressures and entrepreneurial opportunism of people like Groves.

Since Groves holds a Canadian passport it would be relatively easy for him to expand here, they note.

Australian child-care activists also urge caution.

"It would be good if Canada could learn from what's happening here," said Jo-Anne Schofield, Assistant National Secretary for the Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union of Australia, which represents child-care workers in both non-profit and commercial centres. 

"The growth in corporation (child-care) services really did take everyone by surprise. We're dealing with a very different sector than we were even five years ago. And it's unlikely to change."

From a single child-care centre in 1988, Groves and his ABC Learning Centres now control almost 900 centres in Australia and New Zealand. And he shows no sign of slowing down.

He has gobbled up non-profit, municipal, and commercial centres in almost every corner of the country. And in addition to building new centres in profitable areas, he is partnering with large corporate employers who want to offer workplace child care as a company benefit.

Each of his centres, which sport a cuddly mauve teddy bear with outstretched arms, makes an annual profit of about $100,000. Almost half of his revenue comes from government child-care benefits, paid to parents or directly to centres to help cover the cost of care.

An innovative and aggressive young entrepreneur who got his start in the milk distribution business, Groves' company was the first of three child-care corporations to list on the Australian Stock Exchange in 2001. Since then, ABC stock has increased more than tenfold.

And with the Australian government pumping $1.7 billion a year into child-care benefits â â€ and corporate daycare profits â â€ the diaper dividends Down Under aren't expected to dry up anytime soon.

"There's no question Eddy Groves is a very smart businessman," said Collette Tayler, head of the School of Early Childhood at Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane. "But the corporatization of child care in Australia is very troubling for many of us."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`I don't think anybody would have imagined that in Australia such massive fortunes would be made in child care. I would really urge Canada to be very, very careful ...'

Deborah Brennan,

University of Sydney 

business professor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Groves makes no apologies for the money he has made on child care and credits his success to happy parents who flock to his meticulously maintained centres full of dedicated, well-trained staff. About 100,000 families with children from six-weeks-old to age 5 use his centres.

"When we buy a centre, we spend a huge amount of money to bring them up to standard, so that the people have an excellent environment to work in," he said, adding that his company has spent $35 million in the past three years refurbishing centres.

"You can only do that if you are publicly listed. Otherwise, you just don't have access to the funds," he said.

Going public has also allowed Groves to offer staff company shares to boost wages.

As a result, while the average staff turnover in child care is almost 50 per cent, ABC Centres boast a turnover of just 7.5 per cent, he said.

But Tayler at Queensland University and other Australian academics who study child care are troubled by the large profits being made on kids.

"I don't think anybody would have imagined that in Australia such massive fortunes would be made in child care," said University of Sydney business professor Deborah Brennan, who has written a political history of Australian child care. "I would really urge Canada to be very, very careful about opening up your system to such profit-making."

Brennan and others concede that many commercial centres in Australia provide good programs and parents are happy with the care their children receive. But they argue that non-profit centres, when well run, offer more benefits to children, families and communities.

"Child care needs to be neighbourhood-based. It's about so much more than where you put your kids when you work. It's about relationship building, networking, community building," she said. 

"The philosophy of corporate centres is entirely different. Owners have obligations to shareholders."

As in Canada, child-care worker salaries in Australia have been notoriously low while corporate profits have grown. And despite a national accreditation process that centres must pass every 2   1/2 years to qualify for government child-care benefits, academics say regulations are lax and quality is elusive.

But with no recent Australian research on quality, academics have nothing but anecdotal evidence of trouble to back up their uneasiness about corporate child care.

In the absence of definitive research, anecdotal evidence shows that corporate centres in Australia are more likely to stick to the bare minimum when it comes to staff qualifications and child-staff ratios, while community-based centres run by parents tend to use any profits to improve quality, academics say.

Stock-market research on the Australian child care sector has found that 80 per cent of budgets in non-profit centres go to staff salaries while less than 60 per cent of budgets are spent on salaries in corporate centres. However this could be due to the fact that non-profits have little access to cash for capital improvements while commercial centres like ABC have been spending large sums in this area.

A financial analysis of the child-care industry by Australian business research giant IBISWorld noted that stiff competition was causing child-care centres to keep prices down by reducing operating costs.

"There are concerns that large for-profit operators will be more likely to cut costs to an absolute minimum by, among other things, operating at minimum staff-child ratios," the 2003 report said.

Meanwhile, the corporate child-care sector is a strong political lobby that has opposed increased staff wages, stiffer regulations and higher child-staff ratios. 

In an investigation of corporate child care last fall, Melbourne's Sunday Age newspaper reported that several independent centres bought by corporate chains saw their food budgets slashed and cleaning staff let go. Child-care workers had to assume cleaning jobs during the hours they were supposed to be looking after the children. 

Groves has been in the Australian news for suing a union for defamation, fighting to reduce qualified staff during children's lunch and nap times and for going to court to stop a small independent owner from opening near an ABC centre.

Groves has defended his actions as prudent protection of his company brand.

But at least one Australian child-care activist said designing a system based on who provides the service is starting at the wrong end.

"Focus on quality," said Pam Cahir, of Early Childhood Australia, one of the country's largest advocacy groups for children. 

"Qualified child-care workers are costly. Low teacher-child ratios are costly, good environments are costly."

"I think what's happening here is very worrying," she said. "But there would have been no interest on the part of people like Eddy Groves ... if we had really strong regulations and quality assurance. They couldn't have made the money."

So far, advocates in Canada have been told that provinces and territories will be free to decide who should get federal cash to start new child care services.

Some provinces, like Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where more than 90 per cent of existing child-care services are in the non-profit sector, won't likely give money to new commercial centres. But others, like Alberta where more than half of the centres are commercially owned, will likely fund both for-profit and non-profit child care.

Ontario Children and Youth Minister Maria Bountrogianni has said she will leave it up to regional municipalities responsible for delivering child care services to decide.

Kerry McCuaig of the Better Child Care Education Foundation says quality must be the starting point for a Canadian child-care system.

But she thinks Canadian values should also be part of the equation.

"Dryden is right when he says this is as significant as the building of medicare and public education," she said. "Those two programs not only provide us with a service, they provide us with community cohesion, they define who we think we are as Canadians and what we owe each other as Canadians. 

"Child care is the next step. How we build it will say a lot about what we, as Canadians, feel we owe our youngest members."


----------



## Agamemnon (6 Feb 2005)

;D we alrready have that here in Quebec...its been years!    ;D

And guys...you can't blame the daycare plan for less money for the military...itsn ot the Canadian populations priority...until something  bad happens...


----------



## S McKee (6 Feb 2005)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Well as a father and have gone through this. I say, you have them you pay for them. I would like to see the money in a fund for post sec education and not day care. My wife and I were in the military together. And we had to pay. We payed a sitter and received a tax refund. That is the way to go. NOT DAY CARE! (It's like welfare a lil off topic). If you support the lazy, unwilling to work crap. You pay them. If not your tax dollars go to something better like better CPP. Or a tax cut.
> Yes the poor guy who has worked for yrs and looses his job and needs help yes. HELP. If he is willing to work. I know people that have worked and their job closed. And they were working washing dishes, just to off set their morgage. But are looked to get back in a good job. I say HELP them. Not a person on a free ride. And thats how I think of so called free day care.




Here here! Went through the same thing myself. My wife had to quit her job and when she did go back to work we paid babysitters. We did what we had to, it wasn't easy but we managed, no free rides. I get sick of listening to this national daycare BS. My tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for some uppie daycare plan so mommy and daddy in Toronto can both go off to work so they can afford all the latest toys....


----------



## aesop081 (6 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> Here here! Went through the same thing myself. My wife had to quit her job and when she did go back to work we paid babysitters. We did what we had to, it wasn't easy but we managed, no free rides. I get sick of listening to this national daycare BS. My tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for some uppie daycare plan so mommy and daddy in Toronto can both go off to work so they can afford all the latest toys....



you have my vote.......


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

The article responding to the Australian experience was chilling: we apparently will build in regulations to discourage innovative enturpranures, leaving the field open for "Liberal friendly" daycare operators to receive $100 million in funding for little or no work.....


----------



## bossi (6 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The article responding to the Australian experience was chilling: we apparently will build in regulations to discourage innovative enturpranures, leaving the field open for "Liberal friendly" daycare operators to receive $100 million in funding for little or no work...



[sarcasm on] Gee, that sounds familiar ... I wonder if the "sponsorship" daycares will all have "patronage" appointments, and "unity" programs for the kids ... maybe they'll even fly those surplus Canadian flags that the BQ MPs wouldn't hand out ... and they could also hand out those lapel pins that were made in China at Canadian taxpayers expense ... oh - I know!  With Australian know-how, our daycares could have petting zoos attached (so the kids could learn how to be sheep, and vote Liberal when they grow up) ... [sarcasm off]

Ironically, I noticed a report recently which stridently pointed out that "not for profit" daycare was the best way to go, since it ensured that every cent of funding goes into daycare ... and not lining a profiteer's pockets ... (hmmm ... just like my recent rant about NGOs ... I sense a parallel ...)


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

Although the example was (deliberately) over the top, if the private sector is not involved in creating and running the 5 billion dollar boondoggle, then who's pockets will this money be flowing into? 

As Infanteer has pointed out, the money will flow into all kinds of administrative overhead, most likely designed to be as complex and obtuse as possible so taxpayers will have no real idea of what is happening. The gun registry, HRDCs "Billion Dollar Boondoggle" and Adscam are all examples of how this is done, and even Her Majesty's Canadian Armed Forces are probably not immune (the birth of the Reform Party is attributed to the then PC government's decision to award CF-18 maintainence contracts to Canadair, even though Winnipeg based Bristol Aerospace had a lower bid).

A five billion dollar tax cut would probably have the effect of allowing some families to go to single income, and leave enough money in peoples pockets to choose from any number of alternative daycare arrangements (most which would dissapear in the face of competition from a fully subsidized government system).

Although I do share some of your concerns Bossi (why should this guy [or anyone] get rich off tax dollars?), I honestly do not see subsidized daycare as either a need, or even a desirable want for Canadians.


----------



## bossi (6 Feb 2005)

Apologies for my imprecise rant.
What I'm railing against is the headlong rush to "outsourcing", Alternate Service Delivery, privatisation, etc.

Sorry I don't have the "not for profit" article at my fingertips, but it eloquently points out the simple fact that once you introduce "profit" into any service delivery it automatically guarantees that monies are siphoned off for profit.

Coming at it from another angle ... military cooks are given a budget to spend on rations for the troops, and they spend it on rations for the troops.  Private contractors are awarded a contract to provide rations for the troops, and *after* they deduct their profit the leftovers are used to feed the troops ... (and as discovered the hard way in Kabul, the more contractors you have ... the fewer eligible bodies you have for fire picquet ... sentries ... combat ... hmmm ...)

So, both in daycare and providing service support to the military, I'd argue that "not for profit" is perhaps more profitable for the customers ...


----------



## Long in the tooth (6 Feb 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Coming at it from another angle ... military cooks are given a budget to spend on rations for the troops, and they spend it on rations for the troops.   Private contractors are awarded a contract to provide rations for the troops, and *after* they deduct their profit the leftovers are used to feed the troops ... (and as discovered the hard way in Kabul, the more contractors you have ... the fewer eligible bodies you have for fire picquet ... sentries ... combat ... hmmm ...)
> 
> So, both in daycare and providing service support to the military, I'd argue that "not for profit" is perhaps more profitable for the customers ...



One can also argue that profits are what are left over after all obligations are met, at least that's the way it works in my household.  Once you have a centrally funded program the customers have no control - it's take it or leave it.  In the soviet model, it meant if you were a size 8 shoe you had it made.  Someone, anyone, show me a socialist system without a massive beaureaucracy.

And as for using military cooks as an example, remember that there are Cols behind the Majs behind the CWOs behind the KOs behind the supervisors behind the actual cooks.


----------



## RCA (6 Feb 2005)

And again I state no one knows what form this will take. It could very well be in the form of an increased child benefit, where the means test already in place. The program can take many forms, and all we are doing here is speculating without any hard facts.

As stating there is no requirement for a child care program. I don't think the gov't is doing this in a vacuum and on a whim. It is a vote getter because of a perceived requirement.

As to the profit/non-profit centres, in Manitoba, the gov't pays a subsidiary to parents who met the means test, and they can have their child in any centre, profit or non-profit. Non-profit centers receive grants for a number of spaces, subsidizing there operating expenses and in a sense creating them. The demand always outstrips supply.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2005)

The arguments about privitization can be spun almost any way you like, since for every example of a "good" system, someone can come up with a counterexample of a "bad" system.

Profit is not exactly a zero sum game, people go into business with the expectation of making a profit, and must adjust their prices to reflect the ever changing calculus of their costs, market supply (thier competetors) and market demand (the customers you hope are lining up at your door). I might write a business plan with the assumption I will make a 10% profit, but unless I am willing to undergo a bloodbath with internal cost controls and never draw a salary, that figure is very unlikely for most businesses.

On the other hand, competition and having a large number of potential competitors does drive the market, and many goods which are "supplied" as government monopolies can be and are delivered much more efficiently as private business. One example; garbage collection. The City of London pays @ $55/tonne for garbage collection (which adds up considering there are 360,000 Londoners). The City of Kitchener contracts out garbage collection, and pays @$33/tonne, in a city very similar in size and location. There seems to be little reason to expect the "free" daycare won't have similar cost ratios compared to private daycare, at least no compelling arguments have been made to refute this assertation. This is not to say that a bungled system like the Ontario Liberal's "3Ps" model (Public Private Partnerships) can't be created which takes the worst of both models, indeed, I suspect something like this operates in Australia as the only explanation to the rich profits being claimed for state supported child care.

In the end, it boils down to philosophy. If you are a conservative, you believe that money left in the consumers hands will be spent or invested in the most productive way possible via the market mechanism, while a liberal will believe that only an "informed elite" (Philosopher Kings, anyone?) will be able to direct spending in the most efficient manner. I will vote for the Market over the Philosopher Kings any day.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2005)

"Non-profit" doesn't necessarily mean there is no profit.  A single owner-operator daycare could just absorb all the profit into a cost - salary.

I agree with increased personal income tax deductions for dependants.  Note that it is unrealistic to expect $1K net per month.  If you had deductions amounting to $1K additional per month your non-refundable federal tax credit would amount to $160 per month (16%).

The government could put all $5B directly into the hands of parents simply by running the numbers and determining appropriate income tax deductions for no additional overhead cost.  Alternate the national child benefits could be increased.  My guess is a sizeable chunk of funding will find its way into a large and new "non-profit" public service union constituency to oversee child care.  Presumably the new employees will add value and quality to the child care experience that could not be obtained by simply putting the money in parents' hands and allowing them to purchase child care.

I see there is a line 244 (deduction) for "CF personnel and police deduction" which may show as box 43 on your T4 if you were deployed to a high- or moderate-risk operation.  Is this new?


----------



## Andyboy (8 Feb 2005)

I hate to use this quote but Caesar "I feel your pain".  I live in Toronto, my wife stays at home with my daughter and yet I dream of the day I might make $60 000. In fact at this point I don't even have a "job". That being said my wife and I are completely committed to her not going back to work and continuing the real work of raising our daughter. We believe that the first few years are the most important for a child and therefore will not pass the responsability to anyone else. Hell, we don't even like her g-mother looking after her for more than an hour or so. We willingly make the sacrifices though because we know that it is in our daughter's best interest and becasue we feel that we chose to have a child and therefore are responsable for her upbringing. "Free" childcare notwithstanding we are going to raise our children. 

I wonder what the social cost of a generation of children raised by the state will be. I already disagree with what passes for curriculum in public schools now, I wonder what tripe they'll be serving in daycare?


----------



## dutchie (8 Feb 2005)

Andyboy said:
			
		

> I hate to use this quote but Caesar "I feel your pain".   I live in Toronto, my wife stays at home with my daughter and yet I dream of the day I might make $60 000. In fact at this point I don't even have a "job". That being said my wife and I are completely committed to her not going back to work and continuing the real work of raising our daughter. We believe that the first few years are the most important for a child and therefore will not pass the responsability to anyone else. heck, we don't even like her g-mother looking after her for more than an hour or so. We willingly make the sacrifices though because we know that it is in our daughter's best interest and becasue we feel that we chose to have a child and therefore are responsable for her upbringing. "Free" childcare notwithstanding we are going to raise our children.
> 
> I wonder what the social cost of a generation of children raised by the state will be. I already disagree with what passes for curriculum in public schools now, I wonder what tripe they'll be serving in daycare?



That's pretty much how my wife and I feel. Why hand your toddler over to a 'child care professional' making $8/hour? If the Government would help make it possible for middle income earners to provide that care themselves, I feel we'll end up with more well adjusted and educated kids when they finally hit pre-school or kindergarten. You also bring up another often misunderstood point: Child care is NOT babysitting. It involves education as well. 

I don't feel that the Liberal's proposal has to involve State-run or even State-funded 3rd party child-care. It could involve, for lack of a better word, 'paying' parents to stay at home and provide child-care themselves.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Feb 2005)

Quote,
_ It could involve, for lack of a better word, 'paying' parents to stay at home and provide child-care themselves._

...which I would like to see as a tax credit for those who qualify.

...and if I may be so bold, Gentlemen, ......you will find it tough, having your work mates talk about their trips, new cars, etc. but, everynight[or morning :boring:] when I get home and my girls still come running to me with hugs and big smiles and the fact that they are doing well in school/sports [proud-why not?] makes every sacrifice we made over the last 12 years more than worth it.

...being a parent is the single most important job on this earth and so many are willing to sell that out to the lowest bidder. :-[


----------



## x-grunt (8 Feb 2005)

Jumper said:
			
		

> I get sick of listening to this national daycare BS. My tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for some uppie daycare plan so mommy and daddy in Toronto can both go off to work so they can afford all the latest toys....



I take real exception to the crack about "the latest toys", that is a pure a**hole comment.

My sit:
2 bdrm apt in Toronto.
no car - we walk where we can, transit when we have to.
no cable TV
older computer on dial up
1 grown son who's moved away.
1 two year old daughter with CP
Wife with job. (I had the higher pay, but it was contract and undependable as a result.)
I've been home for two years with my daughter, and glad to do it.
Our savings have slowly been eaten up buy costs of living above what my wife can earn.
So, I'm going back to work because as much as my girl deserves my love and attn, she also deserves decent food and shelter to go with it. To go back to work is costing me another $1200/mo. in daycare. I had to wait a year to get her in, and even that was very fast due to her special needs. 

See any "toys" here? Get over your stupid western prejudices. Toronto is an expensive place to live and most of us are not an "uppie" whatever that is, nor are we rich. You have an opinion? Let's hear it, but keep the idiotic cracks to yourself.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Feb 2005)

> Toronto is an expensive place to live



The economy sucked in New Brunswick, it's pretty good in Arizona. I don't like Arizona very much - I miss my family, and haven't been home for about 8 years. It is my choice to live here - short of postings, most people choose where they live. I weigh all the pros, all the cons, and decide whats best for my wife and daughter, overall.


----------



## dutchie (8 Feb 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> It is my choice to live here - short of postings, most people choose where they live. I weigh all the pros, all the cons, and decide whats best for my wife and daughter, overall.



I completely agree. But if a statistically significant number of parents have to leave the large urban centres (or sub-urban 'centres') in order to provide good childcare to their children, than IMHO, we need to intervene. No-one is suggesting (at least not me) that we should pay for childcare for someone making 80k a year that also lives in the British Properties (a very rich area of West Vancouver, for you Easterners). Clearly, if you choose to live in the richest area of an urban centre, you have the choice to move to a less expensive area within your general area (in this example, they could move to North Vancouver).

If someone lives in a very affluent   area, it's fair to expect someone to move to a less expensive area within their area, but I don't feel they should have to move to a different part of the country (or another country) just so they can provide the BASICS for their children.


----------



## x-grunt (8 Feb 2005)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> The economy sucked in New Brunswick, it's pretty good in Arizona. I don't like Arizona very much - I miss my family, and haven't been home for about 8 years. It is my choice to live here - short of postings, most people choose where they live. I weigh all the pros, all the cons, and decide whats best for my wife and daughter, overall.



I'm glad your choice has benefited your family.
I choose to live in Toronto as it has good medical services for my daughter, and my employment opportunities are better here. Other similar centers aren't much cheaper and there are costs other then financial to move as well. Like leaving all social/family support here, as you mentioned. In our case, that's just not worth leaving yet.

Simple answers do not fit complex issues easily. We all do our best with our situations, and sometimes we need different solutions.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Feb 2005)

Right, and I agree with points you've both made. I just don't feel that I should reap the benefits of my "pros", and expect the Government to compensate me for the "cons", based on choices I've made


----------



## S McKee (9 Feb 2005)

x-grunt said:
			
		

> I take real exception to the crack about "the latest toys", that is a pure a**hole comment.
> 
> My sit:
> 2 bdrm apt in Toronto.
> ...



Ex-Grunt I apologize plse don't take it personally, of crse I was speaking in generalities and I realize that there are those in unfortunate circumstances, such as your own, who would need the help. However it's usually people like yourself that don't get the help. Agree? Just my "western" prejudice and "opinion" at the population that keeps voting in the current government. Having said that I am originally from the "East" (further east than TO) and in my CF career I have numerous postings including Ont, and I received no help, had no extras, no toys, no job for my wife, no pay raise etc. etc. etc. Long and short of it: we had 'em and we had to raise 'em. I hope things work out for you.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2005)

Even with cases like Ex Grunt, I still would make the argument that reducing the tax burden and leaving more money in his and his wifes pockets would give him more choices. Since there are a lot of people in his situation (no matter where they live), there will be many people who see the need and offer some sort of service to cater to it. In this circumstance, Ex Grunt and anyone else who wants or needs daycare will find many different offerings which they can choose from.

Under the "One Big Plan", small providers will be forced out of the market, and Ex Grunt may discover that the daycare he can get is constrained by all kinds of factors he may not want of apprieciate. A simple example would be these government centres would most likely be concentrated in Liberal Ridings as a means of vote getting/buying. The staffing and hours would be controlled by public service unions, which may make using these centres very inflexible, especially if you are using transit. Finally, just what would the children be doing there all day? I can certainly picture a lot of "indoctrination" hidden in the stories and activities. As well, this provides a 1984 style means of monitoring the activities of the parents (I'm sorry to hear your father smokes Johnny. Tell me children, does anyone else have a mommy or daddy who smokes?).

Over the top? Maybe. Why take the chance? Contact your MP or Dryden directly and tell them you do not want the 5 billion dollar boondoggle to go ahead.


----------



## dutchie (9 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Even with cases like Ex Grunt, I still would make the argument that reducing the tax burden and leaving more money in his and his wifes pockets would give him more choices. Since there are a lot of people in his situation (no matter where they live), there will be many people who see the need and offer some sort of service to cater to it. In this circumstance, Ex Grunt and anyone else who wants or needs daycare will find many different offerings which they can choose from.
> 
> Under the "One Big Plan", small providers will be forced out of the market, and Ex Grunt may discover that the daycare he can get is constrained by all kinds of factors he may not want of apprieciate. A simple example would be these government centres would most likely be concentrated in Liberal Ridings as a means of vote getting/buying. The staffing and hours would be controlled by public service unions, which may make using these centres very inflexible, especially if you are using transit. Finally, just what would the children be doing there all day? I can certainly picture a lot of "indoctrination" hidden in the stories and activities. As well, this provides a 1984 style means of monitoring the activities of the parents (I'm sorry to hear your father smokes Johnny. Tell me children, does anyone else have a mommy or daddy who smokes?).
> 
> Over the top? Maybe. Why take the chance? Contact your MP or Dryden directly and tell them you do not want the 5 billion dollar boondoggle to go ahead.



While I think most of your points border on paranoia, the stance that Government-delivered child-care is a bad idea is valid...but, IMHO, for different reasons.

The biggest is cost-effectiveness, or lack there-of. Government-delivered child-care would certainly involve unionized PSAC employees. They don't come cheap. 

Another issue for me is the 'cost-benefit' model. We would end up pumping way more money into this program than is actually required to deliver good child-care. The extraordinary cost would diminish the benefits of the child-care provided.

I say use the massive EI Surplus (it's BILLIONS of dollars, and rising) to create a program where parents are paid to stay home and raise their kids to school-age. Then they are off the 'pogey'. Or, use that same surplus (yes, I know, it's not that easy to do), and provide tax breaks that equate or come close to equating the monthly cost of child-care.


----------



## RCA (9 Feb 2005)

The â Å“tripeâ ? (as one poster mentioned but since disappeared) they are teaching is sharing and how to get along with others. Studies have shown that children in childcare acclimatize better in kindergarten then those that do not, so there are benefits. However, every family situation is unique. My children were in daycare and they turned out fine. Both are in university, and I'm sure they'll visit me in the home and wipe the oatmeal from my chin. I feel that it's the time you spend with your kids that counts, as opposed to the time you do not.

      As for the â Å“Stateâ ? raising our kids, I think that's the ultimate conservatives boogieman. Just has the irrational fear of liberal brainwashing/ indoctrination that is going to occur in the State run baby centres. Brings up images of Chinese baby's, lined up by the hundreds in their cribs in the nursuaries. Anyone who seriously thinks that the Fed gov't will get directly involved in the Daycare business is sorely mistaken. First, it is a provincial responsibility, and secondly what the goal of the program (my speculation) is to make daycare more accessible to those that require it, not build and run the system. As for the Union card, in Manitoba, the vast majority of non-profit centres are not unionized nor do I expect them to be in the future. Hours are dictated by parenal needs. 

On the economic side for a couple a taxbreak will put more income in a their pocket, but not increase a their gross income. Two incomes would do that. And that is sometimes that is what those on the lower end of the scale require. And busnisess will not complain about the increse in the labour pool, and the econmoy can only grow with increased consumtion.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

Just checked with my Girlfriend.   As a single mother, she pays $37 a month for Daycare for her son.   This is determined by a the income she brings in at her job.

Obviously, the people who really need it are, for the most part, getting the "safety net".   Do we really need to ensure that everyone has access to what only some really do need by throwing 5 billion into a new system?


----------



## RCA (9 Feb 2005)

Not everyone. There has to be a means test for subsidy. However, not all provinces have the same sytem. In Qubec it used to be $5.00/day. It is just a hodge podge depending what province your in. 

 The $5 Billion does sound like a lot, and there is just no way I could justify that expense unless its spead over 5-10 years and of course the nature the program takes, such as subsidys.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

RCA said:
			
		

> Not everyone.



And this is why I said "for the most part".  Obviously, no system is perfect.  Obviously, you've pointed out two key factors:

1)  A more coherent, national apporoach has to be taken.

2)  An appropriate means test needs to be inplace for any safety net.  Is the person genuinely not earning enough to afford proper care for the child, or are there other circumstances which may contribute to the problem (too much taxes limit what should be a decent income, poor management of household economics, person is a complete idiot).  This is why I don't believe in "Universal" daycare - it is not an entitlement (it's your kid, not mine) and not everyone needs access to the public pocket.


----------



## dutchie (9 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> And this is why I said "for the most part".   Obviously, no system is perfect.   Obviously, you've pointed out two key factors:
> 
> 1)   A more coherent, national apporoach has to be taken.
> 
> 2)   An appropriate means test needs to be inplace for any safety net.   Is the person genuinely not earning enough to afford proper care for the child, or are there other circumstances which may contribute to the problem (too much taxes limit what should be a decent income, poor management of household economics, person is a complete idiot).   This is why I don't believe in "Universal" daycare - it is not an entitlement (it's your kid, not mine) and not everyone needs access to the public pocket.



exactly. Although I am in support of some kind of new system, and feel the lack of affordable child-care should be something the Federal Government should tackle, I have the same worries about abuse. Too many people abuse the current systems we have, whether that be EI, Welfare, etc, that I don't see how one could expect different with childcare. Especially when there is no requirement on the part of the parent other than to provide care for their child.


----------



## bossi (10 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Just checked with my Girlfriend.   As a single mother, she pays $37 a month for Daycare for her son.   This is determined by a the income she brings in at her job.
> 
> Obviously, the people who really need it are, for the most part, getting the "safety net"...



Interesting - daycare for my son was approx $300 a month before I went to Kabul, and then while I was away he had a nanny (cost somewhere between $1500 and 1700 a month - sorry, I forget exactly).


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2005)

Here is a very good counterargument to the $5 billion dollar boondoggle:



> *Bush's Supply-Side Budget*
> Its defining aspect is that it is pro-growth.
> 
> The mainstream media has already wasted reams of newspaper, not to mention thousands of trees, in trying to decide whether or not President Bush's budget proposal is a deficit-reducer. Once again, they've missed the key point: The central defining aspect of Bush's budget submission is that it is pro-growth.
> ...



If Canada were to replicate these economic growth and unemployment statistics, many of the arguments for the "need" for national day car would fall by the wayside. Parents would have more money and more choices available for raising their children, including single income families.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (10 Feb 2005)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Here is a very good counterargument to the $5 billion dollar boondoggle:
> 
> If Canada were to replicate these economic growth and unemployment statistics, many of the arguments for the "need" for national day car would fall by the wayside. Parents would have more money and more choices available for raising their children, including single income families.


Our governments get elected on the promise of new programs not the promise of good governance.  If Canadians actually cared more about having a sanely run government instead of more entitlements and hand-holding by the state, we might go somewhere.  In the case of day care, the simple, most effective solution is to reduce the tax burden on individuals, the payroll taxes on employers and use the EI fund to extend better parental benefits - but that would not be a new program to address the problem - it would be an admission that all along, Liberal fiscal policies have been anti-family.  And the likelyhood of that happening - well, what we need is someone with a sane program and the guts to implement it - Mike Harris, anyone?


----------



## Rick_Donald (11 Feb 2005)

Here's a novel idea that worked over 30 years ago. Why don't parents look after their own kids. Therefore we wouldn't need a daycare system except for single parents. The cost of living would even itself out eventually as the demand for the overpriced non necessities falls. The only reason that retailers charge 500% profit on goods is because a bunch of dumb overpaid schmucks will pay it.
My wife and I managed to raise our daughter on one salary. We lived without the perks but my kid pays me back everyday in her actions. Now that she's getting older the money is freeing up and my wife and I can enjoy some perks. And still on one income.
Also if this nation went back to single income families unemployment would be nil (=no welfare), kids would be more respectful and appreciative, more marriages would succeed and there would be less suburbanites and urbanites driving huge king cab pick ups.
Then maybe we could fund our military and help contribute in the international theatre.


----------



## ballz (15 Nov 2011)

Good day all,

I'm currently writing a paper on whether or not Canada should implement a national childcare program. I searched it up on here but the thread is 6 years old ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26257.75.html ) and there weren't a whole lot of proponents of childcare to challenge the opponents anyway.

I'd like to kick this off again, 1. to help me bomb-proof or find fallacies in my point of view and 2. to hear some of the opposition's evidence, or rebuttals of my evidence.

So here are two out of the three main arguments of my thesis (again, the thesis is that Canada should adopt a national childcare program). The paper isn't written yet, I am just gathering data. These are just summaries of the arguments:

1. Natural selection. Couldn't find any data on Canada, but in the US the fertility rate of a woman receiving social assistance is 3x that of a woman not receiving social assistance.1 Canada is at least similar. I don't think it's a secret that people receiving welfare have more kids than families that have two working parents anyway. The easiest indicator of intelligence is also wealth, with each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.2

What this means is that due to the costs of childcare for a wealthy person (who doesn't get it subsidized), intelligent people are having less kids, but generally unintelligent people are having more children because it doesn't restrict their lifestyle nearly as much (indeed, some would argue they benefit from having kids). 

I don't think I need to elaborate any further into what natural selection will lead to...

2. It would actually end up being cheaper for taxpayers. I will use a single-parent in Newfoundland as an example. 

Currently, the poverty line for a SP with one child is 20,209, and they would receive 14,670 in social assistance3, plus they can get childcare subsidized. Ignoring completely the "economies of scale" factor if there was a national childcare program, the median costs for centre-based childcare in Newfoundland is $4560/year(18mos - 36mos) and $4320(3yrs - 5 yrs).4 If childcare was provided, social assistance could be dramatically cut, and most likely a single parent is going to actively seek full-time employment. At $10/hr (min wage in Newfoundland), 40 hrs/week, that is an income of $20,800.

Now you have taken a single parent and their child above the poverty line at a cost of ~$4500 a year, as opposed to paying $14,670+ and they both remain below the poverty line.


1. http://itsteatime.net/blogs/blog4.php/2009/10/01/birth-rates-by-income
2. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm
3. http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm
4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html

Look forward to hearing your responses.


----------



## foresterab (15 Nov 2011)

One issue is the wage descrepienceis.  In Alberta my co-workers are paying anywhere from $350-900/month for just afterschool care if you can find a space...but wages for the workers there are $11/hour.  It's more cost effective to a parent stay at home with two kids than it is to have them working unless they are making significant wages..case in point the boss has a nanny fulltime with two kids for $100 more a month than childcare is for school days only.

In addition to the cost of enrollement programs are decreasing due to increased certification needs.  Several local daycares are facing closure because the province has now mandated a $6000 course needed in order to supervise other workers yet the employee only makes roughly ~24,000 a year.  If you can make more at Tim Hortons or MacDonalds by a couple of bucks an hour + don't have to have a certificate = no workers in the childcare sector.

Perhaps the solution is instead of direct subsidization is tax-splitting returns for all parents with kids under X years of age.  That changes a $80,000 wage earner into two $40,000 wages but may better balence out gender employment and wage descrepencies.

Some more fodder to think on.


----------



## cupper (15 Nov 2011)

Look at the stats that look at educational success of children who attended daycare vs those that didn't.
Then correlate this to differential in projected income over lifetime. This would set up the argument that it would be an investment in the future.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Look at the stats that look at educational success of children who attended daycare vs those that didn't.
> Then correlate this to differential in projected income over lifetime. This would set up the argument that it would be an investment in the future.



Do they exist?
Because that sounds like bullshit to me, nothing beats a stay at home parent.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2011)

Proponents of these things will always dress up the statistics and use words like "investment", but consider who is really receiving the "investment".

Ontario's full time kindergarten program was foisted on the provinces taxpayers citing all the above evidence, while never pointing out the billion dollar bonanza awarded to the Ontario Teacher's union to pay for all the new unionized kindergarten teachers and support staff.

National daycare was always the pet project of the Liberals for roughly the same underlying reason; to entice these people to vote for them and to provide a "payoff" to government workers at the taxpayers expense. The fact that the LPC never carried through of the promise since 1993 indicates that:

a. They believe the voting public is really that gullible
b. There wasn't a big enough constituency for an effective political ROI
c. Economic reality had set in by 1995, and Paul Martin's Finance Department realized that there could be no spending on this file or any other while the cost cutting and offloading to the provinces took place.


----------



## cupper (16 Nov 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> nothing beats a stay at home parent.



That would be an ideal goal, but we're no longer living in the era of "Leave it to Beaver". With an economy that almost requires a two income household, today that opportunity is limited to a narrow group.

And just because they have a stay at home parent does it mean that the kids will receive the structure and guidance they need to grow up to be productive members of society. The same applies to day care as well.



			
				Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Do they exist?
> Because that sounds like bullshit to me



I was just making a suggestion for further review and possible argument. I don't necessarily believe that daycare attendance will make a difference one way or the other, but it may come up with something worth following up.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Nov 2011)

I'd argue that those in full-time child care now are there because they are part of a family with the resources to pay for full-time child care.  Therefore, their outcomes are superior not due to the full-time child care, but rather from being part of an intact family unit with average to above average income.


----------



## ballz (16 Nov 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Do they exist?
> Because that sounds like bullshit to me, nothing beats a stay at home parent.



There seems to be a lack of long-term studies in this area. While there is plenty of evidence to suggest that quality childcare helps children under 5 cognitively be more prepared for school, I personally can't find anything that tracks how they actually faired in middle school and high school, and more importantly when they actually graduated and got out into the real world. I found one 20 year study but it hasn't concluded that stuff yet.

I disagree about "nothing beats a stay at home parent though." That depends on the parent. Much like there is a correlation between quality of childcare centres and the child's development. One study I read noted that government-run daycares performed the best, not-for-profit daycares second, and private daycare's third. The advantage of a government system would be in the quality control obviously, but no one would be forced to drop their kid off at daycare either.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'd argue that those in full-time child care now are there because they are part of a family with the resources to pay for full-time child care.  Therefore, their outcomes are superior not due to the full-time child care, but rather from being part of an intact family unit with average to above average income.



While I didn't find any statistics on how many children in full-time daycare come from low-income vs high-income families, this study http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/seccyd_06.pdf#page=22 notes that the largest determinant in the child's development is their family unit. This supports my natural selection argument though.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Proponents of these things will always dress up the statistics and use words like "investment", but consider who is really receiving the "investment".



Using the Newfoundland example, for every 3 single parents that are able to get full-time jobs instead, the net savings to the taxpayers is developmentally $36,510. So the taxpayers are definitely going to save money. Those savings alone would be enough to cover 8.11 more children's full-time care, or in other words the full-time care of the children of the high-income earners.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ontario's full time kindergarten program was foisted on the provinces taxpayers citing all the above evidence, while never pointing out the billion dollar bonanza awarded to the Ontario Teacher's union to pay for all the new unionized kindergarten teachers and support staff.



One thing I did consider and wonder about was the effect of the unions. While it wouldn't be teachers that would work at the daycare, I am sure they would form a union. Luckily it would be a smaller union, and less education is required, giving them less bargaining power. But you're right, that factor would inflate the costs, but since most daycares right now are "for-profit" daycares, so how much they would offset each other would be an interesting question.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Nov 2011)

And then there is the issue of "means testing" for costs:

IIRC, the US Navy at one time had one of the best day care programs in the world in terms of quality and satisfaction. 
Interms of costs, the per child costs are based on the income of the service member, but also apparently adjusted to the conditions of the local labour market.  


Defense Department Adjusts Child Care Fees

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=55669

By Bruce Moody, Commander, Navy Installations Command Public Affairs

WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy is adjusting its child care fees beginning Oct. 1 and adding categories for its highest income earners to compensate for six years without increases.

The Department of Defense establishes fee ranges for all military child development programs and recently released a policy addressing the fee adjustment. 

Under the new fee schedule, families with a total income of $85,000 or less will see their child care cost rise by $1 a week. Child care costs for families earning more than $85,000 will rise between $10 and $16 a week. For a 50-hour week, child care costs will range from $1.12 to $2.74 per hour.

Here is the new fee schedule:
Category I – incomes of $29,400 or below – will pay $56 per week (no change)
Category II – incomes from $29,401 to $35,700 – will pay $70 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category III – incomes from $35,701 to $46,200 – will pay $83 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category IV – incomes from $46,201 to $57,750 – will pay $99 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category V – incomes from $57,751 to $73,500 – will pay $109 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category VI – incomes from $73,501 to $85,000 – will pay $122 per week (+$1.00 per week)
Category VII – incomes from $85,001 to $100,000 – will pay $131 per week (+$10.00 per week)
Category VIII – incomes from $100,001 to $125,000 – will pay $134 per week (+$13.00 per week)
Category IX – incomes of $125,001 or above – will pay $137 per week (+$16.00 per week)

An optional high-cost fee may be used in areas where it is necessary to pay higher wages to compete with local labor or at those installations where wages are affected by non-foreign area cost of living allowances, post differential or locality pay. Three Navy installations utilize this high cost option: National Naval Medical Center Bethesda, Md.; Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam; and PMRF Barking Sands, Hawaii.

"The Navy is committed to providing affordable child care to our military families," said Chuck Clymer, Child and Youth Program manager at Commander, Navy Installations Command.

For the first time in six years, fee ranges have been revised to account primarily for inflation, increased incomes and increased caregiver salaries. Competitive salaries help to recruit and retain quality staff. Retaining high quality staff contributes to continuity of caregivers – stability that is very important to the young child's emotional development."

The fee policy revision represents a balanced solution to the issue of adjusting fees to pay caregiver salaries while limiting the financial impact to the family, said Clymer.

"The Navy has a lifelong commitment to protecting the well-being of our Sailors and their families," said Clymer. "Ensuring the health, safety and well-being of the military children entrusted to the Navy's care is a number one priority."

The Navy supports our service members and families by caring for nearly 52,000 children, ages 6 weeks to 12 years, in 132 child development centers, 86 school-aged care programs and 3,115 on- and off-base licensed child development homes.

The Navy recently expanded its Child and Youth Program to include 7,000 child care spaces fleetwide for children ages 12 and under and 31 new Child Development Centers. The expansion will reduce a child's time spent on waiting lists to three months or less to meet 80 percent of the potential need across the Navy by the end of 2011.

Navy Child and Youth Programs are among the highest quality in the nation. Navy Child Development Centers are accredited with the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Our Child Development Home Providers are certified by the Department of Defense, applicable state licensing agencies and are currently accrediting with the National Association for Family Child Care. Navy before and after-school programs are currently accrediting with the National AfterSchool Alliance. The Navy's youth programs are affiliated with the Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

For more news from Commander, Navy Installations Command, visit www.navy.mil/local/cni/.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Nov 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> That would be an ideal goal, but we're no longer living in the era of "Leave it to Beaver". With an economy that almost requires a two income household, today that opportunity is limited to a narrow group.



No, we seem to think it requires that......................but I guess you just have to wonder if one thinks that kids are worth it.

We did..............and now that I'm in my 50's I'm looking at things like a hot tub or maybe , for the first time ever, an all inclusive holiday somewhere warm, things that a lot of folks in thier 20 and 30's think are requirements for "busy working couples".


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> One thing I did consider and wonder about was the effect of the unions. While it wouldn't be teachers that would work at the daycare, I am sure they would form a union. Luckily it would be a smaller union, and less education is required, giving them less bargaining power. But you're right, that factor would inflate the costs, but since most daycares right now are "for-profit" daycares, so how much they would offset each other would be an interesting question.



You can just bet that CUPE or OPSU would snap up any "child care worker" union effort in order to bolster their pool of dues paying members and political power. People seem to ignore the effects of incentives outside the immediate question (child care) at hand.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

I'm not going to get way wrapped up in this, but I see it as just more socialist engineering. Kids get enough, "everyone's a winner, baby" stuff in the regular school system without starting them on it while they still can't read. Let alone by some Unionist hired by the province.

When my daughter was growing up, both my wife and I worked low paying jobs. My daughter was in private day care for a year before school and an after school program after she started.

We paid for that, when we could hardly afford it. We struggled, but we didn't ask for any handouts.

People want their kids in daycare? They can pay for it themselves, just like I, and thousands others did, before it became de rigueur to suck the taxpayer dry.

I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.

If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.


----------



## aesop081 (17 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not going to get way wrapped up in this, but I see it as just more socialist engineering. Kids get enough, "everyone's a winner, baby" stuff in the regular school system without starting them on it while they still can't read. Let alone by some Unionist hired by the province.
> 
> When my daughter was growing up, both my wife and I worked low paying jobs. My daughter was in private day care for a year before school and an after school program after she started.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Nov 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> :goodpost:



I agree.  I was going to post that I don't care if they tax people, but _only_ tax people who have kids in daycare.


----------



## Cansky (17 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I agree.  I was going to post that I don't care if they tax people, but _only_ tax people who have kids in daycare.



Althought I do agree with  Recceguy (excellent post by the way) and PmedMoe, I just have to play devils advocate here and mention if your a homeowner (even if you don't have kids) your already paying for a form of childcare (thru property taxes) called "School".  So why not a national childcare program if it will help the kids.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2011)

Although people treat elementary school like a daycare facility, that is not actually its purpose.  It is funded for its purpose.


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Kids get enough, "everyone's a winner, baby" stuff in the regular school system without starting them on it while they still can't read. Let alone by some Unionist hired by the province.



I agree. I am iffy on the "unionist hired by the province" comment because not-for-profits and gov't run childcare centres tend to be of higher quality according to everything I've read so far. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.
> 
> If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.



I agree. We shouldn't have to pay for someone else's kids, but sadly, I think we're better off if we do anyway. And when I say that, I mean the wealthy capitalist who's kids are grown up and out of the house, is better off paying for universal child care than for more social assistance. 

Here's a small piece from my paper (which ended up being titled "How Much a Capitalist Would Gain from a National Childcare Program"), expanding on the earlier Newfoundland example:



> At the current cost of $14,670 for social assistance, 3.26 impoverished children could have childcare provided for them, and their single parents can then earn over $60,000 of income and contribute approximately $6,000 to tax revenues. This means that the net costs to taxpayers for every three single parents that are enabled to get above the poverty line would be $7500 (3 * $4500 costs - $6,000 tax revenue) as opposed to $44,010 (3 *$14,670) in social assistance, for a net savings of $36,510. In other words, more than enough to provide childcare for the children of the high-income earners as well, without raising their taxes. With this financial analysis it is clear that taxpayers should support a national childcare program if only because it's less wasteful than paying the extra social assistance money associated with not having one.



And when I say taxpayers, more than anybody I am talking about wealthy capitalists who by far pay the most taxes. My old man is a wealthy capitalist, and some day I will be be too hopefully. I personally don't advocate for a national childcare program for the socialist reasons derived from a bleeding heart for the children... I could not care less about someone else's kids (this comment made it into my paper too, no joke). I am advocating it because it will be benefit myself, my old man, and other taxpayers/wealthy capitalists.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> People want their kids in daycare? They can pay for it themselves, just like I, and thousands others did, before it became de rigueur to suck the taxpayer dry.
> 
> I'm tired of splitting my paycheck with self entitled people that think I owe them something that they are just too damn lazy to go get themselves.
> 
> If they can't take care of their kids, or afford to, they shouldn't have any.



 :nod:

As a guy with a wife who made the decision to take a cut in family income to have a parent at home, I agree with this post.  Being a parent is a decision people have to make, and if you don't want to sacrifice the 2nd SUV, don't expect me to pay for your daycare.


----------

