2021 federal budget and the CAF

[Altair]

Yes; many more people could do "X" if "X" wasn't so expensive. So what?

Yes, lets not make life more affordable for Canadians, and have Canadians return to the workforce, improving productivity, labour participation, average disposable income, and increase the tax base.

Silly plan.

Maybe lets let the electorate decide. I wonder how popular a plan this would be.

 

[Weinie]

despite those kids parents, especially mothers, returning to the work force, contributing around 13.6 billion more to the economy, thus having the program more or less pay for itself.

dirtbags indeed.

Let's not be too Keynesian here. It is specious to ascribe a result without actually seeing how it plays out.

 

[Altair]

Let's not be too Keynesian here. It is specious to ascribe a result without actually seeing how it plays out.

Take Quebec, apply it nationally.

 

[Weinie]

Take Quebec, apply it nationally.

I'm assuming you are only referring to child care.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm sure if alberta did they they would no longer be getting money from the feds.

Money from the Feds?

You do realize Alberta is a net contributor, not recipient of equalization, right?

 

[Eaglelord17]

The entire housing market is overheated, it matters little where you live these days.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.

First off, just because the market is overheated that doesn't mean you buy in. Right now a smart person would be saving money in cash for when interest rates go up or the housing market crashes (both likely to happen soon, one will directly lead to the other). There will be deals soon enough might just take a year or two to materialize. Still plenty of houses out there which are affordable even with the current market situation. My one friend is looking at buying a 150k home on a large double lot at the moment. Long term it might subdivide the lot (50k of profit there) or build his dream house on the other lot and sell or rent the house that is currently there. Again its all about where you choose to live. I have lived in more expensive cities, I chose to move where I did.

Secondly I am making reasonable guesses (which is all these can be) based off of realities on the ground. You are also working with assumptions, the largest of which is that they would be making 55k a year average. Odds are most stay at home parents aren't making 55k or more a year. Odds are they are going to be working more towards the minimum wage side of things.

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

In this chart which shows women from 2015-2019 in the age of 25-54 your median income for 2019 was 42,900$. So your 55k a year number is already way to high. Even at a average of 42,900 I suspect many will still be earning less than that as again this is based off your top earners and lowest earners in there as well, and I figure most staying at home would be in the lowest earner categories. Likely most would be making minimum wage to the low 20s if they were to rejoin the workforce. Not saying you won't find a few examples otherwise, but most cases that is how it ends up being divided.

 

[Altair]

Money from the Feds?

You do realize Alberta is a net contributor, not recipient of equalization, right?

Federal money for childcare will only go to childcare, take that to the bank.

First off, just because the market is overheated that doesn't mean you buy in. Right now a smart person would be saving money in cash for when interest rates go up or the housing market crashes (both likely to happen soon, one will directly lead to the other). There will be deals soon enough might just take a year or two to materialize. Still plenty of houses out there which are affordable even with the current market situation. My one friend is looking at buying a 150k home on a large double lot at the moment. Long term it might subdivide the lot (50k of profit there) or build his dream house on the other lot and sell or rent the house that is currently there. Again its all about where you choose to live. I have lived in more expensive cities, I chose to move where I did.

Secondly I am making reasonable guesses (which is all these can be) based off of realities on the ground. You are also working with assumptions, the largest of which is that they would be making 55k a year average. Odds are most stay at home parents aren't making 55k or more a year. Odds are they are going to be working more towards the minimum wage side of things.

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas

Income of individuals by age group, sex and income source, Canada, provinces and selected census metropolitan areas, annual.

www150.statcan.gc.ca

In this chart which shows women from 2015-2019 in the age of 25-54 your median income for 2019 was 42,900$. So your 55k a year number is already way to high. Even at a average of 42,900 I suspect many will still be earning less than that as again this is based off your top earners and lowest earners in there as well, and I figure most staying at home would be in the lowest earner categories. Likely most would be making minimum wage to the low 20s if they were to rejoin the workforce. Not saying you won't find a few examples otherwise, but most cases that is how it ends up being divided.

You do forget that women who needs to take time off for being the primary caregiver end up sacrificing their careers, thus earning less.

You see that played out in the link you shared.

Quebec average female salary, 49500, men 63500.

Ontario average female salary, 49700, men 67500.

We all know Quebecers earn less than those in Ontario, but the gap between women in both provinces is marginal. One could attribute that to women not needing to set themselves back years sitting at home waiting until their kids are school aged.

All things being equal, you can probably toss an extra 4k a year on the average womans annual salary going off of Quebec and Ontario here.

 

[Weinie]

One could attribute that to women not needing to set themselves back years sitting at home waiting until their kids are school aged.

No, you, not one, attribute this because it supports your argument. That does not make the case.

 

[Altair]

No, you, not one, attribute this because it supports your argument. That does not make the case.

Okay wise one, you explain it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, lets not make life more affordable for Canadians, and have Canadians return to the workforce, improving productivity, labour participation, average disposable income, and increase the tax base.

Oh, if we're going to do that, I can think of a whole list of additional things: free car and free transit passes; free lunch money; free post-secondary education; free internship salaries; free housing (rent/purchase); free clothing/uniform/dress standard allowances; free child activity allowances...I'm not sure where it ends, only that there must be some kind of end.

Some people will have to be taxed more, and they won't only be "the rich", which militates against "life affordable for more Canadians" and "average disposable income". Some Canadians would rather not be in the workforce, but the cost of taxes and living forces them to be there. If working in childcare becomes more lucrative - as I expect it would - some people would choose to leave more economically productive but less socially enjoyable jobs, militating against improving productivity. If many of the people who can't afford child care are in that situation because none of the jobs to which they could reasonably expect to be hired pay very much and thus don't meet thresholds to pay much income tax, that militates against increasing the tax base. There are "unseens" to go along with the "seens".

And, in advance to forestall the whinging by people who can never seem to see cause and effect, acknowledge that one effect of "life more affordable" is - always - upward pressure on residential real estate prices and rents (increased demand)...which makes life less affordable.

I see moral advantages in publicly-funded child care for low-income families, but it would be best to start there and assume it would be a net fiscal cost with net social benefits (which might ultimately translate to a net fiscal benefit which would be almost impossibly hard to tease out of the data, and absolutely impossible to prove in advance).

Maybe lets let the electorate decide. I wonder how popular a plan this would be.

Depends on how the question is posed. "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare?", or "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare, payed for by rate increases in the following tax brackets and/or a rate increase of the GST/HST to X%?"

 

[Brad Sallows]

You see that played out in the link you shared.
Quebec average female salary, 49500, men 63500.
Ontario average female salary, 49700, men 67500.

That means jack with respect to trying to figure out time-out penalties. The first thing to look at when comparing men to women, which is usually bypassed because it doesn't fit political narratives, is what kinds of jobs people choose. Mere choice overwhelms other factors. Same applies to fields of education and other learning.

 

[Eaglelord17]

When your lowest paid educational courses are female dominated and your highest paying educational courses are male dominated (not to mention the highest paid trades) your going to end up with women making less in general. Median is also a much better assessment of salary than Average as average has the millionaires and billionaires boosting up significantly more than Median. 42,900 is your number even though you are insistent on using the higher number to try and prove your point.

Ignoring that again you are assuming these people staying at home would be making more as time progressed and their careers have been impacted. Many people do not break out of the minimum wage to low 20s area. That is just part of life. There is a rut which is very hard to get out of for many due to personal decisions, lack of opportunities, and the changing economy from less skilled labour to more skilled/qualification based.

 

[Altair]

Oh, if we're going to do that, I can think of a whole list of additional things: free car

Wouldn't go this far.

and free transit passes;

Could be done

free lunch money;

Means tested, but its already happening.

free post-secondary education;

Could work.

free internship salaries;

Maybe not

free housing (rent/purchase);

Okay, no.

free clothing/uniform/dress standard allowances;

No.

free child activity allowances...

Already happening.

I'm not sure where it ends, only that there must be some kind of end.

Yes.

Some Canadians would rather not be in the workforce, but the cost of taxes and living forces them to be there.

So...most people?

If working in childcare becomes more lucrative - as I expect it would - some people would choose to leave more economically productive but less socially enjoyable jobs,

There is always going to be a ceiling on this effect.

militating against improving productivity.

Depends who is freed up to work.

If many of the people who can't afford child care are in that situation because none of the jobs to which they could reasonably expect to be hired pay very much and thus don't meet thresholds to pay much income tax, that militates against increasing the tax base. There are "unseens" to go along with the "seens".

Naturally, but for every example you choose, there is likely another where someone who is a productive member of society is on the sidelines for 2-3 years, and that's even if they can get back to the job they had before they had a child.

And, in advance to forestall the whinging by people who can never seem to see cause and effect, acknowledge that one effect of "life more affordable" is - always - upward pressure on residential real estate prices and rents (increased demand)...which makes life less affordable.

This is a housing issue. Make more. Make more affordable ones too while they are at it.

I see moral advantages in publicly-funded child care for low-income families, but it would be best to start there and assume it would be a net fiscal cost with net social benefits (which might ultimately translate to a net fiscal benefit which would be almost impossibly hard to tease out of the data, and absolutely impossible to prove in advance)

I agree with it being means tested,

Depends on how the question is posed. "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare?", or "Are you in favour of publicly-funded daycare, payed for by rate increases in the following tax brackets and/or a rate increase of the GST/HST to X%? More debt.

Fixed that for ya.

And considering the debt binge of the last few years, and the LPC still in the mid to high 30s in popular opinion, I think we can safely say not enough people give a damn.

But of all the pork barrel, nonsense, stupid subsidizes that Canada hands out to bombardier, or the energy sector, or defend contractors, of all the money shoveled out the door, investing directly in Canadians should be the last thing people should gripe about. Allowing people who want to work but cannot afford childcare seems like a easy win, and much easier to quantify than some corporate subsidizes we have on the books.

 

[Altair]

When your lowest paid educational courses are female dominated and your highest paying educational courses are male dominated (not to mention the highest paid trades) your going to end up with women making less in general. Median is also a much better assessment of salary than Average as average has the millionaires and billionaires boosting up significantly more than Median. 42,900 is your number even though you are insistent on using the higher number to try and prove your point.

Ignoring that again you are assuming these people staying at home would be making more as time progressed and their careers have been impacted. Many people do not break out of the minimum wage to low 20s area. That is just part of life. There is a rut which is very hard to get out of for many due to personal decisions, lack of opportunities, and the changing economy from less skilled labour to more skilled/qualification based.

Yes, however this happens in both provinces, so all things being equal?

I checked the median income, female ON 41,900, QC, 44,500....

Thank you, that works even better.

 

[Brad Sallows]

And the discussion is back where it starts: "I like this one thing that will deliver benefits I carefully enumerate, so we should do it."

A difficult truth is that most choices in life are lifestyle choices; some make life harder and people look to others to bear some of the burdens.

 

[Altair]

And the discussion is back where it starts: "I like this one thing that will deliver benefits I carefully enumerate, so we should do it."

A difficult truth is that most choices in life are lifestyle choices; some make life harder and people look to others to bear some of the burdens.

I don't have a kid that young.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I do not assume that people who advocate public spending necessarily benefit personally from it.

 

[Weinie]

I do not assume that people who advocate public spending necessarily benefit personally from it.

Yup....hence the NDP.

 

[Altair]

Yup....hence the NDP.

The NDP have mastered the political sphere.

They go left, Liberals chase them, they go lefter.

Meanwhile the Conservatives slowly drift left following the liberals.

If only the Conservatives had their own version of the NDP and didn't eat them instead.

 

[Weinie]

The NDP have mastered the political sphere.

And yet, for all their mastery, have never attained power...................hmmmm.