Healthy Debate: National Childcare Program
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 5,350
- Points
- 1,160
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.
D
dutchie
Guest
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?
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?
- Reaction score
- 13,828
- Points
- 1,260
Caesar said:
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.
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.
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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 †and people need to broaden their horizons 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 †and corporate daycare profits 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."
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 †and people need to broaden their horizons 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 †and corporate daycare profits 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."
A
Agamemnon
Guest
;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...
;DAnd guys...you can't blame the daycare plan for less money for the military...itsn ot the Canadian populations priority...until something bad happens...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Recce41 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....
A
aesop081
Guest
Jumper said:
you have my vote.......
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
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.....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
a_majoor said:
[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 ...)
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
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 ...
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 ...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
bossi said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 230
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 560
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 11,693
- Points
- 1,040
"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?
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?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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?
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?
D
dutchie
Guest
Andyboy said:
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.
- Reaction score
- 8,817
- Points
- 1,360
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. :-[
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
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 8
- Points
- 230
Jumper 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.
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.
