Healthy Debate: National Childcare Program

[buzgo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

....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]

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....

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

>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.

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]

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]

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]

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).