Childcare at 50 cents/hour

Its less than that. The $100 is taxable income.

Quebec provides services equal to 7,00$ and is touted as the best system in the land. Guaranteed to go to child care as well.
So not enough in theory or in practice.

I can't even begin to comprehend how the Conservatives have rationalized this decision.

"Quebec provides services equal to $7 and is touted as the best system in the land"

read on... http://www.cbc.ca/montreal/story/qc-daycare-060209.html

While were getting anecdotal, here's a story regarding a parent who lived in a province with day care "choice":

From CBC

Of course, this adds nothing to the debate.

Considering I have a baby on the way, this was reason #1 for me to hate and despise them. They just have no friggin clue.

It's not only an insult to mothers, but it's an insult to childcare workers! These are people with college/university educations and they are being told, essentially, that their jobs are worth $0.50/hr. And the majority of these workers (and 100% of mothers) are women. I read during the election (so this may have just been something to campaign on, don't know if it's happening) that Harper proposed to offer tax cuts to workplaces that would provide daycare. Doesn't he know that a majority of women who work when their kids are "daycare age" are working shitty minimum-wage jobs (and often more than one shitty minimum-wage job)? Their employers don't have any vested interest in providing childcare - if these women have a problem with their situation, they can be easily replaced with 16- or 60-year-olds.

Don't bring kids to the world if you can't afford to raise them!

Such great problem-solving, Johnny. How about no one has sex unless they plan to have kids? Lots of happy men in the celibate future. Get real.

Response to Roxanne:

"These are people with college/university educations and they are being told, essentially, that their jobs are worth $0.50/hr. "

No they are not. It merely says that the government is willing to subsidize that amount.

"Doesn't he know that a majority of women who work when their kids are "daycare age" are working shitty minimum-wage jobs (and often more than one shitty minimum-wage job)?"

I was going to criticize the hyperbole of the first quote, until I saw this. There is no majority of persons of any age that work minimum wage jobs, including mothers who use daycare.

Response to Tanja:

Not that I disagree with the spirit of your retort to Johnny, but your logic is way out of wack and seems beamed from a pre-1950s discussion of reproduction. Maybe you haven't seen the aisle in the pharmacy, but not having kids until you can afford them doesn't lead in any sensible way to celibacy.

To take from your and Roxanne's discussion, all children in daycare have (i) poor mothers; and (ii) are the product of unplanned pregnancies. If that was the case, there would be no call for a universal program/tax relief - it would be targeted at these groups.

i wasn't saying anything about unplanned pregnancies, don't lump me into that category. I'm a dissenting voice, but I'm not saying what she's saying at all. How do you know I agree with that? What I said wasn't anything along those lines.

First of all, people who would need (or qualify for) subsidy are not going to be people who can afford to kick in huge sums over what the gov't is offering (certainly not the equivalent to even half a living wage for another person). When the gov't is offering $0.50 an hour, they aren't offering to kick in much, so add that to the small amounts the subsidy recepients are starting with and you are telling college grads that their services are worth pennies a glass. Even though daycare workers are in a situation where they will be awarded payment above a subsidy, this small a subsidy is an insult to the worthiness of their skills.

And again, since a certain (low) income range is the recepient demographic, we are talking about women working one or more shitty, minimum-wage jobs. I wasn't making statements about any women who are not recepients of this subsidy, because they aren't affected by the subsidy. Why would I then consider them when discussing the subject? This eliminates my "hyperbole", non?

"wasn't saying anything about unplanned pregnancies, don't lump me into that category. I'm a dissenting voice, but I'm not saying what she's saying at all. How do you know I agree with that? What I said wasn't anything along those lines."

Apologies if you felt "lumped". What I did say was "taking the two together". I didn't mean the points were the same, just that they were both wrong.

"First of all, people who would need (or qualify for) subsidy are not going to be people who can afford to kick in huge sums over what the gov't is offering (certainly not the equivalent to even half a living wage for another person). When the gov't is offering $0.50 an hour, they aren't offering to kick in much, so add that to the small amounts the subsidy recepients are starting with and you are telling college grads that their services are worth pennies a glass. Even though daycare workers are in a situation where they will be awarded payment above a subsidy, this small a subsidy is an insult to the worthiness of their skills."

Here you are just mistaken about the facts. It's not a targeted subsidy (say, like Welfare) but a tax credit. Everyone who pays tax benefits from a credit.

I don't understand how it is an insult to day care workers. There is nothing in this policy to suggest that there incomes would be effected at all. The only impact of this policy is it creates a second payer (the government) for existing day care spaces. It means if you used day care in the last year, and continue to, all that will change is the government will give you a credit equal to $100 a month against your day care expenses (which simply reduces your taxable income multiplied against your marginal rate, which determines tax payable).

And again, since a certain (low) income range is the recepient demographic, we are talking about women working one or more shitty, minimum-wage jobs.

(See above - you are wrong, it is not targeted).

I wasn't making statements about any women who are not recepients of this subsidy, because they aren't affected by the subsidy. Why would I then consider them when discussing the subject? This eliminates my "hyperbole", non?

Yes, I concede, you were not being hyperbolic. You were simply arguing with wild misconceptions about the facts, which led to incorrect conclusions.

let me see:
a subsidy for late mortage payment? day care for my dogs? oh my car broke down, give me a subsidy so I can fix it? how about a lunch and dinner subsidy for those who have to work long hours so we can subsidize people who can't afford kids but insist on bring them to the world? I also need a subsidy for a personal trainer? Anything else. Be responsible for you own action. Save first, do some planning before you decide to have kids. Stop running to the government and cry for money. Canadians are spoiled, constantly looking for government to subsize things. One other thing, don't count on getting any pension from this government 20 years from now, face the reality. I bet alot of these parents who want subsidies have no problem spending money on cigarettes, 5 bucks a coffee at Starbucks several times a year, frequent visit to the LCBO, or even worse on drugs.

Johnny, we elected the wrong dude. Its about time there was a rational voice like yours on this and related matters. The Federal government has morphed into our parents, bailing us out of jams we can't fix ourselves. There's a grant or subsidy for everything! Can't afford your kids? Call the government. Want to quit your job and hang out on the sofa? Government again. Your script sucks and no one will pay for your movie? Feds once more.

The government should exist solely as a caretaker. Fix the roads, protect the borders and set the laws. Otherwise, stay out of the way. If you stop paying for other people's kids, sooner or later they'll learn to do it for themselves or stop having kids.

If tomorrow I go buy a car, but then I can't afford the insurance, should I call my MP to cover the difference? What... you don't do that? So what should I do? NOT buy the car?

What a novel idea.

One more thing, do we know where this day care money from the government came from? Partially, the money came from:

1. Gay people, who have been denied of social benefits and discriminated against by the society, and happen to not have no kids(most of them, at least). And not all of them are making huge income like the media love to portrait. (Yep, rob the singles and give them to the couples, and then kick them hard when they retire)

2. New immigrants who have grown up kids that don't need to be educated in this country. Yep, they are in their 50's, bringing children with them who are in their 20's, highly eduated. All employed, but overqualified the jobs they are holding as this government make it difficult for them even the education systerm in the countries they are originally from are alot more vigorous.

So next them, be nicer to the gay people and new immigrants, their tax money goes to your daycare subsiday and pension.

The major problem with your argument, Johnny is that people aren't cars. If you can't afford your car, you can cut your losses and sell the thing.
While I agree that the gov't should be bailing people out of everything, when it comes to people, the gov't should lend a hand. If you can't get with that idea for compasionate reasons, how about this? A kid that gets a hand up will have a much better chance of being a productive, tax paying, business starting member of society. Heck, the kid might even grow up to be gay and help contribute more than his fair share of taxes. Oh, and you forgot rich people in your last post. Rich people who are at 50% taxation should also be thanked.

That should read "the gov't SHOULD NOT be bailing people out of everything"

Damn these hands.

"people aren't cars"

It is exactly for this reason that people should THINK before having kids. There are lot of financial and emotional investments and obligations involved to bring kids to this world. I have no issues giving money to the less fortunate, such as kids who are from broken homes and abusive parents, etc... but what is the cause for problems like that? People who are not capable of raising themselves, leave alone kids. Parents who do not spend their money and plan wisely. Just what do we do, give them a subsidy to encourage them to continue to be irresponsible.

I agree that people should be as responsible as possible. But lets be realistic. Shit happens and no amount of planning can prevent every eventuality. Sometimes people get pregnant by mistake (even WITH birth control). Sometimes people lose their jobs.

And really, what kind of fucked up society says that families are only the domain of the well off? In the olden days the poor had a load of kids to help support the family. You would think that even back then, a reasonable person would take a spreadsheet out and figure "Well, if we don't have any kids, we could probably support ourselves and travel and buy a flat screen tv (or tractor)!". But mysteriously and unsurprisingly, the drive to reproduce goes beyond pure logic and reason.

As I said, I agree with you that people should have a plan and be responsible. All the more reason that the gov't should be putting money directly into a daycare system and not just a cheque. That way people can't try to have both kids AND a Sony Vega if they can't afford both. Using the $1200 for "Popcorn and beer" is blunt and a generalisation, but you can bet that some parents will consider it.

Mmm... popcorn and beer.

$1200 for popcorn and beer Micheal? While I agree that people are really irresponsible most of the time, I'm curious where the $1200 credit will now get wasted for the conservatives. This is about as low as as the food credit they Liberals cut for people on welfare last spring.

Cut from the poor, they are to busy starving to complain effectively.
Ironically, we do have $$ for the tax breaks we hand out to the upper middle class so they can get a cheque back when they send their kids to private school. Johnny get real, its not ONLY the poor who go to the LCBO, and use drugs.

How about a real subsidy, like more grants so those who cannot afford to go to school, can get educated and become 'useful' for the system. You should see the works programs they have for people on disability. Service jobs and telemarketing for those who want to improve their lifestyle.

Yeah, at $7 an hour, I'd like to see what most people can afford. You ever seen a Starbucks in run-down neighbourhood?

Instead of handing out cheques to people there should be a national program to assist the working class in different levels. Meaning if you need to pay for your meds, you should not be taking it out from your rent money. Try getting Trillum to cover anything for you if your a low-income earner (in my opinion say $25,000 a year)is damn near impossible. Someone on welfare can get this service and hardly pay a premium but if you fall into low-income wage earner status $25,000 you get slapped with a premiun which is probabily larger then what you'd pay for the meds in the first place.

There is nothing to assist to the working-class poor in this country. Meager susbisidies go to those on social assitence and the rich high income bracket earners get one break after another. Everyone should just 'work harder'.....