The absolute cheapest way to provide child care if for one parent to remain in the home every day and look after the kids. It worked 60 years ago, why not now?
You must remember, I'm what you could call a late boomer and I do. However it was a creeping issue taking decades so it could go largely unnoticed, but I do remember my dad, every spring, working on his taxes, cussing Trudeau and his budget, before finally opening a bottle of Chivas.
Spouses and children were considered dependants and tax deductions were allowed. I don't know when that changed, but they weren't available when our first was born, non refundable tax credits aren't the same, and if I remember they were income tested. The "baby bonus" which was universal, which meant EVERYONE received it regardless of income. That Changed under Mulroney, by Michael Wilson, it became income tested with a cut off level. We received a whopping two cheques before that happened. As it turned out, we were just barely over the income cut off and receive nothing afterward.
Along came Chretien, and Paul Martin budgets, where you could claim child care expenses, but only if both parents worked, and some day care centres were already subsidized by government. The best single income families could hope fore was the equivalent to married non refundable tax credit, which could be applied to only one dependant family member,(nothing for any other dependant children)which amounted to a whopping $935 for the entire year, whoopdy-do.
The tax structure was punitive by its progressiveness, topping out at $66,500/ year, (which also BTW was the max remuneration for elected MP's, over which they received tax free payments for PM, deputy ministers, committee work, Official Opposition positions and such) over which you paid the top marginal rate, in Sask it was 52%. It was a disincentive for a single earner to earn more where 2 incomes could earn less individually, (but more combined)and pay taxes at their individual rates. Had I been able to split my income with my wife, (which some people did because of disgust, by legally separating from their spouse and paying them alimony, yeah, a scam) it would have saved me over $15K per year.
This did a couple of things too, it got more people into the workforce making Chretien and Martin look like heroes. It also spawned an whole new employment title, Early Childhood Educator, and with it a whole new industry.
We are just seeing a continuation of this as people make more demands on the state, and the state is willing to accommodate because it translates into votes.
The other problem it brings is as more people think they have skin in the game the more they believe they have the right to dictate how children are raised. Because of my work my wife was unable to continue with hers and she basically retired 25 years ago and stayed home with the kids. We had no access to reliable day care either, so we moved to the country, we have not had municipal water or sewer for 25 years, and I don't miss it. We had no government assistance in raising our kids either, and they grew up to understand independence. But that was our choice.
I have no issue in the government offering tax deductions for dependants living at home, provided it is universal, because as I see it, it is just the government taking less of what you earn. I do have an issue with government handouts and those who demand it, in effect taking more of what we earn to give someone else, which is increasingly more the Canadian Way. For them I have a few cans of KMA I can send.
What?? And to think we've been doing for free.
