Day Care Issue

[Roy]

Which party do you support on the day care issue? The Conservative plan to give the money to the parents or the Liberal plan to create a public system?

I think both have their merits, but I seem to think that parents would want a direct allowance, then choose the desired facility for their children. The plan to give the money directaly to the parents could also lead to more day care provided for workers by companies. Many companies are now making the investment for worksite daycare.

 

[DasFX]

Which party do you support on the day care issue? The Conservative plan to give the money to the parents or the Liberal plan to create a public system?

I think both have their merits, but I seem to think that parents would want a direct allowance, then choose the desired facility for their children. The plan to give the money directaly to the parents could also lead to more day care provided for workers by companies. Many companies are now making the investment for worksite daycare.

Liberal plan is good for working parents, not so good for stay at home moms and shift working parents.

However conservative plans has no assurances that the monthly cheque sent to parents will actually go to childcare rather than bills, mortgage, casino, liquor store or local drug dealer.

Both have many flaws.

 

[MMMike]

Theres no question - its always better to put the money in parents' pockets and let them make decisions about what arrangement works best for them.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Day Care Issue

Theres no question - its always better to put the money in parents' pockets and let them make decisions about what arrangement works best for them.

That isn't a childcare program then, it is a tax break or baby bonus. It doesn't nothing to ensure that the money goes to childcare and it doesn't nothing to ensure any standards on the care the child receives.

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Day Care Issue

Theres no question - its always better to put the money in parents' pockets and let them make decisions about what arrangement works best for them.

And when the parent spends the money unwisely, who suffers? The child.

 

[MMMike]

You obviously don't have much trust in people DasFX. Of course there are bad parents out there, but they will be bad parents no matter what kind of government programs are out there. If you seriously believe you can trust the government to spend money more wisely than the taxpayers, why don't we have 100% taxation, then the government can buy people appropriate housing, cars etc.. etc.. etc.. including daycare. Welcome to the Nanny state!

 

[Roy]

I think that if the plan to give the parents daycare money has assurances that money can only be spent on daycare it will be the better plan. I think workplaces will have incentive to build daycare facilities for employees. Imagine if you are a parent and you can leave you child at work, and see them at lunch and on breaks.

But DASFX you bring up the good question of how are we gonna assure the parents will spend the money on daycare, instead of drugs or alcohol.Umm, maybe if we could use the same system which is used to food stamps in the US. In the US they use food stamps so people will not use the credit on drugs ect....

lots of intresting aspects of this though....

 

[Reverend Blair]

Theres no question - its always better to put the money in parents' pockets and let them make decisions about what arrangement works best for them.

Yeah, 'cause $4.00 a day will buy a lot of childcare. :roll:

 

[Paranoid Dot Calm]

The first thing I think of when the government talks about childcare is ....

Are they gonna screw it up just like they do (did) with healthcare. Is childcare just gonna become another political football of sorts?

The second thing I think of is my experiences of seeing a daycare centre in operation.

In the 90's, I had a job where I visited many daycare operations within the city of Toronto. The locations were at George Brown College's and another named "Margaret" (something) near a stadium on Bloor street and a few others.

These daycare centers were the cat's meow. I believe it cost about 350 bucks per month per child and that was 10 years ago or more. However; they were the elite of daycare. They had everything and the workers took kids to the zoo and to the science center and all that jazz. I used to get angry when visiting these places because it reminded me of why the elite had such well-rounded kids and such "culturally-intelligent" kids. I was jealous as hell.

This chinzy 25 bucks a week which the government is offering will give our kids nothing really. There will not be any trips to the zoo or to the science centre for a measley 25 bucks a week.

Calm

 

[DasFX]

Re: RE: Day Care Issue

You obviously don't have much trust in people DasFX. Of course there are bad parents out there, but they will be bad parents no matter what kind of government programs are out there. If you seriously believe you can trust the government to spend money more wisely than the taxpayers, why don't we have 100% taxation, then the government can buy people appropriate housing, cars etc.. etc.. etc.. including daycare. Welcome to the Nanny state!

I'd be more receptive if the plan worked like a tax credit. At tax time, you file receipts and then the government pays you the money back. If you want to have a cheque every month, then stagger it such that 2005 childcare payments filed will be repaid through monthly cheques in 2006.

Allow a wide range of services to count such that stay at home moms can take advantage of the program as well.

Here at work, we get a 500$ exercise and fitness subsidy each year, but we only get that money when we show a receipt of purchase of something pertaining to health and fitness. Anything from gym memberships to sports equipment to camping supplies is okay. That way, the money is going for its intended use.

 

[Colpy]

Theres no question - its always better to put the money in parents' pockets and let them make decisions about what arrangement works best for them.

Yeah, 'cause $4.00 a day will buy a lot of childcare. :roll:

$4.oo a day will do the working poor more good than Paul Martin's NOTHING..........as I've said before, universal daycare is disproportionately used by people with higher incomes, and the Martin plan is welfare for the well-to-do. The working poor pay friends or relatives to take care of their kids.

Here's another point. I know a couple of women who stay at home for their own kids that supplement that income by watching other people's kids. I also know a retired woman that does the same. IF Martin's plan works, they will be all the poorer for it.......Thanks a bunch!

You guys are also ignoring Conservative plans to create 150,000 new daycare spaces, and to provide monetary incentives for companies to have on-site daycare centres......the latter an excellent idea, I think.

I would like to see the money per child increased, and aimed only at lower and middle class families, but (sigh) its an election campaign, so everyone gets paid off.

I don't know why the left thinks only the gov't should be allowed control of money.

 

[Summer]

DasFX, why would a stay-at-home mom need daycare? OR are you looking at it as something she might use occasionally for times when she needs to do something that kids just aren't convenient to take with her for, like her own doctor's appointment or something or to just get a day off. That I can see, if she doesn't have someone else to watch her kids.

That said, I think $25 a week for daycare is ridiculous. It doesn't cover the cost of anything at any reasonably decent daycare center. You can't even get an in-home babysitter for $25 a week.

What should happen is providing incentives to workplaces to set up their own on-site childcare facilities, including facilities for the children of shift workers, and for parents who are not employed by a company that has the necessary childcare facilities, either provide childcare vouchers (that can only be used for childcare) in an amount sufficient to provide quality care for children, or have public childcare centers (again, even for the children of shift workers) that provide a well-rounded and enriching experience for the children. No, they don't need to be country clubs for kids, but they need to provide at least the same calibre of stimulation and experiences that could reasonably be expected to be provided to a child by a middle-class stay-at-home parent.

Just my view of a perfect world... from a non-Canadian (yet, gimme a few years) who has no kids.

 

[Jay]

The first thing I think of when the government talks about childcare is ....

Are they gonna screw it up just like they do (did) with healthcare. Is childcare just gonna become another political football of sorts?

This is exactly what is going to happen.

The Federal government has no business being in education period. The Liberals can't read, so they don't seem to understand this. Therefore if Harper is going to put money back into the pockets of Canadians, that is a far better approach rather then stepping outside of jurisdiction and creating a political fight over something that has nothing to do with Martin and his band of illiterate thieves.

It is a ploy to fool Canadians.

 

[bevvyd]

I feel that this money should be invested in creating affordable daycare spaces for everyone. And Summer I totally agree with you on incentives for businesses to open daycare facilities. Giving out the money via tax credits doesn't ensure that everyone gets the same break.

 

[Reverend Blair]

You guys are also ignoring Conservative plans to create 150,000 new daycare spaces, and to provide monetary incentives for companies to have on-site daycare centres......the latter an excellent idea, I think.

Same thing that Mike Harris did. You know how many spaces it created? Zero.

$4.oo a day will do the working poor more good than Paul Martin's NOTHING

That doesn't even pay for a day's worth of coffee, Colpy. Harper wants to provide baby-stting money for a couple of hours a week.

The Federal government has no business being in education period.

Yeah, because only rich people should get an education. :roll:

 

[Said1]

$4.oo a day will do the working poor more good than Paul Martin's NOTHING..........as I've said before, universal daycare is disproportionately used by people with higher incomes, and the Martin plan is welfare for the well-to-do. The working poor pay friends or relatives to take care of their kids.

Here's another point. I know a couple of women who stay at home for their own kids that supplement that income by watching other people's kids. I also know a retired woman that does the same. IF Martin's plan works, they will be all the poorer for it.......Thanks a bunch!

You guys are also ignoring Conservative plans to create 150,000 new daycare spaces, and to provide monetary incentives for companies to have on-site daycare centres......the latter an excellent idea, I think.

I would like to see the money per child increased, and aimed only at lower and middle class families, but (sigh) its an election campaign, so everyone gets paid off.

I don't know why the left thinks only the gov't should be allowed control of money.

Where will the 150,000 spots come from?

Low income families are entitled to subsidies that either covers the entire cost or suppliments the fee - at a subsidized or NON-subsidized daycare - the difference is in the amount of spots available to parents with childcare subsidies. I would say more individual subsidies and less subsidized centers would be a better way to go - or at least a starting point.

The biggest problem is care for SCHOOLAGED CHILDREN - 4 and up. Not enough programs in schools or where ever to take them becuase of the difficulty in transporting the children to and from school. Having more centres in the work place is a good idea, but still doesn't serve the needs of those with older children.

And further more, how will you're friends become poorer, won't parents still pay them? If they were smart, they'd go through an agency, then they'd get paid regardless, like me.

I definetly would like to see the money per child increased for home child care providers also, what we are paid is a joke when you look at the hours and work involved, not to mention the idiot parents.....ok, ok. Rant off.

 

[Jay]

Yeah, because only rich people should get an education. :roll:

Ummmm, that has nothing to do with it.

 

[Jo Canadian]

 

[Reverend Blair]

It has everything to do with it, Jay.

 

[Jay]

:roll: