Comments on: Beer and Popcorn…Er, no

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:05:34 +0000

children are to come first with parents, but in the hands of the government they are to come second to money…

that is not how parents raise their children

By: KevinG

KevinG — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:54:59 +0000

The overarching question in the coming childcare debate is what, if any, interest does the state have in the fate of its families and their children? Put another way, to what end is childcare the means?

And pay taxes, You know this is net negative for the individuals right?

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:21:32 +0000

i have 3 kids when do i have time for myself let alone my neighbirs kids on top of that…. the system does suck

By: jay

jay — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:47:12 +0000

Sara, one of the best parts of the whole childcare argument is the one you hit..if you take care of your own kids you make no money and get no tax breaks. But if you and your neighbour swap kids and pay each other you make money and get benefits and tax deductions.

The classic here being that if my partner had paid a friend to care for our older child and in return been paid to care for that friends’ child she would ahve been eligible for EI maternity benefits for our second. She didn’t and it cost us. In my view this is entirely absurd and needs to be fixed.

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:45:12 +0000

what gets me as a stay at hime mom is that bag of cash given to ne if i leave my children…i pay for other parents to have 2 incomes when my family only has one!

the liberals started this when they put daycare on a pedisal and parenting at the bottom.

a mom who works at home is equal to a mom who works at a paying job! (same as dads)

y pay one and not the other?
or

y pay either?

am i a leech on society for childcaring my own 3 kids?

i am paid well if i daycare someone elses 3 children…. go figure eh

(sry bout typing i have a fractured wrist)

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 16:22:07 +0000

I prefer to call it outsourcing, rather than sub-contracting, parental childcare responsibilities. It really is no different than companies outsourcing various functions which leftists tend to rail against.

What’s good for the goose…

By: Da Zing

Da Zing — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:59:50 +0000

“the benefits of children have been eliminated”

This isn’t entirely true. Your children will eventually make an income (we hope) and pay taxes to the gov’t so that the gov’t can take care of you (we hope). The benefits of children have not been eliminated. It is that the benefits of children are no longer directly felt.

I have serious doubts that a state funded daycare program will have a significant impact on birth rates. I suspect the number of children a family has is a more often a matter of desire rather than cost. Though I have no data to back this up.

By: lrC

lrC — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:33:14 +0000

One of the reasons birthrates have fallen in western countries is that virtually all of the benefits of children have been eliminated, but most of the costs remain. It is no longer necessary to have children to assist with the family farm or enterprise or to assure the parents of old age care. It is good that we no longer have to rely on children as a source of labour and that’s not a road down which we should retreat, but we haven’t addressed the cost side well.

Fortunately there are people who desire children for their own sake, as well as some who feel compelled by their belief systems to have children. Collectively they are not necessarily people who want to institutionalize their children from a very young age. Some of those people don’t want the solutions the state provides. The imbalances against single-income two-parent families are the strongest ones which require redress.

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:53:49 +0000

20 dollars a day…who could resist?

By: jay

jay — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 00:59:52 +0000

Hard to argue with a Liberal bearing an envelope full of cash…