2021 federal budget and the CAF

[Altair]

Good.....id rather see them stay home and raise the most important things in their lives then worry about a second hot tub.

Wow.

How about buying a house? Or saving money? Or starting a business?

Maybe your generation is off buying hot tubs, but I don't think my generation is.

 

[Altair]

You fail to take into account those that can. Your use of the $56400 number is based on everyone in the non-working population being average. This is a flawed premise. High income earners will drag the average to the right, but they're likely not highly represented in those who chose not to work due to child care costs. Lower income earners are the ones hardest hit, and are going to form the lion's share of the population, thereby pulling the real average lower.

Maybe you're right, but by how much? 15K average? I doubt that. Maybe you can do a economic breakdown of who earns what and how many there are, but I will stick to the average thank you kindly.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Actually no hot tub, never been to a resort, both vehicles have over 300,000 km on them.

But we raised , and spent tons of time with, two amazing Daughters and that is worth more then any physical thing that exists.

 

[Altair]

Actually no hot tub, never been to a resort, both vehicles have over 300,000 km on them.

But we raised , and spent tons of time with, two amazing Daughters and that is worth more then anything physical thing that exists.

Bet you could afford a house...

 

[SupersonicMax]

For the most part, yes. If you can afford daycare, you work. If you can't, you don't. Those on the lower end of the income spectrum are most likely not able to afford daycare, and therefore most likely to not work.

So you further marginalize minority groups and, in the process, miss an opportunity to diversify your workforce (which has many added benefits). Great plan.

You fail to take into account those that can. Your use of the $56400 number is based on everyone in the non-working population being average. This is a flawed premise. High income earners will drag the average to the right, but they're likely not highly represented in those who chose not to work due to child care costs. Lower income earners are the ones hardest hit, and are going to form the lion's share of the population, thereby pulling the real average lower.

No. Even if people have the means, people paying more than half of their income won't go back to work.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I'll bet your severance, vacation pay, and pension contributions would get you a down payment after 10 years in...

 

[SupersonicMax]

I'll bet your severance, vacation pay, and pension contributions would get you a down payment after 10 years in...

So, we have to choose between a house and an eventual retirement?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Too good for you?? Wasn't too good for me at the time...

And the house is now worth more then my army pension would have been.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Too good for you?? Wasn't too good for me at the time...

And the house is now worth more then my army pension would have been.

My faith in the housing market is not the same as yours. I like to diversify my assets and putting all my money into the housing market is more a gamble to me. I lost money on every house because of shitty timing.

 

[Altair]

even with my pension and contributions and BMO CAF/Vets mortgage, I would be hard pressed to make a significant enough down payment to have a affordable house.

I am lucky my investments are working out, otherwise I would be nowhere close.

And I am doing better than many in my generation. So please don't go running your mouth talking about nonsense like hot tubs. Like new parents are shopping for hot tubs.

Christ.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It cost more to send a kid to daycare than send them to university.

You're comparing the full cost of daycare to the subsidized cost of university? Regardless, it should cost less for university - each student's share of "worker" (instructor) time is small, and university students require (I hope) much less direct adult supervision.

Half their disposable income is going to daycare. A lot of people aren't going to do that.

Many people do exactly that, when their measures of the utility of working plus plus take-home exceeds whatever thresholds they've established for themselves.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You are choosing to live in expensive to live areas. Where I live, you can afford a house on minimum wage. Might not be the nicest house in the best neighbourhood, but it is doable.

The government shouldn't be getting involved in child care, odds are the main people able taking advantage of it are people who weren't earning much to begin with and thereby aren't paying for the program. It isn't the governments responsibility to raise your kids, it is yours. That goes for all child benefits, and payments. We need serious cutbacks on government spending, departments slashed, funds saved, not making new and more inventive ways to spend money and continue our debt spiral. Give it a decade or two and we shall be like Greece. And then we shall be crying about how unfair it is all our gold standard benefits are having to be cut, rather than simple corrections made decades earlier to prevent it.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Many people do exactly that, when their measures of the utility of working plus plus take-home exceeds whatever thresholds they've established for themselves.

Many more people could do it if childcare wasn't so expensive.

 

[Altair]

You are choosing to live in expensive to live areas. Where I live, you can afford a house on minimum wage. Might not be the nicest house in the best neighbourhood, but it is doable.

The entire housing market is overheated, it matters little where you live these days.

The government shouldn't be getting involved in child care, odds are the main people able taking advantage of it are people who weren't earning much to begin with and thereby aren't paying for the program. It isn't the governments responsibility to raise your kids, it is yours. That goes for all child benefits, and payments. We need serious cutbacks on government spending, departments slashed, funds saved, not making new and more inventive ways to spend money and continue our debt spiral. Give it a decade or two and we shall be like Greece. And then we shall be crying about how unfair it is all our gold standard benefits are having to be cut, rather than simple corrections made decades earlier to prevent it.

You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So you further marginalize minority groups and, in the process, miss an opportunity to diversify your workforce (which has many added benefits). Great plan.

How is acknowledging the actual circumstances of the people not currently working because they can not afford childcare a marginalization, let alone a "plan"? It is not a moral calculation or judgement, or assignment of social status. If economic arguments are going to be advanced involving the calculation of whether there's a net benefit (cost of subsidies < increased taxation revenue), then the proponents must be realistic about the right side of the inequality.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Many more people could do it if childcare wasn't so expensive.

Yes; many more people could do "X" if "X" wasn't so expensive. So what?

 

[blacktriangle]

The entire housing market is overheated, it matters little where you live these days.

Where I grew up hasn't been affordable for the better part of 20 years, and yet many of us have moved away and manage to own homes in other locations.

So no, where you live does make a difference, even today. You're just now getting hit by a wave that hit more desirable places years ago. It sucks, I know. Now - what are you doing to change your situation?

 

[Brad Sallows]

You are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.

Which assumptions have no basis in fact? Do you know, or even believe, that most governments that manage to set aside money to fund child care are distributing it to all parents equally rather than to those who can least afford child care?

 

[QV]

I’m just curious where in the Constitution Act of 1867 it lists babysitting as a federal responsibility In the division of powers. If the feds are going to hand out money, then the province should be able to decide where it‘s needed. Quebec can spend it on child care and Alberta could spend it on say...a provincial police force.

 

[Altair]

I’m just curious where in the Constitution Act of 1867 it lists babysitting as a federal responsibility In the division of powers. If the feds are going to hand out money, then the province should be able to decide where it‘s needed. Quebec can spend it on child care and Alberta could spend it on say...a provincial police force.

I'm sure if alberta did they they would no longer be getting money from the feds.