• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau Popularity - or not (various polling, etc.)

If you think eliminating subsidized daycare is part of the solution to our pending demographic crunch, I’m not sure we’re part of the same conversation.

I used the terms “strategy” and “generational” deliberately. While any one government could start certain balls rolling, these are trends decades in the making that will take decades to remedy.
The way this Govt subsidized daycare is about the worst possible way of doing it. They selected only a narrow way of providing childcare (commercial operators) and most operators don’t like the funding envelope.

I think a better way was the CPC method, pre-2015. You get credits/refunds, but find the way that works for you. In some cases that means relatives or it means a parent stays home. But, at least, the choice is with the parents.
 
“Remove the gatekeepers” and “axe the tax” won’t be enough. Whoever forms government will have to get serious to solve some pretty serious systemic issues. I fear if we don’t, that RCMP report will become a reality.
 
Our friends over at Blacklocks’ Reporter have got a hold of an $814,741 contract the Privy Council entered into with the Strategic Counsel firm in Toronto that shows that Poilievre’s idea of witholding federal funds from municipalities that fail to raise building-permit numbers by 15 percent a year has landed with a bit of a “mixed views” thud.
Don't know at all, but if you situate the estimate to what you want to hear, you will get the result you paid for.
Can't find the news article that provided that point.
Do you trust Stats Can?
 
The way this Govt subsidized daycare is about the worst possible way of doing it. They selected only a narrow way of providing childcare (commercial operators) and most operators don’t like the funding envelope.

I think a better way was the CPC method, pre-2015. You get credits/refunds, but find the way that works for you. In some cases that means relatives or it means a parent stays home. But, at least, the choice is with the parents.
Credits and refunds only work if you actually have money that can be refunded. Conservative boutique tax cuts and credits are not the way to go.
 
If you think eliminating subsidized daycare is part of the solution to our pending demographic crunch, I’m not sure we’re part of the same conversation.

I used the terms “strategy” and “generational” deliberately. While any one government could start certain balls rolling, these are trends decades in the making that will take decades to remedy.
Yup, this needs serious though to population demographic adjustment/reinforcement with sound, mindful immigration policies, ways to increase the productivity of various portions of the demographic, and government policies that support an integration collection/disbursement/balance of resources, funds, capital, etc to ensure resilience of our society, but also that can adjust appropriately to external factors to the maximum extent possible.

That said, to quote Ozzie Man…”yeah, nah, yeah…ain’t gonna happen, mate.”
 
“Remove the gatekeepers” and “axe the tax” won’t be enough. Whoever forms government will have to get serious to solve some pretty serious systemic issues. I fear if we don’t, that RCMP report will become a reality.
Have you actually listened to his explanation of what Remove the gate keepers means? No

Start with barriers to construction of homes and infrastructure (I only found out recently that fed govt kicks in money for this), he is planning to reward early finish of homes that need to be built and punish late/incomplete homes. Get more housing available, more homes for people to move into. Get more homes than renters and buyers, prices should come down. Immigration can function properly if there is homes to move into. Not to mention, construction is happening, people are working (coordinate with labour policies to ensure its Canadians and or residents), just one small example.

There are a bunch of other projects held up (not just construction) by federal government "gatekeepers" that hinder useful spending. I know I have come across a few on the agriculture side. I will spare the details, but these slogans are not just empty words.

How about the cost to taxpayers for the failed drug management in terms of "harm reduction" and "safe supply" BS and failed policies?

If you bother to watch an hour long video of PP, he goes much more into detail into the HOW and WHY of the Conservative. I can dig up a recent video but warning you will have to watch an hour plus of him talking.

Anywho, this probably belongs in the CPC Thread (For the I hate Pierre even though he hasn't had a chance to succeed or fail club). This here is the Trudeau sucks thread because he can't do a damn thing correct and makes pathetic excuses for it.
 
The way this Govt subsidized daycare is about the worst possible way of doing it. They selected only a narrow way of providing childcare (commercial operators) and most operators don’t like the funding envelope.

I think a better way was the CPC method, pre-2015. You get credits/refunds, but find the way that works for you. In some cases that means relatives or it means a parent stays home. But, at least, the choice is with the parents.

The CPC 'throw a tax credit at the problem' approach is regressive in this context; it rewards those of us who can afford to do things in the first place. It does nothing for those living paycheque to paycheque who simply can't afford the up-front costs of things. A tax credit doesn't fundamentally alter the raw affordability of childcare, and that's what's needed.

A couple have a child. Between the two of them they take a year of parental leave, maybe with some top up, maybe not, but then they have to figure out what happens once the kid turns 1. The kid needs to be cared for. Most of the time the mother is the primary caregiver. Most of the time the father has a higher income and higher earnings potential, so disproportionately it's women who stay home with the kid.

The couple facing this question at the one year mark needs to figure out whether childcare means a stay at home parent, or paying for childcare. If a parent stays at home, that's completely OK- but it does mean that that's one person, already in Canada, already with a home, who cannot take part much or at all in the workforce. That's a job that needs to be backfilled. That person isn't going to have much or any income and likely won't pay much or any income tax. The couple will have a lower income, less of a financial safety net, less ability to pay for, e.g., sports, other activities, etc. There's a greater likelihood the government will directly pay them through, e.g., the Canada Child Benefit.

Conversely, if there's affordable childcare, that couple may make the decision for the second parent to return to the workforce. They're now earning more income, can feed some of that back into the economy. Their Canada Child Benefit may reduce partially or completely. They'll contribute more to CPP, EI etc. A job will be filled by someone already in Canada who already has a home. That parent will have access to greater career growth. They may also be able to afford to have a second (or further additional) child. And 16, 17 years down the road, that kid is also someone living and housed in Canada in turn able to enter the labour market, initially filling those low skill, low pay jobs that we see a lot of TFWs being flown in to take.

So, this is very simplified, but it some of the considerations that go into how affordable childcare plays a role in our larger issues around population growth, labour force participation, temporary workers, and housing.
 
This here is the Trudeau sucks thread because he can't do a damn thing correct and makes pathetic excuses for it.
…or the second coming…figuratively and I suppose literally…if one believes that PET was the first coming of Canadajesus…
 
The CPC 'throw a tax credit at the problem' approach is regressive in this context; it rewards those of us who can afford to do things in the first place. It does nothing for those living paycheque to paycheque who simply can't afford the up-front costs of things. A tax credit doesn't fundamentally alter the raw affordability of childcare, and that's what's needed.

A couple have a child. Between the two of them they take a year of parental leave, maybe with some top up, maybe not, but then they have to figure out what happens once the kid turns 1. The kid needs to be cared for. Most of the time the mother is the primary caregiver. Most of the time the father has a higher income and higher earnings potential, so disproportionately it's women who stay home with the kid.

The couple facing this question at the one year mark needs to figure out whether childcare means a stay at home parent, or paying for childcare. If a parent stays at home, that's completely OK- but it does mean that that's one person, already in Canada, already with a home, who cannot take part much or at all in the workforce. That's a job that needs to be backfilled. That person isn't going to have much or any income and likely won't pay much or any income tax. The couple will have a lower income, less of a financial safety net, less ability to pay for, e.g., sports, other activities, etc. There's a greater likelihood the government will directly pay them through, e.g., the Canada Child Benefit.

Conversely, if there's affordable childcare, that couple may make the decision for the second parent to return to the workforce. They're now earning more income, can feed some of that back into the economy. Their Canada Child Benefit may reduce partially or completely. They'll contribute more to CPP, EI etc. A job will be filled by someone already in Canada who already has a home. That parent will have access to greater career growth. They may also be able to afford to have a second (or further additional) child. And 16, 17 years down the road, that kid is also someone living and housed in Canada in turn able to enter the labour market, initially filling those low skill, low pay jobs that we see a lot of TFWs being flown in to take.

So, this is very simplified, but it some of the considerations that go into how affordable childcare plays a role in our larger issues around population growth, labour force participation, temporary workers, and housing.
So how about a monthly cheque, clawed back at tax time (or opt out if you don’t want the hassle)?

We could call it the…baby bonus….
 
So how about a monthly cheque, clawed back at tax time (or opt out if you don’t want the hassle)?

We could call it the…baby bonus….

Even at max payment, CCB generally doesn't cover the cost of daycare. And with both people working, CCB will likely be very short of max. The single most accessible and precise child care benefit is that which makes daycare immediately affordable at point of use.

Just as a caveat on what I'm saying lest people think I have a conflict of interest here: We have grandma for childcare once my wife goes back to work this summer, and our income means no CCB for us if we're both working, and quite a modest amount if my wife stayed off work. So the position I'm taking doesn't really do anything for me personally, and I'm fine with that; we're in the top 2% of household incomes, so this isn't a field of policy that should really be aimed at us. We aren't the ones who actually need the help.
 
Even at max payment, CCB generally doesn't cover the cost of daycare. And with both people working, CCB will likely be very short of max. The single most accessible and precise child care benefit is that which makes daycare immediately affordable at point of use.

Just as a caveat on what I'm saying lest people think I have a conflict of interest here: We have grandma for childcare once my wife goes back to work this summer, and our income means no CCB for us if we're both working, and quite a modest amount if my wife stayed off work. So the position I'm taking doesn't really do anything for me personally, and I'm fine with that; we're in the top 2% of household incomes, so this isn't a field of policy that should really be aimed at us. We aren't the ones who actually need the help.
How many people do you know have actually gotten access to $10/day childcare? Serious question.

Waving your hand as a Federal Government and making a decree does not make something (difficult) so. As we find out, repeatedly, with this crew.
 
How many people do you know have actually gotten access to $10/day childcare? Serious question.

Waving your hand as a Federal Government and making a decree does not make something (difficult) so. As we find out, repeatedly, with this crew.
Not, sure; I haven't asked anyone, but anecdates aren't of interest in this case anyway; what you're driving at is data. So far a bit under 100k $10 a day spots have been created; well short of the target. There's a ton of work to do still, funding will absolutely be a part of it, and part of this will include training more early childhood educators and qualifying more support staff.

My mother in law used to run a home daycare for a number of kids, and my wife helped there as a teenager. It's a tough job and not inexpensive to operate. There's a reason unsubsidized spots cost what they do.

 
If you think eliminating subsidized daycare is part of the solution to our pending demographic crunch, I’m not sure we’re part of the same conversation.

I used the terms “strategy” and “generational” deliberately. While any one government could start certain balls rolling, these are trends decades in the making that will take decades to remedy.
Birth rates are crashing across the industrial west. Countries that are not accepting of immigration will require drastic intervention.
 
Birth rates are crashing across the industrial west. Countries that are not accepting of immigration will require drastic intervention.

Or they can lead the way in the greening of the planet by returning population densities to pre-industrialization levels and letting robots serve them.

Acreages for all...
 
As a complete aside, imagine my shock when the US federal govt doesn’t recognize Easter (neither Good Friday nor Easter Sunday) as a stat holiday.
Wow now that got my eyebrows raised.....
But they recognize Thanksgiving like there's no tomorrow!
And I like that.....it always fun to see the "running with the bulls for the 1 dollar TV" run
 
If you think eliminating subsidized daycare is part of the solution to our pending demographic crunch, I’m not sure we’re part of the same conversation.

I used the terms “strategy” and “generational” deliberately. While any one government could start certain balls rolling, these are trends decades in the making that will take decades to remedy.
read it again, the operative word was increased benefits like. Nothing was said about cancelling. The reply was all about parties having to work together and come up with an agreed generational plan
 
Back
Top