Publicly-funded care that only costs $10 a day

[Glacier]

I agree with your musings, Bagotricks. Daycare should be an option, but so should the option of surviving on a single income.

It is desirable for parents to be able to survive on one income because the two income reality is the hardest on the single parent families. I defer my reasoning to what is likely the only Thinktank post I have ever agreed with... viewtopic.php?f=22&t=46353&p=1362258&hilit=Elizabeth+warren#p1362258

[goatboy]

Daycare costs at least 1500 dollars per month per baby. Daycares all have waiting lists they raise their rates until the list starts to drop then hold it there, you know supply and demand, there is way more demand than supply which drives the cost up, way up. So a family that has two babies pays 3000 dollars a month for child care. Most people barley take home 3000 a month if their lucky. It makes no financial sense for both parents to work if all the income from one parent goes to daycare. So mom or dad takes a couple years of leave from work until the babies are toddlers and daycare costs are somewhat reduced. If mom or dad isn’t working the government loses out on at least 10,000 dollars a year in combined income and sales taxes per year per family. If this is true for 1600 families in BC (which is most likely) the government is losing 1.6 billion every year. If the numbers were closely examined taking everything into account the 10 dollar a day idea may actually make sense. I dont know just a thought?

Your math is wrong. 1600 families at $10,000 each is $16 Million, not billion. So we're still ahead $15,984,000,000!

[Sn0man]

If you can't afford to raise them, you have no business having them.

While I agree with the sentiment, and think socialized daycare is a bad idea, if people who couldn't afford to have kids stopped having kids - most Canadians would be childless and our population would dwindle to nothing.

[ford150]

Could not agree more. I was looking for that video to re-post it, thanks. Now if only grams would watch it we wouldnt need to hear about how everyone wastes ther money on timmies and big screens over and over and over again.
Wages flat lined in the 70's household income has stayed constant but now it takes two people to earn what one did a single generation ago.

[SurplusElect]

I agree with your musings

Thanks and its nice to agree sometimes ;)

That video was amazing. It made me think of a question:

"If parents/society are spending away their money on useless items and luxuries - then take the amount of "consumer debt" that is out there - and subtract it from the retail economy. What would the job numbers look like? What would the economy look like? Would stores be hiring?

Depending on the results one can say the high level of consumer debt is necessary.

If we took a few billion out of the retail economy, nobody would be going to work today.

Nice system we've built. A 2008 family is worse off than the 1970 family and the 2008 family has 104 paycheques coming in instead of 52.

...and that's why we are talking about daycare.

[Veovis]

Depending on the results one can say the high level of consumer debt is necessary.

If we took a few billion out of the retail economy, nobody would be going to work today.

Nice system we've built. A 2008 family is worse off than the 1970 family and the 2008 family has 104 paycheques coming in instead of 52.

...and that's why we are talking about daycare.

Except subsidized daycare doesn't change anything, it will simply allow a short term boom while people spend their savings from daycare up to a new level of HIGH DEBT that someone will argue is now "necessary".

I agree that some level of debt right now is still needed, to stop everything would be to crash things up nicely, brutally even, but spend spend spend is not a good model to continue with, eventually you will hit the wall. People used to save, spend, save, spend, save, spend, and it was a smart way. I keep my debt at a minimum, why is that bad? Most people don't though and through enough people doing it they have convinced everyone it's the right move.

If we could wipe out everyone's debt and make slates clean do you think people would be happy and maintain that new found life and spend within their means, or simply go get a pile of loans to get more "stuff"? My bets are on "stuff" and it would give a short term economic boom and then people would be right back where they are now.

And they'd be asking for the government to pay some daycare again.

So in my opinion we don't need yet another flawed government program (likely to bleed more money than it provides in services), and a little more personal responsibility.

(never mind there are already good daycare subsidies that have been discussed)

[SurplusElect]

If we could wipe out everyone's debt and make slates clean do you think people would be happy and maintain that new found life and spend within their means, or simply go get a pile of loans to get more "stuff"? My bets are on "stuff" and it would give a short term economic boom and then people would be right back where they are now.

Families are being drained from non-discretionary spending, as per the video.

[Veovis]

Which is mainly caused by a massive increase in mortgage costs. Never mind the 80's and massive interest rates ate through all the nice savings people had just to survive.

So through the addition of a second income, increased mortgage costs, etc etc, we are now 50 years later from where she started, and things have changed for the middle class.

The world is simply different now, certainly effecting some changes would be great, but to pile on debt after debt and blame the world isn't going to help your kids. It doesn't change that when a bank says you can have a line of credit or a higher card limit you should take it. In the 70's sure they saved up and then bought things, now they don't. She is right that many things cost less, however people pay far more for the item due to interest charges.

Banks didn't always post billion dollar years, credit card companies had a low volume of customers, not so now, and the debt loads people have voluntarily taken upon themselves is what helps keep them down. Most household budgets have a lot of cuts that can occur to make things far more manageable. I've done it in the past. It doesn't mean I’m entitled to more free things.

People decide to get a new car. They’ll pay 24,000 over 5 years instead of 20,000 saved up over 4 years. Paying interest on mortgages, credit cards, car loans, Layaway couches, TV’s.
Sure the price tags are less, but what people will pay is far more, and that’s where a large difference of peoples available spending is going. (heavy on the mortgage area, but you can minimize that greatly with options that exist and few use)

Society is different now, and just asking for more free stuff isn't going to make people adjust to it.

Families are being drained from non-discretionary spending, as per the video.

And yet they don't show any discretion with their spending.

[ford150]

^^^^^wrong^^^^^

[Veovis]

Please use specifics, or keep quiet.

Are you saying mortgages aren't larger?

People are very fiscally responsible?

What are you saying, other than you dislike what you hear since you like the idea of free stuff from the government?

[ford150]

Mortgage rates may be lower but prices have tripled. The monthly cost of a home consumes the same percentage of people’s income now as it did during the mid-80’s when interest rates were at record highs. Luckily back then people actually had savings to rely on. Now that the 1% ers have skimmed the cream from the top the remaining 99% have no savings and are forced to live on credit.
When (not that long ago) one income paid the bills there was no need for a second car @$500 a month, no need for daycare @1000 a month minimum (2 kids).
These two items alone wipe out any possibility of saving.

I should use specifics to respond to your pulled from thin air post?
Please show where I said the government should pay for somthing?

[Veovis]

Now that the 1% ers have skimmed the cream from the top the remaining 99% have no savings and are forced to live on credit.

Do the 1%'ers contain a pile of scumbags that screwed a lot of people over. - No argument there

Is an individuals inability to set a monthly budget for their current income levels the 1%'ers fault. - completely disagree, you don't HAVE to live on credit, it's just not as nice a life when you don't and you can't increase credit limits forever.

When (not that long ago) one income paid the bills there was no need for a second car @$500 a month, no need for daycare @1000 a month minimum (2 kids).

I save money, and I'm not a 1%er by any means. Not a lot, but some every payday, and now and then I have to use it. Why do second vehicles have to be a permanent $500 month? They don't, yet many people upgrade as soon as it's paid off, or just endlessly lease, and second vehicles are not exclusive to double income families so that's a stretch comparison.

Daycare costs can actually be calculated to the point where if you make $X.xx annual income stay at home, if you make more than that then don't. (therefore budgeted correctly if you work it is for a net home profit, not a loss due to daycare costs)

Arguing that wages should be higher and housing costs lower isn't an argument, I can agree that things haven't adjusted fairly over the past 50 years. That doesn't change what you have to do today, and living on credit hoping someday it'll all work out isn't a good long term plan. Using credit can be great for long term planning but living on it isn't.

Do you really think people show the same fiscal restraint and care as 50 years ago?

Please show where I said the government should pay for somthing?

My apologies, you are correct, you aren't stating for paid daycare, just stating it costs too much, I took that as implying you think it should be cheaper through government subsidies, though you never specifically stated that.

[Donald G]

So much for the ability of the NDP to realistically deal with financial matters ... a $10.00 picture (that will cost $100.00 to have made) being painted and offered for sale by true poly-ticians.

Poly-tician = person who self manufactures a synthetic position to get elected.