[Robair]

Yogi Yogi:

Robair Robair:

Yogi Yogi:

As a 'conductor' on this 'gravy train' that you want to jump on, tell 'me' (read; the taxpayers who raised their kids 'the old fashioned way') why we should give you a ride at all!

Just looking for solutions to Canada's sagging birth rate. Maybe you have one?

How long ago was it when you first became a Daddy? (just curious)

Ya damn right I got a 'solution' for the problem!


1976 ( and there might be some 'snow on the roof, but there's still a lot of fire in the furnace'!)

Ah, a '70's dad.

You had it easy. The reason parents like you should shell out for the current young families 'free ride', is because today's young families are crushed under the debt your generation racked up. That's right. The youngsters are paying for your 'free ride'. That's where today's higher taxes come from.

Read the article then tell me I'm full of it. It's a different world from the one you raised your kids in the 'old fashioned way'. I can afford to raise my kid the 'old fashioned way' but I'm not exactly a young first time parent. Waited until 32, because these days, you pretty much have to. Hence Canada's declining birth rate. This is what the Liberals keep promising to fix with their national health care plan. I don't thing it would work either, just for the record.

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

It's been said by several already but I'll add to it. They are YOUR kids, not mine. I raised my kids with my wife working evenings while I worked days so we minimized the daycare costs. When we did use a daycare service, WE paid for it out of our pocket. If you can't afford to have children, DON"T!

For all of you who share the same feeling as above....

Did you return your baby bonus(or whatever the officlal name is) money you got from your children?

Did you opt-out of your tax rebates for dependents that you got on an annual basis for your children?

Considering they're your children, there's no reason the government should be giving you anything so I would assume it was returned in good faith.

There's a far cry between a rebate/baby bonus and providing a means for parents to opt out of the raising of their children and expecting everyone else to pony up for it. Tell me, why should I pay for strangers to look after your kids?

Seeing as you're in Oshawa, you're already paying for a similar service called daycare subsidy. Low income families in your fine City Of Oshawa are entitled to a subsidy, often only paying $8-$10 a day for daycare.

There's absolutely no difference between giving people money for daycare, subsidy or tax rebates. It still comes from the public tit to help families raise their children.

[Robair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

There's absolutely no difference between giving people money for daycare, subsidy or tax rebates. It still comes from the public tit to help families raise their children.

The difference would be the efficiency of the plan. Which way would boost Canada's birth rate for the least tax money spent.

[DerbyX]

Robair Robair:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

There's absolutely no difference between giving people money for daycare, subsidy or tax rebates. It still comes from the public tit to help families raise their children.

The difference would be the efficiency of the plan. Which way would boost Canada's birth rate for the least tax money spent.

Institute a $100 dollar per condom tax.

[Alta_redneck]

Robair Robair:

Yogi Yogi:

Ya damn right I got a 'solution' for the problem!


1976 ( and there might be some 'snow on the roof, but there's still a lot of fire in the furnace'!)

Ah, a '70's dad.

You had it easy. The reason parents like you should shell out for the current young families 'free ride', is because today's young families are crushed under the debt your generation racked up. That's right. The youngsters are paying for your 'free ride'. That's where today's higher taxes come from.

Read the article then tell me I'm full of it. It's a different world from the one you raised your kids in the 'old fashioned way'. I can afford to raise my kid the 'old fashioned way' but I'm not exactly a young first time parent. Waited until 32, because these days, you pretty much have to. Hence Canada's declining birth rate. This is what the Liberals keep promising to fix with their national health care plan. I don't thing it would work either, just for the record.

Doesn't your heart just bleed purple piss for the younger generations Yogi?

[Yogi]

Alta_redneck Alta_redneck:

Robair Robair:

Yogi Yogi:

Ya damn right I got a 'solution' for the problem!


1976 ( and there might be some 'snow on the roof, but there's still a lot of fire in the furnace'!)

Ah, a '70's dad.

You had it easy. The reason parents like you should shell out for the current young families 'free ride', is because today's young families are crushed under the debt your generation racked up. That's right. The youngsters are paying for your 'free ride'. That's where today's higher taxes come from.

Read the article then tell me I'm full of it. It's a different world from the one you raised your kids in the 'old fashioned way'. I can afford to raise my kid the 'old fashioned way' but I'm not exactly a young first time parent. Waited until 32, because these days, you pretty much have to. Hence Canada's declining birth rate. This is what the Liberals keep promising to fix with their national health care plan. I don't thing it would work either, just for the record.

Doesn't your heart just bleed purple piss for the younger generations Yogi?

BIG,BIG,BIG DROPS, AR. Everything is relative. Back in '76 I was being paid 6 whole dollars per hour. My wife was earning about 3 bucks. That was our gross income. WE paid daycare costs of $10.00 per day. We also provided snacks and lunch for the kids.
Maybe Rob or someone else would care to do a comparison and just see how it works out in percentages today.

[Robair]

It's all in the article I linked to. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Seeing as you're in Oshawa, you're already paying for a similar service called daycare subsidy. Low income families in your fine City Of Oshawa are entitled to a subsidy, often only paying $8-$10 a day for daycare.

There's absolutely no difference between giving people money for daycare, subsidy or tax rebates. It still comes from the public tit to help families raise their children.

Really? So you think there's no difference between a fully funded national daycare program and a city subsidized daycare for low income families?
Cuz you gotta know that a federal Liberal program would be universal, enabling ANY family to take advantage, regardless of income levels.

What next, subsidized babysitting fees for when parents wanna have date night?
Hey, how about a string of government operated National Drop Off Centres where you can drop your kids off for an undisclosed amount of time so you don't have to be inconvenienced by them at all?

And Yogi? Excellent point. In 1980/81 the minimum wage for adults in Ontario was $2.85/hr. They didn't have a subsidized or government legislated daycare program and and yet managed to make it.
The problem isn't just the cost of living increase either. It also has to do with an almost total lack of personal fiscal responsibility.
When yer shelling out several thousand dollars for a 3 year cell phone contract, and/or leasing a car at $4-500/month or more, and/or living in a $250,000 house you CAN'T afford rather then the $1200,000 house you can barely afford, etc, etc... don't bitch about needing subsidized daycare.
The only way government can make things easier for families is to LOWER THE FUCKING TAXES! Raising or redirecting taxes to national daycare is the exact WRONG direction to take.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

What next, subsidized babysitting fees for when parents wanna have date night?

You mean we can have those even if you have kids? I thought that everyone just waited for the kids to go to sleep. We have a nanny for our youngest(next year he starts school), who we we pay for out of our pocket. When our eldest was here with us we had to pay for private school as well.

[Robair]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

And Yogi? Excellent point. In 1980/81 the minimum wage for adults in Ontario was $2.85/hr. They didn't have a subsidized or government legislated daycare program and and yet managed to make it.
The problem isn't just the cost of living increase either. It also has to do with an almost total lack of personal fiscal responsibility.

Absolute BULLSHIT! Wouldn't hurt you to read this article either.

You are 180 deg from reality. As are most baby boomers, common misconception so I won't hold it against you. As long as you read that article.

[herbie]

I already raised my kids and you subsidized them. I got to write the daycare costs off against our taxes.
Back in the 80s the lady next door took my 2 in, made $900 a month got to stay home with her kids too and didn't have to take some other job from someone else. She probably had a chunk taken as taxes from what she got (she DID, she had 2 other kids too).
So WTF is wrong with that? I'd make them go thru the welfare lists and use single Moms who were good with kids. They'd end up off welfare.
Why does every discussion of any idea for improving daycare devolve into public buildings with unionized gov't workers and 'what's next subsidized babysitters at my expense'?
Improvements and discussion has been overdue for 25 years. Mulroney talked about it for Christ's sake. Find a way so it's an economic benefit to all and the young parents can afford to buy the houses and shit we build and sell.
Don't just dismiss it and shout drivel about how it can't or shouldn't be done. It ain't all that hard to use your brain and come up with sensible solutions.

[OnTheIce]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Really? So you think there's no difference between a fully funded national daycare program and a city subsidized daycare for low income families?
Cuz you gotta know that a federal Liberal program would be universal, enabling ANY family to take advantage, regardless of income levels.

Until we see details, we're just speculating. Also, the program is Provincial, not City run....

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The only way government can make things easier for families is to LOWER THE FUCKING TAXES! Raising or redirecting taxes to national daycare is the exact WRONG direction to take.

For what families? Middle to upper class families?

Lowering taxes on low-income families will have little to no effect as many don't make enough to pay taxes anyways.

[OnTheIce]

herbie herbie:

It ain't all that hard to use your brain and come up with sensible solutions.

If it's not that hard, how come you didn't offer a solution, just asked others to do so?

[Alta_redneck]

Sure houses were cheater back then, but I had the problem of trying to sleep while thinking that I'd just locked in my mortgage @13.5% for 5 years. Turned out to be one of the smartest things I ever did, cause in a couple of years. People were selling their house for a $1 cause the 24% interest kind of kicked a lot of people in the balls.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

First, I'm not a baby boomer. Not even close. Second I did read the article.
First thing that struck me was the $230,000 house. Could'a swore I mentioned that in my last post. Don't buy houses you can't afford. And if they're running short every month or barely gettin' by, then they can't afford a $230,000 home. Simple, not bullshit.
You'll also notice that taxes now eat up almost HALF our pay these days as opposed to a third back then. You know, like when you get a raise, sometimes you end up bringing home LESS.
2nd, as for the example family in the article, a 2001 GMC pickup isn't exactly a fuel sipper. Driving a truck to work at a school is ridiculous, especially with the price of gas.
But it looks to me like their single biggest problem is their mortgage. Altho the article makes it sound like mortages are the real boogie man in all this, that is a deception. 10 years ago mortgage rates were as low as 4.75% for 5 years. 2009's rates are barely 1% higher than 10 years ago. Some are even lower, depending on where you live and who you deal with. It's not the mortgage rates, it's people buying houses they can't really afford.
All I can say is, I hope the woman in that article isn't a math teacher at her school.