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

2021 federal budget and the CAF

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
433
Points
1,010
Or those parents going back to work can pay for their own with that 13 billion number you throw around....
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Or those parents going back to work can pay for their own with that 13 billion number you throw around....
Except they are not going back to work. The Data shows that. Why would you go to work when 20k of your salary goes to childcare, and you may make 30k after taxes?

The data is clear, workplace participation for women ages 18-44 in Quebec is 81 percent, Ontario is 75 percent. Before Quebec put in universal childcare, the rates were identical.

You can argue all you like, but the numbers are clear.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
433
Points
1,010
Are you saying they'd pay enough taxes to pay for the daycare then?? So 6% extra workers can pay that much into the economy??
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Are you saying they'd pay enough taxes to pay for the daycare then?? So 6% extra workers can pay that much into the economy??
I did the math earlier.

there are 6.77m women ages 18-44 in Canada

take out quebecs 1.7 million.

5m in the rest of Canada.

Using ontarios numbers, 3.75 are working, 75 percent.

If we get to 81 percent, thats 4 million.

difference of 250k

average income in Canada is 54,600.

That's 13.6 billion alone. Then add all the extra disposable income that isn't going to childcare, about 15-17k difference.

Toss in income tax and consumption tax, yeah, it pays for itself.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
350
Points
880
Quebecers pay for it all by themselves

Dollars are fungible and cannot be sequestered. Money granted to provinces for purpose "X" allows provinces to spend on something else or forgo some revenue (taxation). Every transfer to a province is a subsidy to provincial taxpayers; whether the province and its voters choose to have and abide by higher taxes is irrelevant to that point.

The supposition that freeing more parents up to work will generate more tax revenue has to be calculated based on actual circumstances, not medians and means. Based on what I've read, here is what we would find: most of the parents who would pay useful amounts of income tax are already working because they want to work and are paying for child care because they can already afford it; most of the non-working parents who would like to work but can not afford child care would not be high-income earners and would contribute little tax revenue.

The only equitable child care financing scheme is a straight per-child grant. Anything else is a subsidy from some taxpayers to other taxpayers. The case that reasonably well-off parents deserve subsidies from less well-off taxpayers is difficult to make. If we have to throw more money at parents with children, just increase the existing program payouts under the existing terms and let them decide what to do with it.

Child care would be more widely available if parents were not so stingy. Take the limit on the number of children per worker in a facility; multiply by the cost per child. Figure that not all of that money can go straight to the worker's salary. Expect to find that the remaining amount for salary is not large.

If schemes are pursued to mandate more facilities and thus employ more child care workers, expect to find that it is an enterprise ripe for widespread unionization, which will happen, and that costs will increase accordingly. I don't care about whether or not childcare workers unionize or behave collectively in much the same way as teachers' unions; the point is that the extra cost should be anticipated and planned for before anyone jumps in. I suppose that eventually childcare workers would be compensated very much like teachers.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
433
Points
1,010
I hope you don't fudge your income taxes like that....CRA might not be happy.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Child care would be more widely available if parents were not so stingy. Take the limit on the number of children per worker in a facility; multiply by the cost per child. Figure that not all of that money can go straight to the worker's salary. Expect to find that the remaining amount for salary is not large.
Lol.....


According to the Government of Ontario’s Licensed Child Care Survey, median monthly fees were $1,320 for an infant, $1,080 for a toddler and $940 for a preschooler. (2019)

A 2019 national survey of child care fees, found that Ontario cities had the highest median full-time centre based and regulated home child care infant fees in the country at $1,774 a month or $21,288 annually. Fees in rural areas in Ontario tended to be comparable to fees in nearby cities.

Stingy.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
I hope you don't fudge your income taxes like that....CRA might not be happy.
If you want to point out where you do not agree with my math, or where you think I made a mistake, feel free to point it out.

Otherwise, pound sand.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
350
Points
880
Why would a parent not be willing to pay as much per child before K-12 as during K-12?
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
249
Points
730
I think you've made assumptions that need to be more realistic. For example, you presume that the 250k additional women working will make the average income of 56400. The real likelihood is that they'll make closer to 35000, which reduces the income generated to 8.75B. Then you need to take 27% which represents the amount of income tax collected to 2.36B, which will in no way allow the program to pay for itself.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
I think you've made assumptions that need to be more realistic. For example, you presume that the 250k additional women working will make the average income of 56400. The real likelihood is that they'll make closer to 35000, which reduces the income generated to 8.75B. Then you need to take 27% which represents the amount of income tax collected to 2.36B, which will in no way allow the program to pay for itself.
Why do you say this?

You think only lower income women stay home?
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
249
Points
730
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.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
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.
someone making 55k has take home of 42k. Half their disposable income is going to daycare. A lot of people aren't going to do that.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
433
Points
1,010
Good.....id rather see them stay home and raise the most important things in their lives then worry about a second hot tub.
 

ModlrMike

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
249
Points
730
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.
 
Top