What do you think about about PM Stephen Harper's $100 per month per child under the age of 6?

Question

Harper's government decided to cancel Liberal plans to open more daycare spaces and instead to give $100 per month per child under the age of 6 so PARENTS CAN RAISE THEIR KIDS. There are radio ads on the air, provided by the federal conservative government, where two mothers are talking about how they spend the $100 dollars. One of the mothers goes on to say that she spends it on a baby sitter. Why take $100 a month to hire some stranger (which does not cover a babysitter for a month) when we could have had more daycare centers with properly educated and qualified people looking after them. What do you think about this?

$100 doesn't cover much day care...doesn't cover a babysitter either. My question is which is better...hired professional or a stranger off the street?

Answer 1

I think it is a wate of money. It does not enable single parents to purchase adequate day care. It solves nothing. Th Conservatives are scrapping the day care program that the liberals wanted to implement. Millions were spent on that already. So all of this is wasted tax payer money. Let's face it you need two incomes these days and in addition there are so many single parent families. Our children are our most precious assets, entrusted to us for a period of time until they are adults. They deserve the best supervised, enriched and safe environment when necessity dictates that the parents must earn a living.

Answer 2

I think it's a winner politically. It may not be much money, but people will be loathe to give it up once they start getting it. People just don't believe the Liberals when they say they would start a government run system. They promised that all through the Chretien/Martin years and it never actually happened. Maybe the NDP has some credibility left when it comes to child care, but it's too late for the Liberals on that file.

The fact is, the members of some cultural groups just don't believe in having strangers look after their kids, so they bring granny over from the old country to do it. So the child care allowance is more consistent with multiculturalism in some ways. With lower income folks it's sometimes the same way, they don't have a car to run the kids to day-care but they do have an auntie/granny etc.

I live in rural New Brunswick, and there is no way any government could build a child care centre in every town that is just a gas station and a few houses along side the road. It's not like mothers are going to bundle up their kids everyday and drive them an hour to the nearest city just so they can find "educated and qualified" child care workers. For those moms, their taxes would just go to run model day-care centres in Toronto, while they get nothing.

Answer 3

I agree that there needs to be more options for child care. Child care is also expensive. for a child under two it can be up to 200 a week. and if you need child care 2nd or 3rd shift forget about it.

Some parents give over half of their income to day care. try working an eight dollar an hour job 40 hours and paying 150 a week for one child, then taxes. It leaves you with 125 a week. then you cant pay your rent or food.

When I had my son I quit my job and decided to be a stay at home mom because it was cheaper than working and paying for child care.

Now I am becoming certified for 2nd shift in home day care provider. But careing for children isn't cheap, which I think many parents take for granted.

For a while I was watching a child for 50 a week, and after food and drink just for, I had 15 dollars left. Which is about a 30 cents an hour.

If the government is going to help pay for child care, they need to pay out more than 100 a month, maybe 3 or 4 times that per child.
Day Care providers do not just watch your child. They feed them, teach them, they buy items for activities and to entertain them and field trips, they use elecricity and heat, paper and office supplies, not to mention all the paperwork and state fees, and taxes the government takes. Many providers work long hours and are lucky if they make minimum wage after taxes and expenses.

Answer 4

Well, I'm a Yank but I'll tell you my opinion.
Government run day care centers will be as effective as government run schools and medical care.
If you good folks are happy with your schools and medical systems and they run well, then go for it I say.
If you don't, the last thing you need is government getting into the nanny business.
Over here, government doesn't do anything well and I think it's because the people they employ are the class of citizen just one layer above the dregs of society. Oh, they went to school and can pass a test but they aren't really motivated to actually do anything and certainly don't find ways to do it better. I'm not going to leave my kid someplace like that.
I'm just curious as to why the government feels the need to either provide daycare or money for daycare. I think parents should foot the bill for their kids. It's like a tax for those breed a lot. (BTW, one of 8 children myself)

Answer 5

Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Ties, Rove Weighs In Hillary Clinton would beat John McCain through 9 share factors if the overall election were hung on the on the spot, at the same time as Barack Obama is in a digital tie with McCain, in accordance to a clean pollconducted through the linked Press and Ipsos. This new pollgives Clinton the biggest margin of any modern polls. the genuine clean Politics regularly happening of polls taken contained in the superb ten days supplies Clinton a smaller 3 share-aspect lead, and elements Obama a slender income of one million.5 factors.

Answer 6

$100 covers HALF of my WEEKLY daycare expense! Parents in the U.S. would need A LOT more than $100 a month to stay home. The plan is ridiculous!

Answer 7

A good gesture as far as it goes. However I believe a parent who chooses to stay home with their children should receive a salary equivalent to what it would cost the government to keep that child in daycare.