4/03/2007

More on the Budget

Tories won't establish national child-care standards bemoans the news.
And they shouldn't.
It is not the government's place to dictate how we raise our kids or how daycares operate.
Solberg was unapologetic about dumping the Liberal plan in favour of putting more money into direct support for families.
This includes a taxable $100-a-month allowance for all children under the age of six that dates back to July 2006, and a refundable tax credit of $2000 for each child under the age of 18 contained in the latest budget.

The article from CTV that I blogged on earlier missed that point. $2k per child under 18 tax credit! Yes! That's awesome. Finally, something that doesn't screw the single-income, multiple child family. Even better, the more kids you have (for example, one of my sister-in-law has five kids and the other will have five in July) the more this helps you.
"There is a huge philosophical difference (with the Liberals), and we think we're right," [Solberg] declared. "We think that parents are the best place to make judgments about what's right for their family at any given time."

And he's absolutely right. Parents do know what's best for their families. They do not need a heavy-handed government telling them what to do with regards to raising their children and managing the day-to-day of their lives.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Frankly, is it not better to entrust your children with somebody you know and can reasonably trust rather than some faceless bureaucracy? Look at the lotto scam? Is the public being served and protected there? That is what I would throw into the media and Liberals faces. The state err, the liberal state does not always do the right thing.

Blackstone said...

There's already a $7000 income deduction for working mothers with young children and $4000 for those with kids up to 16. People seem to forget that.

Leonard said...

The $7000 income deduction is for childcare expenses. If the kids are watched by a family member - there's no tax break.

At the same time, what's proposed in the budget is a $2000 child exemption amount (not tax credit!) that families will be allowed to add to the $8900 personal exemption. The actual tax credit is $2000x15.5% = $310. And it's non-refundable, e.g., the credit can't exceed the actual amount of tax payable.

Peter Thurley said...

What about all those wonderful little tykes wandering around this great country for whom being raised by a stay at home mother is not an option? I suppose the response might be "You shouldn't be having kids if you can't take care of them", but the reality is that there are thousands of single mothers with little to no education struggling to make ends meet - it's unreasonable to think that they would be able to take care of their children at all times and make a living without the aid of daycare. Current legislation provides mothers with $125/mth, per child, for every child under 6. Thats taxable as well. I'm told from reliable sources (namely my sister who works as a child are worker and early childhood educator) that their non-profit daycare still costs $400/mth, per child, just to remain in operation.

How do you suggest the divide (some $275 minus applicable taxes) be made up?

I agree with Solberg - parents are the best people to raise children. However, to discriminate so strongly against those who just don't have that option is hardly the right way to go. (Or perhaps it is the RIGHT way to go, yet another reason why the left ought to be more attractive to the ethically minded Christian.)

Blackstone, do you really know how much kids actually cost? A tax break of that size doesn't do anything more than keep the pressure just below the point of explosion. It certainly doesn't feed, bathe, clothe and provide adequate day care arrangements for one child for one year.

Ruth said...

Right now, single moms (esp. those on welfare) benefit the most under our tax laws. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. Single moms with no other options are not at all discriminated under our current system. The single-income, multiple child family is. Go talk to an accountant or anyone who does taxes. They will confirm that what I am saying is true.
I also don't have a problem with daycare for those who need it (and I make the distinction of need on purpose). Far too many families put their kids in daycare for utterly the wrong reasons. They want to live a particular lifestyle. As far as I am concerned, this is not an acceptable reason not to stay at home. It's simply selfish.
AS far as the cost of kids goes, Pete, you don't have any kids. Don't preach until you have the experience to back it up. As far as I am concerned, income splitting is what this country needs the most. Until then, every little tax break helps.

Peter Thurley said...

AS far as the cost of kids goes, Pete, you don't have any kids. Don't preach until you have the experience to back it up.

I apologize for my obvious inability to speak about the costs of raising children. I, being 25 years old and single with no children, do not have the appropriate observational skills nor do I possess the rational capabilities to either deduce or infer how expensive raising children is. I suppose this is one of those situations where knowledge truly is gained wholly and completely through direct experience. Please accept my most humble apology for speaking out of turn.

Now that I've got that out of the way, I would like to take this opportunity to agree with you that far too many families put lifestyle choices ahead of raising children. However both Liberal and NDP proposals for a universal daycare program have never been directed at families who desire to put their children in daycare for lifestyle purposes. They have been directed at providing access to childcare for those who actually need it. One of the unintended consequences is that some families may take advantage of this for lifestyle purposes. I think this is where you and I break ranks - it is my understanding that Conservatives see this as an unacceptable consequence, and are much more amenable to allowing those who need it to go without such that the virtue of 'individual responsibility' will keep it's rightful place near the top of the hierarchy of virtues.

I must wholeheartedly disagree with this value judgment, and would suggest that providing for those in need is significantly more important than is protecting this notion of individual responsibility. This is something that is easily backed up biblically, should you desire a biblically based justification. Just say the word, and I'll provide you with the appropriate references.

Ruth said...

I suppose this is one of those situations where knowledge truly is gained wholly and completely through direct experience.
Basically.
No matter how much you may think you know, this is one of those instances where experience beats reading/observation each and every time. Heck, you don't even have a mortgage.

This is something that is easily backed up biblically, should you desire a biblically based justification. Just say the word, and I'll provide you with the appropriate references.
You will never be able to find a Biblically based argument for anyone other than parents raising their kids. The one exception might be Samuel, but that's it.

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives