[cosmostein]

I don't think many people on these forums will argue that my dislike for the concept of adding another multi-billion dollar mouth to feed in terms of a new government program.

The concept of moving forward with something nationalized when we have no idea how the government income curve will recover is not just irresponsible, its simply putting the lust to get back into power ahead of my kids and grand kids who will need to be paying this debt off long after most of us retire.

Early on in the Conservative's tenure as the government there was much discussion about the concept of allowing Income Splitting among couples. It was implemented for seniors but not implemented for working Canadians.

If Child Care is a priority (Which is yet to be seen) why not move forward with a system that would allow a parent to stay home and raise there kids, rather then a government make work employee?

The idea of raising taxes so that both parents need to work and all of a sudden require daycare in order to justify daycare seems to be a move in the wrong direction as this simply means that parents will spend less time in the home and with their families.

Would Income Splitting not be a better solution for Child Care then a National Daycare program?

[kwlafayette]

Income splitting partially addresses one of the problems with the tax code; fairness. Two other problems remain: enormous complexity (costing billions in compliance costs), and efficiency (how well our tax system does the job of funding government).

[cosmostein]

[kwlafayette]

I can definitely support it. Partial fixes are better than no fixes at all. And who knows, fairness might even be a bigger problem right at the moment than the complexity, although complexity costs a huge amount. The company I work for has about 5 full time accountants on staff, plus the third party auditors that come in every quarter. You reduce complexity, and that puts cash directly in the pockets of most individuals, and every business in the country.

[Bugs]

I think there is very little appeal to these programs, if the costs are put into the picture, even obliquely. Sure, cheap and easy daycare would be an attractive thing to have available to harried mothers. That's the first thought.

Remind people of the down side -- that it will be bureaucratic, impersonal, and expensive. And will involve long waiting lists. The imagery used in campaigns makes voters think of the convenience, one of their great headaches taken from them ... but as soon as people are reminded that, even if it works, they will be paying to run that bureaucratic monster for the rest of their lives, the appeal goes 'pop'.

When Martin unveiled national daycare as his flagship benefit, all the Conservatives had to do was say, "... Here, let's give young mothers a $100 a month, and they can do with it what they want with it" ... It turned out, the new mothers said, "Hey ... I'll take the cash."

The dirty little secret that means that socialism is no longer progressive is this ... the state can no longer provide services economically because its wages are too high! It is in thrall to the civil service unions, which are now bankrupting states in the US. Government pay is now generally about 50% or more over market, for the same job. The benefits are over the moon in the public sector.

The fact that all governments in this land hire on a strict racial and sexual basis only makes it worse. But the real key is that the government cannot provide the simplest service at a price. Government expands because it has become a social cancer -- not because there is any real demand in society for these services.

It's job creation for (racially and genderly correct) bureaucrats.

This is what needs to be publicized -- the failure of the state throughout the whole West. Canada is far from the worst case. It is no longer the solution to anything. People need to face it.

[Cool Blue]

Unfortunately, income splitting would probably be more expensive than nationalized daycare.

Last figure I heard was approx 20 billion a year for IS.

I'd love to see IS but I think these two options would be better to counter the Liberal proposal:

- double the current child benefit to $200 a month per child

or

- make daycare 100% deductible (right now you can only deduct a percentage of it)

[cosmostein]

[Cool Blue]

well, if you're main concern is getting one parent to stay home then IS may not be the way because IS would apply to all couples, even childless or adult couples who's kids have moved out.

Perhaps allowing IS for people with kids under 6 would be more do-able, though we still haven't followed through on our campaign promise to allow IS for those with disabled dependents.

That being said, I'm afraid that using IS to encourage a parent to stay home with the kids may open us up to the attack of "Conservatives want women to stay home in the kitchen".

[kwlafayette]

[kwlafayette]

[FF_Canuck]

[kwlafayette]

[cosmostein]

[Bugs]

[cosmostein]

It was more of a sarcastic quip.

More of a satirical response to the opposition potentially implying that Income Splitting is a way for the Conservatives to get Women "back into the kitchen"