There's a BIG surprise!
globeandmail.com: Few companies keen to provide daycare
Please, hold on while I have a heart attack and die from that great big surprise! (In the words of Iago from Aladdin).
Big shocker. The corporations aren't interested in providing child-care for their employee's children. Why would they be? They should, but why would they?
This needs to be a priority and it seems that government action is the only viable way to get it done quickly. If we want productivity to continue to increase (as a nation we are behind in this measure), we must do something to allow middle-class Canadians to work and raise families. It just has to be done!
You can't create child-care spaces with tax-cuts. It's just not in the business plan.
You have failed here Mr. Harper!
A.L.
posted by A.L. @ 1:16 PM
9 comments
Add The Indicator To Your Site
9 Comments:
For 140 years Canadians have managed to raise their children without government programs . . . fact!!!
After 40 years of mostly liberal ineptness, incompetence and overtaxation . . . . the solution is now to get the govt to mind the kids . . . . nuts!!!
Get the govt out of my wallet and let me look after my own kids.
Look at the great job the govt does with medicare, trans-canada hwy, Air Canada . . . and you want these clowns to mind the kids . . . you're delusional!!!
oldschool:
Your post is irrelevant, and your facts are (best case) debatable, or (worst case) outright disingenuous.
Your line of argument would not be sufficient for a 12th grade essay.
Oldschool,
Your moniker is decidedly appropriate. You seem to think that the world hasn't changed in 140 years.
Is it not true that we have a shrinking middle class, and that more and more families need 2 incomes just to get by?
Besides, could you and I not agree that Harper's policy has failed?
He promised 120,000+ day care spots. What has materialized in 20 months in office? 10,000 spots!
He's really not helping Canadian families who need help. I think you can agree to that.
A.L.
One of the reasons so many families need two incomes is to pay for outrageously high taxes brought about by such concepts as... univeral daycare.
I wonder what this country would amount to if everyone decided to be responsible for themselves rather than have nanny state Canada look after every detail. I agree that the state should help out the very needy, but the more affluent should be able to provide for themselves, somehow. Afterall, as oldschool has alluded, it has been that way in the past.
WOW! Blogs Socks, how misguided you are....
Your argument is so completely illogical it boggles the mind. A family doesn't need a second income because of high taxes, since they are "INCOME TAXES" in our system the amount of tax a person pays is based on the amount of income a person makes.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you might think a family seeks a second income so they can pay their GST bill? Well, first of all, lower income families get a GST rebate, so that shoots your argument down for low income families (arguably the people who stand to benefit the most from government daycare). Secondly, the GST and all other PSTs are consumption taxes, which means they are based on the amount of money a person spends on certain goods and services.
A family gets a second income because they can't afford to properly save for the future to send their kids to University without a second paycheque; because they haven't had a pay raise at their middle class job for 5 years, meanwhile the cost of gasoline has risen dramatically along with the cost of their kid's clothing, food, school supplies; because they want to be able to go on a few vacations once in a while; or because they just plain want to give their kids all the opportunities and advantages they can....
Families DO NOT need a second income to pay taxes! Give your head a shake.
Because of the fallacy of your argument, it ought to be struck from this site, but I will leave it in the interest of transparency , and to show how detached from reality the right really can be.
A.L.
Sorry a.l., not buying.
Taxes, particularly of the income variety, can be a source of financial hardship to some due in part to our so-called "progressive" tax system that exploits success. I never meant to imply that people earn a second income expressly for the purpose of paying their taxes, but high tax base can limit those very things you list (clothing, food, school supplies, etc.). And no, I'm not talking G.S.T. or P.S.T. (Just curious, why did you assume I was talking about consumption taxes?)
I don't know what type of existence you have had, but I don't know anyone living in an economically-sound region who has not had a pay raise in five years.
Feel free to expunge my post(s)...I know how Liberals are all for free speech provided everyone agrees with them.
Since tact, rational discussion, and politeness seems to take a back seat at this blog, I shan't be back...this site isn't worth it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh, you'll be back. If anything just to see if I got rid of your comment.
My apologies if you thought my comments were mean-spirited... I must have been a little edgy when I wrote, since you were defending oldschool.
Still, I don't buy your argument. You stated: "One of the reasons so many families need two incomes is to pay for outrageously high taxes brought about by such concepts as... univer[s]al daycare."
That just doesn't make sense.
Correction about my comment regarding no pay raises in 5 years, I should have stated "real income" raises. It's nice if someone gets a Cost of Living raise, but that isn't really a raise at all. There are many regions in Canada where "real income" is falling or stagnant, these are hard facts.
Speaking of hard facts, do you have any to back up your premise that families need two incomes to pay their tax bill?
Lastly, as for exploiting success, its done everywhere in the world. I don't see a shortage of millionaires in the USA, a nation with much higher tax rates (federally) than Canada.
A.L.
P.S. Sorry I hurt your feelings.
BTW, the deleted comment of 6:00pm was my own, I had to make an edit to my comment and the only way I can do that is to delete and replace.
A.L.
Post a Comment
<< Home