Asian Fever

Parents and businesses push for $10-a-day child care in B.C.

tokugawa

Member
Sep 8, 2005
484
3
18
Parents and businesses push for $10-a-day child care in B.C.

Government ignores soaring cost of care at its peril: Surrey Board of Trade


By Tara Carman, Vancouver Sun July 20, 2014

VANCOUVER -- It is easy to see why parents such as Anna Geeroms, who pays $2,500 a month for a nanny three days a week, are enthusiastic supporters of a subsidized child care plan, but support is also coming from B.C.'s business community.

The Surrey Board of Trade laid out the business case for $10-a-day child care in B.C. in a 2012 position paper, noting that parents with young children make up a significant share of the city’s workforce.

“Work-life conflict among employees with preschool-aged children costs the B.C. business community in excess of $600 million annually, and the Canadian business community more than $4 billion,” the position paper said, citing research by the University of B.C.’s Paul Kershaw.

“The stress from work-life conflict among adults with young kids costs the Canadian health care system $2.5 billion annually, and the child welfare system another $1.2 billion per year. In addition to these direct costs to business, the ‘squeeze’ experienced by families today also contributes to rising costs of crime, poverty, education and health care.

“Over the long term, research shows that Canada’s inaction in support of the generation raising young kids is compromising the quality of our future labour force and our competitiveness.”

Geeroms, an IT professional, said her struggle to find child care for her twins made her return to work much more difficult.

She realized when her babies were about nine months old that finding two daycare spaces at a price the family could afford would be next to impossible.

“The going rates are ... $1,200 to $1,400 per child for early child care,” she says. “With two, that becomes fairly enormous.”

So the family began their search for a nanny. Geeroms perused hundreds of online ads and posted a profile with an online nanny agency. She had a string of disappointing interviews with a number of women who all wanted to work under the table.

She eventually found a nanny she liked. In a patchwork arrangement that is increasingly the norm for child care in Metro Vancouver, Geeroms stayed home one day a week, grandparents took another day and they hired the nanny for three.

After paying the mortgage and the nanny, the family was left with about $200 a week, says Geeroms, whose partner is a millwright. That arrangement lasted only a year, ending when the nanny went back to school. She found another nanny, but it costs the family $1,250 per month per child — $2,500 total — for three days a week.

“At this point, if one of us lost our job we would lose our house because child care takes up so much of our income,” she says.

“I feel like our government, Canada, invested so much money in my education ... My work was desperate to get me back. And yet, when it was time to go back, it was so hard to figure this thing out. That just doesn’t make sense.

“You have to work to pay so you can’t be home with your child.”

Geeroms says she supports a provincial campaign to introduce publicly subsidized $10-a-day child care, not only because it would ease the financial strain for families like hers, but also because it would improve wages and training for workers in the industry.

It is almost impossible for her family to offer their nanny the wages they do, she says, but it’s also difficult for the caregiver and her child to live on those wages. The fact that the caregiver is Filipina adds a racial dimension that Geeroms says makes her uncomfortable.

“It feels like there’s different classes and I’d rather not participate in that. I’d rather that we have universal child care where the people have pensions and they have medicare and they have sick days.”

It would cost the province $88 million a year to introduce $10-a-day child care for children under three, where it is most needed, says advocate Sharon Gregson. It would cost $1.5 billion per year to expand the program to all children under six. But because more parents are able to enter the workforce, the cost to government is offset by more people paying income tax and sales tax when they spend that additional income, she adds.

“You don’t expect to have to put your eight-year-old on a waiting list for Grade 2 and hope that in a couple of years you’ll get a space. You expect there’s a space for your Grade 2 child when they need it and child care needs to be the same way,” Gregson says. “There should be no magic reason why suddenly at age five we accept some public responsibility.”

Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux refused an interview on the subject, saying in an email that the government cannot afford $1.5 billion a year to implement the $10-a-day plan. The B.C. government last year introduced an early childhood strategy that will see families of children under six with a net income of $100,000 a year or less receive $55 per month per child starting next year.

It doesn’t make sense that the public is willing to foot the bill for K-12 education and subsidize university, but not early childhood learning, which research has proven is crucial to development, Geeroms says.

“We’re just completely ignoring that and leaving that up to chance.”

For Geeroms, who pays $2,500 a month for part-time child care, an additional $110 a month, while welcome, is a drop in the bucket.

“It makes me feel like they’re saying I should stay in the home and my husband should work and I should take care of the kids. And that’s just deeply wrong.”

For Kamloops father of three Jon Treichel, who cut back his hours when the cost of child care started to exceed his income, the government’s message rings hollow.

“When we hear the sort of discussions politicians in B.C. have regarding daycare costs we wonder what planet those people are living on,” he says. “We make reasonable money and live in a very modest house but when gasoline is $1.40/litre and virtually every cost imaginable is constantly going up I wonder exactly how we are ever supposed to get out of debt, let alone establish any sort of retirement income.

“If it wasn’t for my in-laws, we would be in very difficult circumstances.”

tcarman@vancouversun.com

twitter.com/tarajcarman

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Parents+businesses+push+child+care+with+video/10047242/story.html
I wonder if this type of creative accounting is really feasible? Can we seriously afford $10 a day child care in BC?

I wonder where this province will be if the BC Liberals did the following:

(1) Provide $10 a day care to all children under 5 years of age
(2) Give in to all BCTF demands
(3) Increase health care spending
(4) Give in to all public sector demands
(5) Give in to all native land claims and other demands
(6) Increase subsidies to BC Ferries
(7) Increase minimum wage to $13 an hour
(8) Provide affordable housing for all homeless in BC
(9) City of Vancouver not BC government - move all the support facilities out of the downtown east side in Vancouver and move them else where around the city so that it's not all centralized in one ghetto

Will there be peace if the BC government did all of the above?
 

tokugawa

Member
Sep 8, 2005
484
3
18
If it doesn't make sense to businesses or parents for them to fund it why oh why should the taxpayers basically subsidize these businesses and subsidize families to work a marginal second job?
Playing devil's advocate here but I guess the response would be 'It's for the kids'.

 

Hortence222222

New member
Nov 20, 2006
37
0
0
Wild thought here, but...... If you can't afford to support your kids, DON'T HAVE ANY!!!!!! I don't want to support yours!!!!
 

beginner

Banned
Jul 11, 2014
121
0
0
“It makes me feel like they’re saying I should stay in the home and my husband should work and I should take care of the kids. and that's just deeply wrong."...Anna Geeroms

yes Anna, how dare we think you, an IT professional and your millwright husband should actually take care of your own kids.

guarantee Anna and hubby have minimum two SUVs in the driveway and haven't had an exotic holiday for at least one month
 
Last edited:

morementum

Member
Aug 22, 2012
789
13
18
I wonder if this type of creative accounting is really feasible? Can we seriously afford $10 a day child care in BC?

I wonder where this province will be if the BC Liberals did the following:

(1) Provide $10 a day care to all children under 5 years of age
(2) Give in to all BCTF demands
(3) Increase health care spending
(4) Give in to all public sector demands
(5) Give in to all native land claims and other demands
(6) Increase subsidies to BC Ferries
(7) Increase minimum wage to $13 an hour
(8) Provide affordable housing for all homeless in BC
(9) City of Vancouver not BC government - move all the support facilities out of the downtown east side in Vancouver and move them else where around the city so that it's not all centralized in one ghetto

Will there be peace if the BC government did all of the above?
Would require roughly $10-15 billion more per year (probably more - just going by mid-point of what people have been asking for) over what I believe if BC budget of about $50 billion. BC has just caught up with Alberta and Washington on corporate taxes so cannot go there so personal taxes it would be. Increased annual tax bill per full-time working person in BC would about $10,000 per person. I am sure most in BC would be happy to throw in another $1000 to taxes every month.
 

beginner

Banned
Jul 11, 2014
121
0
0
"At this point, if one of us lost our job we would lose our house because child care takes up so much of our income,”... Anna Geeroms

gee Anna, maybe if one of you lose your job you could actually stay home and take of your kids and you wouldn't have to spend money on child care
 

beginner

Banned
Jul 11, 2014
121
0
0
Yes, but low cost universal child care isn't for the children. Universal education to a certain level? Sure. Medical care? Agreed. But the sole purpose of universal subsidized child care it to take income from people not currently raising children and transferring it to those parents that chose to maximize their participation in generating income for personal gain. If the second income your labours can generate cannot offset the cost of your child care expenses, you have no business expecting others to fill the shortfall. If it does, fill you boots and pay your own way.

Of course it means that real estate prices will need to match the incomes that those in the market for housing are earning & those who cannot really afford to buy a home, or as much home as they seem to want, will need to live within their means. I guess it just sucks that the world doesn't owe you a McMansion.
I think he meant "it's for the kids", tongue in cheek...much like the teachers who ask for ridiculous wage increases, always espouse "it's for the kids"...no it's not, it's so they can put more money into their pockets so they too, can afford a McMansion and two brand new SUVs.
 

tokugawa

Member
Sep 8, 2005
484
3
18
I think he meant "it's for the kids", tongue in cheek...much like the teachers who ask for ridiculous wage increases, always espouse "it's for the kids"...no it's not, it's so they can put more money into their pockets so they too, can afford a McMansion and two brand new SUVs.
Thanks for clearing that up for me :thumb:
 

tokugawa

Member
Sep 8, 2005
484
3
18
Definition: Devil's Advocate:
noun
1A person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments:
1.1 historical A person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to challenge a proposed beatification or canonization, or the verification of a miracle.

Definition: (with) Tongue in cheek:
Speaking or writing in an ironic or insincere way:

I responded to what the stated intent of the comment was: to provoke debate and test the strength of opposing arguments. If one wishes to make tongue in cheek comments, it is generally best to not add extra comments to the effect that you seriously want your comment discussed. There is of course :rolleyes or :p to denote a less serious intent...
Apologies I should have included a :rolleyes: or :p to denote a less serious intent but I did appreciate your initial reply to my comment.
 

Sucre

Member
Jul 7, 2009
349
1
18
It may not be necessary to get to $10 per day daycare but daycare is a necessary not an optional expense for a working mom, and right now that expense is not even fully tax deductible - in fact only a fraction is deductible, meaning that too many well qualified woman are force out of the work force - foolish after all the cost of education and training. All businesses get 100% deduction for their expenses including employees - but a working mother is treated as it its an optional luxury. Step 1 is to make child care a fully tax deductable expense from income as thets the real net income of the working mother.

My two daughters have advanced degrees but with the arrival of their second children, each cannot afford to work any more - it cost $17,000 per annum for daycare and deduction limit was $7000 claimable by the lower wage earner, so assuming 25% tax rate for lowest earner, deduction off tax payable is only $1750 or 10 percent of real cost. With two children cost would be $34,000 or net of tax about $30,000. yet the average income in British Columbia is only $34,000. sure a lot cheaper to go on welfare and get paid that way.

If the husband earns say $80,000 then the mother income is taxes at a marginal rate of 50%. Do the math - if the mothers income is a healthy $60,000 - a decent wage, and almost double the average income on an individual; her net after tax income would be $30,000 but she has to pay $30,000 for child care so she earns zero and if she works she also has to plus gas, parking car insurance, lunches so it actually costs the mother out of pocket to work -
 

hornygandalf

Active member
If the husband earns say $80,000 then the mother income is taxes at a marginal rate of 50%. Do the math - if the mothers income is a healthy $60,000 - a decent wage, and almost double the average income on an individual; her net after tax income would be $30,000 but she has to pay $30,000 for child care so she earns zero and if she works she also has to plus gas, parking car insurance, lunches so it actually costs the mother out of pocket to work -
Without going too much into specifics, there is a problem with this example. If the marginal rate of income = 50%, then it is the last dollar that is taxed at 50%, not the whole amount. Should would be keeping a whole lot more than $30,000. But would she be getting taxed at a marginal rate of 50% based on this scenario? Sounds pretty high to me (though I may be wrong).
 

Sucre

Member
Jul 7, 2009
349
1
18
I had suggested a 50% rate of tax to be paid by the working mother assuming her husband worked- In fact if the husband earned $86,000, the mothers $60,000, her marginal rate of Federal and and BC income tax would start at 34.29 percent and finish at 43.7 %; but in addition she has to pay premiums for CPP and Uic and payroll taxes which bring the total out of pocket cost to above 50% of the paycheck.

quoting from the winnipeg free press article analyzing tax bills: " While personal income taxes are the single largest type of tax paid by families, they represent less than one-third of the total.
Two other significant taxes on our tax returns are premiums for the Canada Pension Plan and Employment Insurance. In addition, residents of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec pay health-care taxes either through direct premiums or payroll taxes."

and the out of pocket cost of child care she would have to pay takes the other 50%. (more if you consider you cannot realistically take the children to and from child care on a bus and still work elsewhere then so insurance, gas and car payments have to be factored in. - a single parent has it easier as her marginal rate starts at 10% and she gets more deductions; but she also has no choice -unless welfare is the choice - I do know of a mother of 4, who chose that route as she gets free healthcare and bus passes and is paid a healthy living amount to stay home and raise her children -

Nor is "A tax deduction ... government spending" as Peace guy suggests - Money spent to earn money is not taxable in business, rather it is net income that is earned and taxed. The issue is only was that money spent to earn income - in case of child care the answer is yes.
money not earned is not a spending, but it does deprive the government of money that with prudent policy could have been earned to tax. - it would be far more prudent and sound to argue that the money not earned and thus not taxed by mothers not in the work force is government spending and spending at a much higher lever - According to the Vancouver sun article on the subject the woman out f the work force are costing hundreds of billions to the economy - even business agrees. I had the privilege of hearing Hillary Clinton speak when she was in Vancouver and she made the point that in countries which put barriers for woman to work the economy (and the tax base) suffers - from almost 10% in Canada and USA to 35% in some countries. I guess that's government spending.
 
Vancouver Escorts