|
A Taxing Time for Child Care Debates
Paul Kershaw, Ph.D.
23 Apr 05
Two recent Vancouver Sun articles caught my attention: one
by Michael Campbell advocating new tax cuts for stay at home
mothers; the other by Fazil Mihlar claiming that researchers
don't know what programs will help families with children
because academics like me haven't compared the developmental
outcomes that result from tax breaks with those that result
from a system of non-familial care.
My response to the two journalists: stick to writing on
issues you know more about.
There is large literature from Canada, the US and Europe
that shows QUALITY care is good for kids under 6, even if
they are getting good care at home, and especially if they
reside in families that are vulnerable financially. The Human
Early Learning Partnership - a network of academics
from across BC universities - has produced a summary
of this literature which can be found at www.earlylearning.ubc.ca.
I recommend Campbell and Mihlar read it.
The problem, of course, is that Canada doesn't necessarily
provide quality care. That's why we need to push for more
money for a universal child care system, not less.
Tax break supporters favour this approach in part because
they believe it is straightforward. But this is misleading.
The value of tax deductions depends on your income and is
worth more for higher earners. Knowing what you get relative
to your neighbour is therefore not simple. The value of tax
credits is equally complicated. The current caregiver tax
credit of around $3,600 is worth only about $580 for families.
I bet most Canadians couldn't tell you how that amount is
calculated.
Worse still, the journalists imply that tax breaks for families
address the same public policy problems that a universal system
of child care is meant to address. They are wrong.
No one in favour of universal child care thinks parents
should be able to shirk responsibilities to care for their
kids. Quite the opposite. Defenders of child care recognize
that parents want to be with their kids and should be supported
so that they have sufficient time to care personally. That
is why child care advocates also typically talk about parental
leave, other caregiving leaves and work-family balance measures
(which might include tax breaks). My own research regularly
highlights the need to organize social policy so that men
can find and enjoy more time to care.
The reality is, however, that a universal system of non-familial
child care promotes social and economic objectives that parental
care just can't. Here are a few examples:
First, men's incomes have been declining since the 1970s
in terms of purchasing power. Just as much as feminism, this
economic reality has pushed many two-parent families to have
both partners in the labour force. The National Council of
Welfare regularly reports that poverty rates would rise dramatically
if women were not earners. Tax breaks big enough to address
this trend would cost far more than child care.
Second, Canada, like all countries, is facing a labour shortage
because of our warped population pyramid. As babyboomers retire,
pressure for mothers to work longer hours will increase, not
decrease. The pressure will be especially strong since women
typically have more education than men these days, and in
a knowledge economy, education matters most. What is needed
to unleash this labour supply is a child care system -
not tax breaks. Even if you think families can use tax breaks
to buy child care, the tax relief that federal Conservatives
proposed in the past are not generous enough to pay for good
quality care.
Third, all Canadians need to ask "What is so
magical about age 6?" Neuroscience and epidemiological
research provides evidence that early learning matters for
long-term well-being and labour market success. We collectively
have an interest in providing stimulating opportunities for
kids in social environments so that they enter the formal
school system ready to interact with others, learn and eventually
work. Starting before age 6 makes sense, because research
shows that measures taken after the fact to fix problems that
kids develop are much more costly and much less effective.
Almost every other wealthy democracy has acknowledged this.
Debates in Europe and the UK are about the amount of care
to provide kids age 3 and under - it is taken for granted
that 4 and 5-year-olds need access to good quality early learning
and care environments outside of the home. This international
perspective suggests that ongoing resistance to child care
in Canada is cultural, not based on science.
The bottom line: there is enough research about child care
to permit Canadian governments to make sound policy decisions.
Don't let journalists who don't specialize in the area convince
you otherwise. They already get enough air time arguing that
Canada can't afford a child care system, when what they really
mean is they that don't want us to prioritize child care relative
to other policy issues. The most recent federal budget included
$13 billion for tax cuts, which follow on the heels of more
than $90 billion in federal tax cuts over the past five years.
Against this backdrop, the proposal to spend $5 billion on
child care over five years seems very modest. What are your
priorities?
--
Paul Kershaw is a Professor of political theory and public
policy at the University of British Columbia and the Human
Early Learning Partnership. He is the author of the article
"'Choice' Discourse in BC Child Care: Distancing
Policy from Research" and the forthcoming book Carefair:
rethinking the responsibilities and rights of citizenship.
|
