Tories back universal child care: Stay-at-home parents
will be the biggest beneficiaries of the new federal plan
Vancouver Sun
May 3, 2006
By Nicholas Read
EXCERPT:
For Lynda King and Don Black, who have two sons in daycare,
the federal government's $100-a-month child-care subsidy is
money misplaced.
"My perspective is that they should give the money to child-care
centres and child programs and the people who need it," said
King, who lives in Vancouver and works in corporate strategies
for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. "This is just
the baby bonus."
Robert Cassidy agrees. He and his wife, Danielle Kemmer,
who live near the University of B.C., have been trying to
find full-time child care for their one-year-old daughter,
Sara, since before Sara was born. But they can't. It means
Cassidy can't start the full-time research job he was offered
last week.
So he, too, would prefer to see the money go directly towards
creating more child-care spaces instead of into parents' pockets.
"The way the policy is going to work now isn't going to help
anyone get back in the workforce, and being in the workforce
helps pay for daycare," Cassidy said.
But for stay-at-home mom Jennifer Schouten, of Surrey, the
$200 a month she will receive for five-year-old Micah and
two-year-old Markus, will be much appreciated.
"It's always nice for single-income families to get extra
support because it's a challenge to make ends meet," Schouten
said…
Families like the Schoutens, with at least one stay-at-home
parent, are the biggest beneficiaries of the new Conservative
plan.
Because no matter what the working spouse earns, his or her
stay-at-home partner stands to retain almost $1,134 of the
annual allowance for each child after tax. That is $263 more
than the $871 a working couple earning $50,000 a year stands
to get, and $308 more than the $826 allowance that would go
to a working couple earning $100,000.
The only scenario under which a working couple could retain
as much as a one-income couple with a child -- $1,134 -- is
if their combined income is $20,000 a year or less.
The plan has already come under attack from critics who say
it provides the least assistance to low- and middle-income
earners, and that it will not create needed child-care spaces.
But Schouten, whose husband, Mike, works as a grower at a
Surrey greenhouse, believes the government is on the right
track because the allowance encourages mothers to stay at
home with their children.
"They would be on the wrong track if they supported a national
daycare program, because it has no benefit for women who choose
to stay at home and raise their families," she said.
King, who pays $1,870 to keep her sons, Thomas, two, and
Sam, four, in daycare, says $200 a month, less taxes, is not
going to make any appreciable dent in her child-care costs,
and will have no effect on her decision to work outside her
home.
"The decision to stay at home is not going to be based on
getting $100 a month for my kids. You make those decisions
for different reasons.
"Personally I would rather pay so that every child can have
better access to quality daycare."
Cassidy said he and Kemmer probably would use any money they
get from the government to defray Sara's daycare costs --
if they can find a daycare space for her -- but given that
they expect to pay at least $1,200 a month, it won't make
much of a difference.
"A hundred dollars a month is just a hand wave," he said.
The government also signalled it is prepared to rethink its
plan to create 125,000 new child-care spaces by offering a
tax credit of up to $10,000 to businesses and community groups
for each child-care space they create.
Critics, led by premiers Dalton McGuinty of Ontario and Gary
Doer of Manitoba, say past experience shows businesses and
community groups, many of which are tax-exempt and could not
claim tax credits, are not interested in getting into the
child-care business. Instead they want the Tories to honour
the former Liberal government's promise to provide multi-year
funding to the provinces to create child-care spaces...
|