The Blogging Tory and stay-at-home dad, Brent Colbert has begun a campaign to ensure that his own political masters follow through on their promise to send him his $100 a month baby bonus.
The campaign centres around his view that he deserves some choice in childcare. It's a fair point. We all deserve choice.
But Brent may have been misled. And that's where I can help.
As I have noted before, the Caledon Institute debunked this crazy notion that anyone was going to see $100 a month under the Tory Plan.
They also point out that the wealthier you are, the more of the after-tax money you get to keep. Too bad if you're poor, you should have chosen to be rich.
But that's not all. The next part of their plan, recycled from the failed Mike Harris plan in Ontario, sets up a tax credit for"employers who cover the fullcost of creating spaces."
So people like me are about to schmucked on the choice thing. My daycare is a not-for-profit, run in a public school. They don't pay taxes. 'Cause their not-for-profit. So nothing for them, and a reduced choice for me.
It's structured this way so that "small business and rural communities" can access this programme as well as big business and urban turtle-neck dwelling parents.
I can see it now, dozens of local 7-Elevens will have to empty the chip aisle to make room for the coporate romper room.
The butcher in Collingwood near my in-laws will put that addition on because the four employees they have need somewhere to to store kids.
And the bookstore Meaford, well, they'll just let'em run wild among the stacks....
Because it was the tax system that needed changing, and putting a childcare worker really makes good business sense for them now.
If you want choice in childcare, you've got my support.
You've got a child tax benefit, the national child benefit, and you've got the childcare expense deduction. Providing and additional tax reduction for parents who stay at home makes good sense as well.
But if choice is sending me back $1200 my own tax money so you can tax it again, get stuffed.
My fourteen month old daughter is smart enough to see that's not choice, that's shell game.
The real question, is why can't you see that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think for starters you should ask the Caledon Institute to correct this study before you site it to defend your position on child care.
For example they could show their work in the first exampe of the low income family that earns $36K a year. Assuming that both parents make excatly the same ($18K) then either one can claim the benefit and take home $948 not the $388 they claim.
The benefit is taxable to the lower income parent and as long as marrage penalty exists any discussion of the value of the benefit must make assumptions of the individual incomes of the two parents.
It is taxable to ensure that low income parents receive the benefit while higher income earners recieve less assistance.
Perhaps Caledon might want to defend their statement..."It would go to all families with children, regardless of their child care needs." What family with kids in this country does not have child care needs? Their bias against the almost 50% of Canadian families that have a stay at home parent is shameful.
I am not going to get into the tax calculus here, but was does not seem to be debatable is that unless the lowest income is below 10K, the family is not taking home $1200, they take home a lot less. And it's their own money.
And what is also not being disuputed, is that if the lowest income earner brings in more than 10K, the amount actually increases with their salary.
If the argument is that an increase in cash flow or wealth increases choice (why else send money?) then why penalize low and middle income earners, and reward higher income earners who already have choice because of their own income or cash flow? It strikes me as regressive.
And as I said, i agree with the notion of providing support in addition to the current tax support provided to families to deal with childcare costs.
What i do disagree with is a regressive policy that sends me back own tax money, minus the cost of some bureaucrat mailing it back to me.
It makes no sense, and doesn't support anyone's choice, it supports bureaucrats at Revenue Canada. Dunno, maybe that helps them pay for their own childcare?
But good to see a serious, thoughtful and hopefully amusing discussion on this.
Post a Comment