2021 federal budget and the CAF

[Weinie]

I don't understand why you think parents who stay at home are somehow losing out on money. Currently a parent outside Quebec spends 15-20k annually on childcare. A parent staying at home spends nothing.

And a parent spending money on daycare, outside Quebec, might make 60-70K or more in salary that gets re-injected into the economy.

Under a Quebec model a parent spends 3k annually on childcare. A parent at home spends nothing.

So what is the parent at home losing out on?

And yes, while all taxpayers are paying for it, there is a corresponding increase in tax revenues by people who are now working, who are earning money, and spending that money in the economy. So it evens out? Or better yet, Canada comes out ahead?

An increased workforce brings increased costs. Whether that translates into a net increase in Canadian economic well-being would have been easy to ascertain in the 60's and 70's. With the current increased emphasis on green, and what economic growth, as currently calculated and understood, implicates for is far less easy to predict.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Nothing,....if they just work for 3k in Quebec or 15-20k anywhere else. Since those are all below the minimum wage i don't think that happens.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I don't understand why you think parents who stay at home are somehow losing out on money. Currently a parent outside Quebec spends 15-20k annually on childcare. A parent staying at home spends nothing.

Under a Quebec model a parent spends 3k annually on childcare. A parent at home spends nothing.

So what is the parent at home losing out on?

And yes, while all taxpayers are paying for it, there is a corresponding increase in tax revenues by people who are now working, who are earning money, and spending that money in the economy. So it evens out? Or better yet, Canada comes out ahead?

Presumably, the parent at home is missing out on employment (obviously, by choice, in my example) and subsidizing somebody else’s daycare through taxes. If someone chooses to raise their own children, should they not get a tax break for doing so?

As to Max’s point about “who cares?”- it matters when we begin to run out of taxpayers to pay for all of this.

As was pointed up thread, the Quebec example is funded on the back of 50 percent of all equalization payments in Canadian history and the highest income tax rates in the country. And every time Quebec coughs, the federal government finds a way to shovel money at them. My question is: how is any of this permanent, structural program spending possible without generally raising taxes across the board?

 

[Altair]

And a parent spending money on daycare, outside Quebec, might make 60-70K or more in salary that gets re-injected into the economy.

Exactly. Now they make even more.

An increased workforce brings increased costs. Whether that translates into a net increase in Canadian economic well-being would have been easy to ascertain in the 60's and 70's. With the current increased emphasis on green, and what economic growth, as currently calculated and understood, implicates for is far less easy to predict.

That sounds like a good problem to have. I don't see a increased workforce as a bad thing, usually.

 

[Altair]

Presumably, the parent at home is missing out on employment (obviously, by choice, in my example) and subsidizing somebody else’s daycare through taxes. If someone chooses to raise their own children, should they not get a tax break for doing so?

Yeah, no. If they want to stay home and raise their kid, that is their choice, and power to them.

But they don't need to be subsidized to do it. Their subsidy is not paying anything for childcare. They likely already get the CCB anyways.

As to Max’s point about “who cares?”- it matters when we begin to run out of taxpayers to pay for all of this.

This literally makes more taxpayers, so it solves itself.

As was pointed up thread, the Quebec example is funded on the back of 50 percent of all equalization payments in Canadian history and the highest income tax rates in the country. And every time Quebec coughs, the federal government finds a way to shovel money at them. My question is: how is any of this permanent, structural program spending possible without generally raising taxes across the board?

Quebec has been doing better economically since putting this in place. Isn't that a good thing? Or is Quebec bashing just easier?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yeah, no. If they want to stay home and raise their kid, that is their choice, and power to them.

But they don't need to be subsidized to do it. Their subsidy is not paying anything for childcare. They likely already get the CCB anyways.

This literally makes more taxpayers, so it solves itself.

Quebec has been doing better economically since putting this in place. Isn't that a good thing? Or is Quebec bashing just easier?

It is not Quebec bashing to point out the fact that they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada and that they have some of the highest taxes in Canada.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I love Quebec Altair, I can't wait to hit Pizza Youville again, but SKT is correct,....you will only defend it because someone you worship is from there. So once again no facts matter to you....

 

[SupersonicMax]

It is not Quebec bashing to point out the fact that they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada and that they have some of the highest taxes in Canada.

So? How does that discredit a childcare program?

 

[Altair]

It is not Quebec bashing to point out the fact that they are and have been the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada and that they have some of the highest taxes in Canada.

Quebec is the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds (The atlantic provinces has it beat per capita).

But how does that mean that a program they have doesn't work?

Quebec being the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds mean that their hydro electric dams don't work?

 

[Altair]

I love Quebec Altair, I can't wait to hit Pizza Youville again, but SKT is correct,....you will only defend it because someone you worship is from there. So once again no facts matter to you....

You're right. I do worship myself.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I don't see how millions of dollars (especially taken from other areas of the CAF) will combat sexual harassment and assault in the CAF.

Is that hush money to stop people from reporting?
Are we paying people bonuses to stop sexually harassing and assaulting people? Like a FORCE TEST incentive?
Are going to pay a research company millions of dollars to tell us what the problem is?
Maybe a new head quarters and command staff, nice new building?

 

[Weinie]

Quebec is the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds (The atlantic provinces has it beat per capita).

But how does that mean that a program they have doesn't work?

Quebec being the biggest beneficiary of the equalization payment in Canada in total funds mean that their hydro electric dams don't work?

Their dams seem to be doing fine. What is does means is that subsidization from the rest of Canada allows any and all Quebec political parties to propose budgetary allocations to cater to a political diaspora (women who want to work but couldn't without $10 per day daycare) that allows them to elicit support from those women, thus enhancing their possibility of being elected. It has become a third rail in your province, and woe (and electoral disaster) to anyone who does not support it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, Bruce and SKT are the ones full of s*&^ on this one.

You cannot simultaneously say that Quebec is the greatest beneficiary on the one hand and has some of the highest taxes on the other hand. One statement is in aggregate and the other one on a per capita basis, so cannot be compared. And since equalization is set up on the basis of taxation, it is - and has always been derived and paid on a per capita basis.

To say in that context that Quebec is the largest beneficiary of Equalization is like saying that Ontarians are the most taxed Canadians by far, since they contribute 250 billion dollars to the overall Canadian 600 billion dollars raised in Federal/aggregate provincial revenues raised last year. Of course they did: because they are 40% of the country's population. BTW, Quebec would be the second payer in aggregate terms with 18% of all aggregate tax payments, for a total of 105 billions, far ahead of Alberta which only pays 65 billions.

Do I need to stress that looking at it that way is ridiculous? Per capita is and has always been the proper way to look at it. And on that basis (which is the way it is calculated in Ottawa anyway), on a per capita basis, Quebec currently is the province that gets the least equalization, at about $1400 per person, followed by Manitoba at about $1550 per person, and it goes downhill from there with the maritime provinces (NL excluded) at about 2600, and PEI at a little over 3000 - followed not even closely by the three territories at $8,000 per person.

And all that is only calculated to provide a taxation revenue for the provision of the Government of Canada nationally mandated programs covered by equalization, such as the Health Act, so that those specific mandated program are about equal in standards and availability across Canada. The Child Care program in Quebec is not covered or included: Quebecers pay for it all by themselves, which is why now that the federal government wants to enter the fray, it will have to compensate Quebec on the same financial basis it will provide in the other provinces. It is not a bonanza for Quebec. it is a fair share of a new national program.

And how does Quebec pay for all its extra stuff then? We tax ourselves.

Interestingly enough, there is something called the Tax Effort index. What it is is the following: If you take the tax base of each province as calculated by the Equalization formula (and that includes exactly the same elements in each province) and then you look at how much of this is actually taxed across the country and average it. You then go back to each province and see - in that specific province - how much the citizens of that province are asked to contribute in taxes in relation to the average national "effort". In that index, for the last year I found -2017 - Quebec required the greatest effort of all from its citizen, requiring a tax contribution of 127% of the national average. The least effort was that required of Albertans, at 72% of the national average tax effort. Once again: Quebec has more programs because we have accepted to tax ourselves to get them.

 

[Weinie]

Actually, Bruce and SKT are the ones full of s*&^ on this one.

You cannot simultaneously say that Quebec is the greatest beneficiary on the one hand and has some of the highest taxes on the other hand. One statement is in aggregate and the other one on a per capita basis, so cannot be compared. And since equalization is set up on the basis of taxation, it is - and has always been derived and paid on a per capita basis.

To say in that context that Quebec is the largest beneficiary of Equalization is like saying that Ontarians are the most taxed Canadians by far, since they contribute 250 billion dollars to the overall Canadian 600 billion dollars raised in Federal/aggregate provincial revenues raised last year. Of course they did: because they are 40% of the country's population. BTW, Quebec would be the second payer in aggregate terms with 18% of all aggregate tax payments, for a total of 105 billions, far ahead of Alberta which only pays 65 billions.

Do I need to stress that looking at it that way is ridiculous? Per capita is and has always been the proper way to look at it. And on that basis (which is the way it is calculated in Ottawa anyway), on a per capita basis, Quebec currently is the province that gets the least equalization, at about $1400 per person, followed by Manitoba at about $1550 per person, and it goes downhill from there with the maritime provinces (NL excluded) at about 2600, and PEI at a little over 3000 - followed not even closely by the three territories at $8,000 per person.

And all that is only calculated to provide a taxation revenue for the provision of the Government of Canada nationally mandated programs covered by equalization, such as the Health Act, so that those specific mandated program are about equal in standards and availability across Canada. The Child Care program in Quebec is not covered or included: Quebecers pay for it all by themselves, which is why now that the federal government wants to enter the fray, it will have to compensate Quebec on the same financial basis it will provide in the other provinces. It is not a bonanza for Quebec. it is a fair share of a new national program.

And how does Quebec pay for all its extra stuff then? We tax ourselves.

Interestingly enough, there is something called the Tax Effort index. What it is is the following: If you take the tax base of each province as calculated by the Equalization formula (and that includes exactly the same elements in each province) and then you look at how much of this is actually taxed across the country and average it. You then go back to each province and see - in that specific province - how much the citizens of that province are asked to contribute in taxes in relation to the average national "effort". In that index, for the last year I found -2017 - Quebec required the greatest effort of all from its citizen, requiring a tax contribution of 127% of the national average. The least effort was that required of Albertans, at 72% of the national average tax effort. Once again: Quebec has more programs because we have accepted to tax ourselves to get them.

Nope. You cannot peel the grape that way. Equalization was always meant to establish a minimum level of infrastructure and services across the country. Building a road that will be driven in the territories that compares to ones in Quebec City was the intent. Having a comparable level of health care when you are vacationing in P.E.I. whilst visiting from Baie Comeau, and get into a car accident, and still get comparable health care across the country means that certain areas will be subsidized more heavily than others in order to achieve that, regardless of population. But the fact persists, Quebec has seen the bulk of equalization since it's inception, while at only 26% of the population.

 

[Altair]

Nope. You cannot peel the grape that way. Equalization was always meant to establish a minimum level of infrastructure and services across the country. Building a road that will be driven in the territories that compares to ones in Quebec City was the intent. Having a comparable level of health care when you are vacationing in P.E.I. whilst visiting from Baie Comeau, and get into a car accident, and still get comparable health care across the country means that certain areas will be subsidized more heavily than others in order to achieve that, regardless of population. But the fact persists, Quebec has seen the bulk of equalization since it's inception, while at only 26% of the population.

Per capita means nothing to you eh?

 

[Weinie]

Per capita means nothing to you eh?

No, it's like magic.

 

[Altair]

No, it's like magic.

Honest, I like that.

 

[Altair]

Actually, Bruce and SKT are the ones full of s*&^ on this one.

You cannot simultaneously say that Quebec is the greatest beneficiary on the one hand and has some of the highest taxes on the other hand. One statement is in aggregate and the other one on a per capita basis, so cannot be compared. And since equalization is set up on the basis of taxation, it is - and has always been derived and paid on a per capita basis.

To say in that context that Quebec is the largest beneficiary of Equalization is like saying that Ontarians are the most taxed Canadians by far, since they contribute 250 billion dollars to the overall Canadian 600 billion dollars raised in Federal/aggregate provincial revenues raised last year. Of course they did: because they are 40% of the country's population. BTW, Quebec would be the second payer in aggregate terms with 18% of all aggregate tax payments, for a total of 105 billions, far ahead of Alberta which only pays 65 billions.

Do I need to stress that looking at it that way is ridiculous? Per capita is and has always been the proper way to look at it. And on that basis (which is the way it is calculated in Ottawa anyway), on a per capita basis, Quebec currently is the province that gets the least equalization, at about $1400 per person, followed by Manitoba at about $1550 per person, and it goes downhill from there with the maritime provinces (NL excluded) at about 2600, and PEI at a little over 3000 - followed not even closely by the three territories at $8,000 per person.

And all that is only calculated to provide a taxation revenue for the provision of the Government of Canada nationally mandated programs covered by equalization, such as the Health Act, so that those specific mandated program are about equal in standards and availability across Canada. The Child Care program in Quebec is not covered or included: Quebecers pay for it all by themselves, which is why now that the federal government wants to enter the fray, it will have to compensate Quebec on the same financial basis it will provide in the other provinces. It is not a bonanza for Quebec. it is a fair share of a new national program.

And how does Quebec pay for all its extra stuff then? We tax ourselves.

Interestingly enough, there is something called the Tax Effort index. What it is is the following: If you take the tax base of each province as calculated by the Equalization formula (and that includes exactly the same elements in each province) and then you look at how much of this is actually taxed across the country and average it. You then go back to each province and see - in that specific province - how much the citizens of that province are asked to contribute in taxes in relation to the average national "effort". In that index, for the last year I found -2017 - Quebec required the greatest effort of all from its citizen, requiring a tax contribution of 127% of the national average. The least effort was that required of Albertans, at 72% of the national average tax effort. Once again: Quebec has more programs because we have accepted to tax ourselves to get them.

Everyone likes dunking on Quebec, but don't realize that if NS, NB, or PEI had the same population as Quebec, they would be receiving anywhere from 22 billion to 25 billion a year, compared to Quebecs 12.

Or the territories would be getting 68 billion. Because context matters. But its so much easier to say "hurr durr, Quebec is a leech, they get the most"

Back to childcare, its much worse. Quebec has a program that has lead to increased birthrate, increased labour participation, and less money going to childcare leaving more money for other sectors of the economy, and people have the gall to knock it because....equalization.

 

[Weinie]

Everyone likes dunking on Quebec, but don't realize that if NS, NB, or PEI had the same population as Quebec, they would be receiving anywhere from 22 billion to 25 billion a year, compared to Quebecs 12.

Or the territories would be getting 68 billion. Because context matters. But its so much easier to say "hurr durr, Quebec is a leech, they get the most"

Back to childcare, its much worse. Quebec has a program that has lead to increased birthrate, increased labour participation, and less money going to childcare leaving more money for other sectors of the economy, and people have the gall to knock it because....equalization.

Uh no!. My household has a certain amount of money to spend, and me and my wife set it up to maximize the hierarchy of needs.

And then boom, we get an extra bit of money every year, and at first we consider where we could maximize it, but then our kids realize that we have more money than we claim, and in order to minimize their plaints and keep power and harmony we start to accede to their demands, just to keep calm within the house. And then this becomes accepted practice, because who wants a crazy yelling house?

 

[Altair]

Uh no!. My household has a certain amount of money to spend, and me and my wife set it up to maximize the hierarchy of needs.

And then boom, we get an extra bit of money every year, and at first we consider where we could maximize it, but then our kids realize that we have more money than we claim, and in order to minimize their plaints and keep power and harmony we start to accede to their demands, just to keep calm within the house. And then this becomes accepted practice, because who wants a crazy yelling house?

Sounds like you need universal childcare.