Parents on government subsidy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kangaroomama

I think it is easy to say "every man for himself" is best when you are born into privelege as I hazard to guess you have been. By privelege, I mean, white middle class English speaking etc. I agree that many immigrants here and in the US are much harder workers than anyone born here and that is why they can make something out of nothing and succeed. But how many people are falling through the cracks because they don't have the help when it is needed? What about those who have been laid off and have no insurance and then get sick...should we say "too bad...you should be working?" I do not disagree at all that many people are lazy and abuse the system...my point is that there are also many who really need help and helping them betters our society. Kids who have a good start in life with access to food, health care, education, grow up to be contributers to society instead of angry criminals. So, why should we pay for other people's poor decisions etc? Because the kids are our future and the more we invest in them, the brighter our future as a society is. I cannot believe anyone would say that the US way is better...crime is higher, poverty is higher, violence is higher and there are vast ghettos full of angry disillusioned youth. Is that better? Really? Well, I suppose as long as you are not living in the ghetto you can close your eyes to the problems and go about your rosy life, but I do not believe this will lead to a better future for anyone.

---

Born our of privilege? Ha! No, nothing could be further from the truth! I grew up with parents who bilked the system for all it was worth. There were many times I ate Peanut butter sandwiches for a week straight but you could be sure my parents still has their weekly carton of cigarettes.

Privilege? No, I don't think so!

I got where I am now by the sweat of my brow. And this is one of the reasons I have such animosity for those that use the system and don't really "need" it. I worked hard - had a job since I was 14 yrs old. EVERYTHING I have is because I worked for it. And there were times an adults that hubby and I were going to school and working so hard and could not even afford to eat more than macaroni (for real!) but you know what - not ONCE did we use the "system". We sucked it up, spent nothing on what WE could not afford on our own. We lived through it and I think it made us better people because of it. We take nothing for granted and we realize that those who "have" probably worked damn hard for it.

ETA: Anyway, this thread is getting off on an NON-daycare tangent. So, out of respect for this forum and its intent I am done posting on this thread. I think everyone's opinions have been voiced and I agree to disagree. I don't want to turn daycare.com into drama-fest.:)

Whew.... everyone did a great job keeping things polite and respectful but this is clearly quite the controversial topic!
To address the ORIGINAL question, I am unable to accept subsidized families, as I am a 100% private facility. There is not any way for me to claim from the government for any type of income. I can and would accept a family that was on social assistance, and unless they told me specifically that their income was from that source, I would not actually know.
For me, this issue would not come down to how their bills are paid, and from what source, but ARE the bills being paid and do our values mesh/combine to create a good working relationship. If the fees aren't paid; no care. Bottom line. If I find out that you (or someone else) are/is paying me to watch your kid while you pick up guys at the mall or smoke/drink your face off; it's not going to work. Bottom line.
We have discussed this topic before; I am under the understanding that I am caring for your child so that you can work and provide benefit to your family. I am fine with you taking a day to run errands, go to appointments, etc. But if I become a way for you to "escape" your children on a constant basis, I will not continue to work with that type of family.
Without getting into too much detail; I believe that our social system does need a serious overhaul, but the answer is neither "Leave it alone, because it does help SOME people" nor is it "Scrap it!". It's somewhere in between. There are absolutely those out there who are circumventing the system to their own benefit. But I ABSOLUTELY agree with the poster that stated that we DO NOT live in the same economy as our grandparents, or even our parents. My husband works in the financial industry and can back this up with solid facts.
Why do most families have both parents work? Because they HAVE to! Did you know that in the 60s, a "good" income was 10k? That meant that mom stayed home, they had a car and a house, and were comfortable but not "rich". That figure doubled in the 70s to 20k, and again in the 80s. Following that trend, a "good" income should be what? Over 160k!!! The median income in Canada right now? Less than $50k. (37k, last I checked) Even allowing for some kind of slow down, we are nowhere near our former purchasing power when it comes to incomes.
Now, I do agree with Judy that our attitude toward wants vs needs has changed as well. That is a problem in itself. But many families, even without the 8 big flat screens and 2 brand new SUVs parked beside the boat and RV, would find it difficult without a dual income.

I actually disagree that this discussion is off topic for this forum. I am happy to end the discussion and agree to disagree as everyone has a right to their own opinions. However, I think this is absolutely relevant. If we are choosing clients based on stereotypes and assumptions, this affects the entire daycare industry. We do all have the right to choose clients as we see fit based on a good fit, but all I wish to do is make everyone think and really re-examine their own biases and assumptions and always put the children first as I know we all wish to do as daycare providers. I definitely do not see this discussion as a "drama-fest" as these are debates that need to be had. Thanks for everyone on both sides who participated in the discussion :)

I was on subsidy, and yes we took our son to daycare when we did not work...WhY because we HAD TO PAY for the days regardless of whether we used them or not, and as much as most wont say it sometimes on our days off WE WANT TIME ALONE OR TIME TO CATCH UP ON CHORES. And I think we are entitled to that once in a while....

AND JUST A SIDE NOTE NOT ALL PEOPLE ON THAT ARE LOWLIFE SYSTEM SUCKING BUMS.

IJS

Biggest issue for me was stability. Parents on subsidy, training grants, etc. were temporary and had to be thought of that way and yes I have replaced one or two over the years when something more stable came along because I needed the stability. I no longer work with an agency and I know things have changed in the 20 years since I did but even the agencies were strapped by the government rules so if the parent didn't pay them, there was no recourse and we didn't get paid. The agency did not take the financial hit our behalf they passed it down the line to us. Hoping that system has changed but doubt it - is it any wonder providers are reluctant to take any parent that does not present with a stable situation.

gingerbread11: I don't see anywhere in this thread where anyone said or even implied that "all people on that are lowlife system sucking bums". Just sayin.

Also, NO, you are not entitled to "time off" from your kids, whether the taxpayers are footing the bill or not.

This IS actually off topic now, but why on earth are so many people in such a hurry to get rid of their kids?? Am I the only persohn who'd rather spend a day with my family than having me time??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alphaghetti

Am I the only persohn who'd rather spend a day with my family than having me time??

---

Nope! I LOVE spending time with my entire family - my hubby AND my kids any time I can get it! I never have ME days and I am quite fine with that, thanks. I'm sure there will be plenty of lonely, ME days when my kids are grown and gone and I realize just how quickly time passed.

Many of the people on subsidy are single parents. Those of us with a husband or support system from our parents or whatever do not always realize what it is like to be a single parent. My husband is military so I know both sides. The days when I can barely cope from being "on duty" day and night and still having to do my day job on top of it all and just wanting a stretch of more than 4 hours of sleep to catch up or wanting to go the store and dry on a new pair of pants without having a stroller and 3 kids in the change room with me.

Subsidy parents have government rules they need to follow too. If they don't take the child to daycare and sign them in for the day then they don't get paid money for that day of care which means the caregiver isn't going to get paid either. If the caregiver wants her full time wage she needs to care for the child all days so the government will give the parent the full amount. The person on subsidy needs to turn in her forms every month stating what was paid for care and is reimbursed the following month.

I think this thread is more mixed up than off topic. We have people talking about the same issue but not really the same situation just aspects of it.

Because as much as we hate to say it, WE WANT TO BE ALONE and if that makes me selfish then I guess I am oh well, I had my child knowing what my commitments were, but I have no problem saying that my husband deserves just as much attention if not more--because in the end if his parents are happy so is he.....

And playfelt is right if the caregiver wanted pay, then we took him....if she didn't mind a no pay day then we didn't.

Oh my goodness. Subsidy in Alberta is not for parents on welfare. You need to be working, it is based on your income and how many children you have. I find it totally opposite non subsidized parents bring there children everyday because they pay a higher monthly fee. They also tend to bring there children while ill due to having to pay higher bills. 99 percent oft families are subsidized and have never had a problem.