Parents on government subsidy

[sunnydays]

I wouldn't ever take subsidy clients. It goes against what I believe with respect to having kids and paying for them.

Besides, I don't want a parent to suddenly sob-story we with their reason for non-payment because their subsidy didn't come through etc.

I just have to comment on this. If we don't subsidize daycare for those who cannot afford it, would you be happy to pay for the whole family to be on welfare so that the parents can stay home with the kids? Or would you rather see them living on the streets? Or, if, as it seems you suggest, people who cannot afford daycare do not have kids, how are we going to solve the problem we are already facing in this country due to labour shortages and lack of population growth? Furthermore, it is possible and actually happens quite often, that parents have good jobs and plan their families and then one parent loses a job and has to settle for something lower paying etc...bad things happen to good people. Should we say, too bad, you shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford the daycare? And aside from all this, I don't think that subsidized parents are any more likely than non-subsidized parents to not pay since they are actually getting a portion paid making it more manageable. As for those who mentioned people on subsidies leaving their kids in care when not working...that happens all the time with non-subsidized parents and has more to do with parental decisions than money! I get frustrated with generalizations of this type. I actually wanted to go with an agency because I wanted to be able to take people with subsidies, but decided against it because of the lower wages for me and the age restrictions. Otherwise, I would absolutely accept people on subsidies.

[Judy Trickett]

I just have to comment on this. If we don't subsidize daycare for those who cannot afford it, would you be happy to pay for the whole family to be on welfare so that the parents can stay home with the kids? Or would you rather see them living on the streets? Or, if, as it seems you suggest, people who cannot afford daycare do not have kids, how are we going to solve the problem we are already facing in this country due to labour shortages and lack of population growth? Furthermore, it is possible and actually happens quite often, that parents have good jobs and plan their families and then one parent loses a job and has to settle for something lower paying etc...bad things happen to good people. Should we say, too bad, you shouldn't have had kids if you couldn't afford the daycare? And aside from all this, I don't think that subsidized parents are any more likely than non-subsidized parents to not pay since they are actually getting a portion paid making it more manageable. As for those who mentioned people on subsidies leaving their kids in care when not working...that happens all the time with non-subsidized parents and has more to do with parental decisions than money! I get frustrated with generalizations of this type. I actually wanted to go with an agency because I wanted to be able to take people with subsidies, but decided against it because of the lower wages for me and the age restrictions. Otherwise, I would absolutely accept people on subsidies.

Yes, yes and yes.... pretty much everything you said about the WHY of my not agreeing with subsidy are true.

I'm okay with admitting that.

I know LOTS of moms and dads on subsidy who send their kids to daycare on their days off. Why should I pay for daycare when it's not needed?? Sure, clients of mine do that but THEY are the ones footing the bill for it - it's different.

I don't agree with it because I think we live in a time of entitlement. I think a lot of families simply have two working parents to afford bigger homes and the latest and greatest that they don't necessarily NEED but just WANT. Well, sorry, but I shouldn't have to pay for your daycare so you can drive a bigger SUV or have a bigger TV.

You know, 60 years ago only one parent worked and people stayed home and actually raised their own kids. They had what they needed to live, they were fed, they were clothed and they spent a lot of time with their kids. But we have moved so far away from that. We have created a society where where we THINK we need two incomes and that comes at the expense of the taxpayer and the kids.

I have no problem if two parents want to work because I am all for CHOICE. But, when you make CHOICES you should make them with the consideration that you can AFFORD those choices.

I hate our social welfare system. I also think we should get rid of universal health (sick) care, daycare subsidy, and pare down welfare.

[Play and Learn]

Yes, yes and yes.... pretty much everything you said about the WHY of my not agreeing with subsidy are true.

I'm okay with admitting that.

I know LOTS of moms and dads on subsidy who send their kids to daycare on their days off. Why should I pay for daycare when it's not needed?? Sure, clients of mine do that but THEY are the ones footing the bill for it - it's different.

I don't agree with it because I think we live in a time of entitlement. I think a lot of families simply have two working parents to afford bigger homes and the latest and greatest that they don't necessarily NEED but just WANT. Well, sorry, but I shouldn't have to pay for your daycare so you can drive a bigger SUV or have a bigger TV.

You know, 60 years ago only one parent worked and people stayed home and actually raised their own kids. They had what they needed to live, they were fed, they were clothed and they spent a lot of time with their kids. But we have moved so far away from that. We have created a society where where we THINK we need two incomes and that comes at the expense of the taxpayer and the kids.

I have no problem if two parents want to work because I am all for CHOICE. But, when you make CHOICES you should make them with the consideration that you can AFFORD those choices.

I hate our social welfare system. I also think we should get rid of universal health (sick) care, daycare subsidy, and pare down welfare.

Very well said Judy.

[Sunflower]

The 2 families I had were both on "social assistance" I know for a fact they were scamming the system AND none of them worked. So I took care of their kids all day so they could go hang out with friends,go to internet cafes,go shopping etc.
I have a SERIOUS issue with this. One of them often tried to bring me her child when she was sick even.
So I made a personal choice only to accept families who work from now on.

Also, because they were on social assistance, they only had to pay 10$ a week and somehow they still could not manage that.

[waterloo day mom]

I too have known people who have used and abused the system and gotten far more out of government assistance than they probably should have. I alos agree that if you have a child, that they are your financial responsibility. However, and this is a BIG however, what we would end up doing by not offering subsidized daycare to people who need it would simply compound the problems that we already have. People would stay home and collect welfare cheques rather than work and put their kids in daycare, or they would put expenses on credit cards and later declare bankrupcy, or they would put their kids in a warehouse type daycare that is cheap but also overcrowded and completely unstimulation for the kids. I read a study once that found for every $1 that the government (or other organizations) spends on improving the education and development of children under the age of 5, we end up saving $6 in later social programs, jails, foster homes, etc. I find it nauseating that parents would have the gov pay for childcare so that they can sleep, drink, spend time with friends, whatever. But on the other hand, I would much prefer that child be with me in a safe and nurturing environment than warehoused somewhere, or left alone, or worse. It comes to a point where it's not about punishing the parents anymore, it's about helping the kids. Just my opinion.

[sunnydays]

well put Waterloo day mom!