[ASLplease]

Whats the current status on CPP, in the 80s and early 90s, it was considered broke.....but I recently heard that it isn't true anymore. Anyone know?

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Whats the current status on CPP, in the 80s and early 90s, it was considered broke.....but I recently heard that it isn't true anymore. Anyone know?

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1894824

We were much better off over a year ago as the recession hit the pension funds hard. My own lost a shitload over that time also.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

Well Derby,

I guess it is the whole 'wrecking ball' component to the Liberals plans that I find so uninspiring.

If they wanted to phase in a universal childcare program, one that doesn't imediately take away the $100 per month that my son is getting, then I could easily support their 'big government. big program' way of doing things.

A 'make before break' policy is something that would be worth running a deficit for.

Are you talking about the Chretien/Martin Libs or Iggys plans?

Both. Did I mis-read something? I am of the understanding that Iggy wants to scrap the CPA's 'beer money ' on his first budget.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

Well Derby,

I guess it is the whole 'wrecking ball' component to the Liberals plans that I find so uninspiring.

If they wanted to phase in a universal childcare program, one that doesn't imediately take away the $100 per month that my son is getting, then I could easily support their 'big government. big program' way of doing things.

A 'make before break' policy is something that would be worth running a deficit for.

Are you talking about the Chretien/Martin Libs or Iggys plans?

Both. Did I mis-read something? I am of the understanding that Iggy wants to scrap the CPA's 'beer money ' on his first budget.

It doesn't say he intends to scrap the $100 a month that Harper instituted after killing the daycare plan. Of course if we think like that then along will come Layton and promise you $200 a month. Hell the Libs can beat that, they bid $400 a month and we'll see which party is closest without going over.

Do you want a balanced budget or are you willing to support continued deficits in the tens of billions?

[ASLplease]

Truthfully, I would rather take $200 or $400 a month instead of promises to create the universal childcare program. I beleive this program will be plagued with cost overruns, and deficiencies in service.

But, as I stated earlier, if the want to admit to this possibility and initiate a
'create before destroy' policy than I would be willing to support it.

Without a system already created, I see the removal of my $100 as just another cash grab with an empty promise.....something the liberals are very good at.

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Truthfully, I would rather take $200 or $400 a month instead of promises to create the universal childcare program. I beleive this program will be plagued with cost overruns, and deficiencies in service.

But, as I stated earlier, if the want to admit to this possibility and initiate a
'create before destroy' policy than I would be willing to support it.

Without a system already created, I see the removal of my $100 as just another cash grab with an empty promise.....something the liberals are very good at.

Well I guess it all depends. As a childless bachelor why should you get a tax break and not me? I mean you have children because you love them right and not for the tax break? Its all perspective. What about a lack of daycare centers? It doesn't do any good for people who desperately need day care spots to get a tax credit that doesn't cover expenses and their are no open spots.

[ASLplease]

i understand that childcare is not a priority for some taxpayers. And, I also understand that you cant always separate the 'why' and 'how' issues, but frankly in the context of our discussion, I see them as 2 different issues.

i've experienced shortages of daycare centers, and I used the money to pay a certified dayhome ( a registered nurse staying at home with her kids, and certified under DeVar Dayhomes). What about it? do we stay so stubborn about 'universal daycare' that parents that utilize dayhomes get the shaft?

[DerbyX]

ASLplease ASLplease:

i understand that childcare is not a priority for some taxpayers. And, I also understand that you cant always separate the 'why' and 'how' issues, but frankly in the context of our discussion, I see them as 2 different issues.

i've experienced shortages of daycare centers, and I used the money to pay a certified dayhome ( a registered nurse staying at home with her kids, and certified under DeVar Dayhomes). What about it? do we stay so stubborn about 'universal daycare' that parents that utilize dayhomes get the shaft?

If there is a shortage of daycare then the tax break doesn't really address the problem does it? I don't see much difference in a dayhome or daycare other then semantics. Daycare is paying somebody to look after your children, generally in the day time. If the government is giving you a $100/month towards daycare (in either case) or charging you only 5/day in subsidized daycare then the people who win are the people who need full time day care and the people who lose are the ones using that $100/month for something else because they don't need daycare.

What is the difference in $100/month tax credit and subsidized daycare in cost to people who need full time day care or even part time day care? Hell the government can go the extra mile and make all day care expenses fully paid for for that matter.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Perhaps it's time you get the facts in order, Lemmy.

Our debt rose under Chretien and Martin.

It rose, then fell under Chretien. It fell under Martin. Your sources are incorrect. It rose under Mulroney and Harper.

You're hilarious. The Ministry of Finance is wrong, Lemmy is right.

And Derby, if you're reply is towards me, I have you on ignore, so don't bother.

Dude, I published those numbers on CKA, directly from my CANSIM account at Statistics Canada some months ago. Must I really go to the trouble of doing it again? I don't know where you got your numbers or where your sources got theirs, but mine are from StatsCan and I'll trust their data over anyone else's.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Dude, I published those numbers on CKA, directly from my CANSIM account at Statistics Canada some months ago. Must I really go to the trouble of doing it again? I don't know where you got your numbers or where your sources got theirs, but mine are from StatsCan and I'll trust their data over anyone else's.

Why would Stats Canada have different numbers than actual government figures from the Ministry of Finance?

All of our Countries financial data comes from the Ministry of Finance. I'd find it odd that you'd opt not to believe the government but an agency at an arms length and paid for by that same government.

[OnTheIce]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Truthfully, I would rather take $200 or $400 a month instead of promises to create the universal childcare program. I beleive this program will be plagued with cost overruns, and deficiencies in service.

But, as I stated earlier, if the want to admit to this possibility and initiate a
'create before destroy' policy than I would be willing to support it.

Without a system already created, I see the removal of my $100 as just another cash grab with an empty promise.....something the liberals are very good at.

This whole idea of a Universal Childcare plan is a scam looking to buy votes from families and taking that $100 a month away from families for their kids will absolutely ruin them in the polls.

Most Provinces already have daycare programs for people who need it. Ontario has one that does quite well.

There are a shortage of spaces and a shortage of ECE's to take care of these children.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Why would Stats Canada have different numbers than actual government figures from the Ministry of Finance?

Because the Ministry of Finance is a government agency and StatsCan is an independent agency perhaps? I don't know.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

All of our Countries financial data comes from the Ministry of Finance. I'd find it odd that you'd opt not to believe the government but an agency at an arms length and paid for by that same government.

Absolutely I would. Data comes to and from lots of sources, independent of government, such as Statistics Canada. Like I said, I'll trust the numbers that come from economists and statisticians over those that come from politicians. If you want to believe that debt didn't fall under Chretien and Martin and did under Mulroney and Harper, go ahead. But it's incorrect.

Furthermore, we're only talking about nominal data so far. The more important data is debt as a percentage of GDP. Even though debt fell only slightly under Chretien, as a percentage of GDP, it fell significantly. Under Martin, the numbers were even better. Under Conservative governments since 1980, debt and deficit rose, both in nominal terms and as a percentage of GDP.

[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

i understand that childcare is not a priority for some taxpayers. And, I also understand that you cant always separate the 'why' and 'how' issues, but frankly in the context of our discussion, I see them as 2 different issues.

i've experienced shortages of daycare centers, and I used the money to pay a certified dayhome ( a registered nurse staying at home with her kids, and certified under DeVar Dayhomes). What about it? do we stay so stubborn about 'universal daycare' that parents that utilize dayhomes get the shaft?

If there is a shortage of daycare then the tax break doesn't really address the problem does it?

but is it supposed to? ie is my subsidized operating budget supposed to be paying for new infrastructure( essentually I am getting screwed), so that parents, other parents, get to experience a reduced operating cost from the completed infrastructure?

Do you see why I think its important to 'make before break'?

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Absolutely I would. Data comes to and from lots of sources, independent of government, such as Statistics Canada. Like I said, I'll trust the numbers that come from economists and statisticians over those that come from politicians. If you want to believe that debt didn't fall under Chretien and Martin and did under Mulroney and Harper, go ahead. But it's incorrect.

Lemmy, you're a bright guy, so who are you trying to kid when you tell me that the numbers coming out of the Ministry of Finance are coming from a politician? They're not, and you know better that to suggest that.

The Ministry isn't an office full of politicians putting out fake numbers to fool the public on a yearly basis.

And yes, data comes from all sources but all our money goes to 1 place. I'll take the word of the place that actually manages our money not some agency paid for by that same Ministry.

[Bruce_the_vii]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Whats the current status on CPP, in the 80s and early 90s, it was considered broke.....but I recently heard that it isn't true anymore. Anyone know?

Working from memory I believe it solvent for the next 30 years. Martin cut taxes at one point but turned around and added half back into the CPP. So it's fixed.