It is a universal benefit of $1000.00 + an extra $100.00 per month for the first 12 months after the child's birth. It is universal (a benefit like this should, in my opinion, be means tested), and you have to apply to get it.

The Canadian "baby bonus" was a major lure in gaining a 52.3% majority in favour of Confederation in 1949:

quote:

---

Anti-confederates favored a return to the pre-1934 system of responsible government. Supported by the St. John's mercantile community and led by Maj. Peter Cashin, a former member of the legislature, they appealed to local patriotism, and warned their fellow countrymen that confederation would mean selling their birthright for the Canadian "Baby Bonus."

---

That means society needs to provide universal affordable child care as well as affordable housing, skills training, decent jobs, efficient and affordable mass transit, etc.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: lagatta ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Instead of baby bonuses, the government should be paying guys $1000 to get fixed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Instead of baby bonuses, the government should be paying guys $1000 to get fixed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
So if someone chooses to have a kid knowing full well that they cannot afford it, that somehow makes it my responsibility?

---

What do you propose, that they send them back for a refund?

Those kids are now Canadian citizens and have certain basic human rights and "entitlements" as Canadians citizens, something our two dirty old line parties have been overly generous with awarding to a certain select few Canadians(and rich foreigners) and not the vast majority who didn't vote for the bastards.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
This isn't about children - it's about parents, and mainly mothers. Women need to be able to bear children without being condemned to poverty or imprisoned in the apartment.

That means society needs to provide universal affordable child care as well as affordable housing, skills training, decent jobs, efficient and affordable mass transit, etc.

The one thing that is not needed is a flat lump sum per child. That's why I'm not surprised that Danny Williams, like Stephen Harper, would implement it. My disappointment is that political parties calling themselves progressive do not condemn such moves, because they fear that people are stupid and won't understand.

---

Why do you think parents will be too stupid to know how to use the money?

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Why do you think parents will be too stupid to know how to use the money?

---

Because individuals can't build child-care infrastructures or roads or hospitals or schools or recreation centres. That's why I think human beings gather together and form societies, so that they can decide jointly how best to utilize their social product and scarce resources. Do you live in a society?

I oppose governments giving cash to people. They should provide goods and services for free or as close to it as possible, based on socially determined needs - including policies and training aimed at full employment except for those not able to work (medically unfit, elderly, too young). That way, people can spend their own earned money on whatever they want, while society's money goes to what society deems important.

I'll never understand you socialist types who just want to throw public money at every problem.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I'll never understand you socialist types who just want to throw public money at every problem.

---

These conservatives will fritter away the oil money without anything to show for it as well as Alberta's conservatives have, mark my words. Conservatives are poor money managers. And that's their job, to make government appear as incompetent as possible.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I oppose governments giving cash to people.

---

Ah. Paternalism. We can never get enough of that. When poor people make decisions for themselves, only bad things can happen.

Why in-kind benefits?

quote:

---

Many countries provide large in-kind transfers although standard economic theory says cash transfers would be more efficient. Here is some new evidence evaluating the many justifications for in-kind transfers; it seems paternalism is the most likely explanation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
When poor people make decisions for themselves, only bad things can happen.

---

You folks are so nice, wanting to empower the poor people. Give them 1000 whole dollars of their own and let them decide which brand of sliced bread to buy and which circus to go to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Give them 1000 whole dollars of their own and let them decide which brand of sliced bread to buy and which circus to go to.

---

1) The main point is that it is not "their own" money. Everybody gets the same quantity of cash from this program even though taxes paid are above-linear with taxable income. Thus, it's a transfer of wealth from those who can afford it to those who cannot. Btw it's $2200 not $1000.

2) Eating whole wheat rather than white bread will do a lot for a child. What's wrong with kids going to the circus or the zoo a few times in their childhood? Sometimes people on this board stick to the specific priorities of the middle-class left and ignore all other possible needs. Subsidized housing and daycare!!! A few weeks back remind talked of swimming lessons as if they were the lowest possible priorities.

You have to accept that every child will have different needs, some will be incredibly athletic, some will be incredibly intelligent, some might be very slow or have some rare problems. And different parents will want different things, some parents will give their kids music lessons at 25-50$/hour every week, some will put away money for university, some will want to take their kids on a family vacation to visit their aunts and uncles in India, and yes some parents will want to expose their kids to the circus, to the zoo, and to sports. If the government were to raise taxes to focus on one specific program, it would commit the grave social injustice of making every single one of these harder except for the one it makes easier.

I'm not a parent and I've already listed all these possibilities, so clearly the real list is far bigger. I am a fan of the welfare state, but in this case I reject the micromanaging welfare state. Micromanagement never works from the macroscopic level. You've posted mostly sarcastic comments so I'm wondering if your position is backed by strict reason or just ideology, or maybe you're just being impatient with this topic.

[ 03 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
You've posted mostly sarcastic comments so I'm wondering if your position is backed by strict reason or just ideology, or maybe you're just being impatient with this topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You can look up the months of discussion here about Harper's fraudulent $1000 baby bonus, and how the NDP was afraid to simply demand that it be cancelled. Let me know if you need help in finding those threads. I find it horrifying amusing to have to justify, on a progressive board, the need for the state to provide socially essential services for free, instead of handing out money and telling people to fill their boots.

---

That is of course entirely different. The Harper bonus was made to undermine universal child care, and in fact removed funds from it as well as from other programs. I remember someone here posting that for certain people the 100$/month would be as little as $200/year. That program is also meant to last six years and was presented as an alternative to child care.

The Newfoundland plan helps in the first year, a period where Canada already has generous parental leave legislation, and the money could be used for child care in those final months. So this plan is not meant to ideologically undermine child care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Do you agree that sometimes different families will have different needs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Read my posts, please. Families who have "different needs" should spend their own money satisfying those needs. The state should determine common needs (health care, child care, education, affordable housing, job training, etc.) and satisfy those needs. That would include public swimming pools where swimming lessons could be available to all who want them, not just the floating few.

---

Again, I'm seeing your posts on this topic as being manifestations of middle-class progressivism.

You say families should spend their own money on services the government arbitrarily deems to be less essential. Surely through your years of activism you must know that that's a very unrealistic statement for poor families. Growing up, we were 2 kids, two parents, one income, and in the bottom 20% of the Canadian income ladder. I took piano lessons for a year... and then we stopped because my father could not afford it, that broke my mother's heart. There were few vacations growing up, no neighbourhood sports, no sleepaway camps... when I was a teenager trying to get a job, it was harder for a bit because Bell Canada cut off the phone because my dad couldn't pay, and employers around Montreal are very big on being able to contact their employees. There were times Hydro Quebec cut us off. I was the last person in my HS class to get a computer, and the list goes on. We did have some advantages though, the food was healthy. I can't imagine how hard it would be for families even poorer or with more specific needs. Only cash can help in such situations. Cash, by the way, is a universal need.

The idea that people on poverty should "just pay" for these things is completely ridiculous and absurd. Governments are not good at selecting universal priorities... they follow the interests of the powerful and sometimes the interests of the masses (the middle-class). Whenever governments engage the interests of the voiceless and powerless it's usually to indirectly address other interests, such as middle-class guilt, coalition governments or the benefit it is to the rich to have a welfare underclass.

I read many of your posts on the harper checks and I found them interesting, I don't think I was posting at the time. I remember you would say that what it's really about is to facilitate women going back to work quickly, which should eventually help reduce gender discrimination. That's a nice thought but I'm sorry it's one priority among many and not the supreme priority - poverty is important as well. I'm all for female doctors and female lawyers going back to work quickly and making $110, 000/year rather than $85, 000/year, and it's important, but it's not nearly as important as the difficulties of all the parents in this country raising children in abject poverty. If you're wondering, my mother didn't work because she's had a not-so-obvious life-long disability that makes her unemployable, additionally they didn't desire having my sister and myself raised by strangers. These were real circumstance and legitimate decisions. I realize middle-class progressives with their too-often self-absorbed interests will disagree.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Again, I'm seeing your posts on this topic as being manifestations of middle-class progressivism.

---

You're entire post centres on the "poor". Were you under the impression that the Canada and NL baby bonuses were just for the "poor"? They're for everyone. Your argument makes no sense at all.

If poor people (those who are not disabled) are provided with increasing ranges of free necessary services and with access to decent jobs, they will not need state handouts.

Everyone who can should be given the opportunity to work for a living at decent wages. One fundamental element of that "opportunity" is affordable child care which helps free women from the chains of the home.

Your argument boils down to glorified and expanded welfare - except that it's free money for those who don't need any as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You're entire post centres on the "poor". Were you under the impression that the Canada and NL baby bonuses were just for the "poor"? They're for everyone. Your argument makes no sense at all.

If poor people (those who are not disabled) are provided with increasing ranges of free necessary services and with access to decent jobs, they will not need state handouts.

Everyone who can should be given the opportunity to work for a living at decent wages. One fundamental element of that "opportunity" is affordable child care which helps free women from the chains of the home.

Your argument boils down to glorified and expanded welfare - except that it's free money for those who don't need any as well.

You want me to believe that Stephen Harper and Danny Williams and 500_Apples care more for the poor than I do. Ok, fill yer boots. Feel good. But my view isn't a "middle-class" one (by the way, when did "middle class" become a dirty word?). It's the view of a worker and it happens to be the view of the trade union movement as well.

---

Stick to your condescension as it doesn't look like you have anything more you want to contribute. You're not even appreciating that the marginal value of money is sublinear, if you did you'd realize your argument was a house of cards. Since you're wondering, I find the middle-class left very self-absorbed (much like the middle class right), a good example would be the platitudes you've posted in this discussion. You didn't explicitly say poor people should lift themselves up by the bootstrap, but you were pretty close.

What this thread is about: the financial difficulties of raising children in this era of declining incomes, and Newfoundland's attempt to aid in this situation.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

You've mastered "the same old story", I'll give you that.

---

Yup, I can see it all now. There will be unemployed Newfoundlanders burning wood and heating oil while a gas pipeline is constructed "goin' south"(again) through their backyards. Oh wait ...

Those East coast conservatives have mastered the Alberta "hand-off", I'll give them that. They need cleaning out, unionist. Too long!

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
You didn't explicitly say poor people should lift themselves up by the bootstrap, but you were pretty close.

---

Does this breast-beating about the poor make you feel good, Robin Hood?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You folks are so nice, wanting to empower the poor people. Give them 1000 whole dollars of their own and let them decide which brand of sliced bread to buy and which circus to go to.

---

Or what brands of beer and popcorn to buy? Why do you despise the poor so much? Is it because they might want to make decisions for themselves? Or that they decisions they would make for themselves are not the ones that you would make for them?

quote:

---

One day the poor people will really make decisions for themselves, Stephen. Things will indeed happen then.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Why do you despise the poor so much?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You want the government to give them cash so they won't be poor any more.

---

Um, yeah, I do. Because that's what poor people ask for: money.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Do you know of anyone who wants the government to give them less money because the whole idea of deciding how to spend the money they have is just too much for them to deal with?

---

First of all, this money isn't just for the poor, so get off your "I love the poor" kick.

Second, I'm sure some people would love to abolish all social programs and replace them with cash grants.

This would make a very progressive platform indeed:

No more free education - that's so 20th century - give everyone cash. Let them decide (home school, charter school, Margaritas, cruises). And imagine, right now we tax childless citizens for schools! What a scandal.

No more free health care. How very Stalinistic, telling people how to look after their own sovereign bodies. $5000 per person per year - freedom!

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
... let them figure out child care and find decent jobs all on their own - if they choose to!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Does this breast-beating about the poor make you feel good, Robin Hood?

If you're too lazy busy to read my posts, say so.

---

I never thought I'd see socialism face the ridicule of a robin hood analogy on babble.

I have read all your posts in this thread, and you have not said anything interesting here. You have contributed sarcasm and more sarcasm. It is unclear whether or not you have read any of mine, as you have only responded with generalized sarcasm.

The universal benefit gives $2200 to parents of new babies in the first year of the child's life. This goes to all parents. However, it will benefit poor parents more for two reasons:

1) The first is that the marginal value of money to human beings is sublinear. What that means is that $2200 will benefit someone who makes $15, 000 a year a lot more than someone who makes $100, 000/ year. In the first case, the money will be a huge difference. It will mean brown bread rather than white bread, good baby formulas, some better toys and a better bed. In the second case, the $2200 will be statistically indistinguishable perturbation to the living standards and developmental environment of the new baby.

2) Any time a government pursues any policy there are winners and losers. Cutting taxes always means less social spending, and more social spending always means higher taxes, this is part of the rudimentary principle of opportunity cost covered in high school economics courses. This new program will mean higher taxes... for every dollar given out there will be the need for another dollar coming in. Who will that dollar come from? It will come from those same parents making $100, 000, and not from the parents making $15, 000. In the former case, it is obvious that this program will be a net short-term negative for their financial status, whereas it will improve things for the family on $15, 000.

Thus, even though the program seems like a universal benefit, it is not, due to the marginal value of the money being handed out as well as the absolute cost for different kinds of taxpayers.

**********

As an aside, I note that even though universal child care would also masquerade as a universal benefit just like this baby bonus program, it would in practice not be a universal allowance. Universal child care in the first-year of a baby's life would primarily benefit the most fortunate such as litigation lawyers and university professors. As the government has a finite money supply, some may rather opt for the notion that those who need help more should be the ones to receive it.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
2) Any time a government pursues any policy there are winners and losers. Cutting taxes always means less social spending, and more social spending always means higher taxes, this is part of the rudimentary principle of opportunity cost covered in high school economics courses. This new program will mean higher taxes... for every dollar given out there will be the need for another dollar coming in. Who will that dollar come from?

---

I think the general rule for countries is to have high corporate tax rates offset by low personal effective tax rates, or vice versa and anywhere inbetween.

Canada is but average, middle of the pack, with respect to overall taxation in a comparison of 20 some odd OECD countries. And that's quite stupefying given that we're a hewer and drawer economy in a time of rising concern about global warming. The rich are not overtaxed in Canada. Far from it. We have more billionaires per capita than either the U.S. or Russia.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Holy crap. I have no response to this.

---

That's what I hoped.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I never thought I'd see socialism face the ridicule of a robin hood analogy on babble.

---

That's because you maintain a caricature of socialism which steals from the rich and gives to the poor. That's what Robin Hood did, you know. Socialists (in my understanding) want to undermine the very foundations whereby society is divided into rich and poor. It doesn't equate to charity or welfare.

quote:

---

Universal child care in the first-year of a baby's life would primarily benefit the most fortunate such as litigation lawyers and university professors. As the government has a finite money supply, some may rather opt for the notion that those who need help more should be the ones to receive it.

---

Who's talking about child care in the first year only? Please don't confuse a demand supported by a majority of Canadians with some harebrained delusional scheme by the NL Tory government. Universal affordable child care is needed as a seamless transition to kindergarten.

As for your thesis that it will benefit lawyers and professors, you obviously haven't set foot in a factory or service delivery enterprise lately. There are some mothers there, both single and with partners, and others who would like to be there earning a living without having to work alternate shifts with their spouses or pay money they don't have for child care.

This is really simple. You haven't read my posts (over the past 2.5 years) on this subject, so let me spell it out for you:

1. Universal health care is a social need which should be paid for by society. Doesn't matter if it benefits some more than others.

2. Public education is a social need which should be paid for by society. Doesn't matter if it benefits some more than others.

3. Universal child care is a social need which should be paid for by society. Doesn't matter if it benefits some more than others.

4. There are many others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Who's talking about child care in the first year only? Please don't confuse a demand supported by a majority of Canadians with some harebrained delusional scheme by the NL Tory government. Universal affordable child care is needed as a seamless transition to kindergarten.

As for your thesis that it will benefit lawyers and professors, you obviously haven't set foot in a factory or service delivery enterprise lately. There are some mothers there, both single and with partners, and others who would like to be there earning a living without having to work alternate shifts with their spouses or pay money they don't have for child care.

This is really simple. You haven't read my posts (over the past 2.5 years) on this subject, so let me spell it out for you:

1. Universal health care is a social need which should be paid for by society. Doesn't matter if it benefits some more than others.

2. Public education is a social need which should be paid for by society. Doesn't matter if it benefits some more than others.

3. Universal child care is a social need which should be paid for by society. Doesn't matter if it benefits some more than others.

4. There are many others.

Some of us would like to see that list grow. Others would like it to disappear and let individuals buy whatever they want (i.e. can afford). Which side are you on?

---

I have read many of your posts though not those from before I heard of rabble. I think you're assuming that just out of reading your post I would agree with them. That's not true. Many times when reading a thread I'll see two people debating, and I won't always conclude that the individual who's screen name starts with a "u" necessarily made the stronger argument.

With respect to the list, I'd like to first see existing services improve, and then see the list expanded. However, I like it to expand to the most pressing needs.

You have not fully understood my posts, so let me spell it out for you:

1) Cash and special needs are universal. Everybody has different special needs but nobody has zero special needs.

2) People of conscience do want to see a world where there are less systematic injustices. One problem in this world is that middle class and rich children get a lot more experiences growing up, whereas poor children are often developmentally-deprived. Swimming lessons, learning music and having kids books may appear trivial to some, but it in fact has a huge impact on a child's development.

3) I've worked in manual labour, as a stock clerk... I know Canadians are very fortunate to have excellent parental leave legislation, and people can take some time off after the birth of a child without losing their jobs or income. I admit though that a corporate lawyer will be less likely to make partner if he takes six months off after the birth of his daughter. Cry me a river.

[ 04 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
"I'd like to address the point unionist and skarredmunkey brought up, that this money goes to all families and as such can't be argued to be a benefit for the poor. I will show how this argument is flawed."

---

quote:

---

"...$2200 will benefit someone who makes $15, 000 a year a lot more than someone who makes $100, 000/ year. In the first case, the money will be a huge difference. It will mean brown bread rather than white bread, good baby formulas, some better toys and a better bed. In the second case, the $2200 will be statistically indistinguishable perturbation to the living standards and developmental environment of the new baby."

---

Second, why assume that this is an either/or situation? No one here is suggesting that lower income voters should have to choose between cash handouts and brown bread on the one hand and daycare on the other.

Third, $2200 makes a difference but not a huge one. The first reactions among parents to this policy commitment during the provincial election last year was that this would probably cover the cost of diapers. Does that mean we should increase the amount of the payments? No it means we need to reconceptualize the issue such that we're providing social goods rather than cash handouts.

quote:

---

This new program will mean higher taxes... for every dollar given out there will be the need for another dollar coming in. Who will that dollar come from? It will come from those same parents making $100, 000, and not from the parents making $15, 000.

---

quote:

---

"Thus, even though the program seems like a universal benefit, it is not, due to the marginal value of the money being handed out as well as the absolute cost for different kinds of taxpayers."

---

quote:

---

"Universal child care in the first-year of a baby's life would primarily benefit the most fortunate such as litigation lawyers and university professors."

---

[ 11 May 2008: Message edited by: skarredmunkey ]

you may find this wikipedia page to be of interest:

[ 12 May 2008: Message edited by: skarredmunkey ]