Does this make sense? - no debate please.. just venting
mummy2girls wrote: With the new governemnt the child care subsidy is changing as of march of 2007. Right now if you get full time subsidy you get up to 500 a month. Which helps a great deal for single parents and low income families. You dont get the money directly but instead the money goes straight to the daycare your child is in. The new plan is this... yiou get 100 a month to parents that have kids under 6 years old. and they tax it so you get less. it gets more odd...
in a year you get 1200.00 towards childcare( and its taxed)... but it depends on your situation on how much you get out of that 1200.00
a married couple that has one parent working and one parent that stays at home you get the most amount. but if you are a single parent( luike myself) or a couple that both parents that work you get less...
so the government is taking away from the single parents that need that help the most and giving it to the ones that dont. Wghich is odd. but whatever. That fine the sahm parent is getting money because it helps with putting the kids in programs and such but how is it helping the single moms and dads out there that need thier kids in care and need that help the most?
that is ONE big reason why im doing the dayhome because with my wages and help from aron there is no way i can afford an extra 500 a montgh on childcare. Its going to be very tough for alot of suingle moms and dads out there that need thier kids in care and wont get that help theyu are getting now. If it wasnt for the option of me opening up teh dayhome i think i woyuld be in a posiotion where i would be struggling each month to get by...
UGH!
mckayleesmom replied: It doesn't seem fair at all Shelly. I would also like to say that as a single income family...it is really expensive to put your kids in daycare and I can't imagine being a single parent and trying to do it with only 100 dollars worth of help.
Get this...mckaylees little friend Zach and his sister emily go to daycare...Zach goes after school and on days off, and emily can and sometimes goes mon through friday and from 7 to 5. There mom was working up until a week ago as a commissary bagger...they work for tips, but they make pretty good money. Their dad is an E4...they don't make too much, but arn't suffering or anything either...kwim? I was asking their mom how much their childcare was....350 dollars a month  .....My husband is an E6 and they wanted almost 1,000 dollars a month....that is a couple hundred less then 1 of our paychecks...Its scandelous I tell ya.  And that was for 1 of our children if I remember right.
mummy2girls replied:
oh my that is insane!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mckayleesmom replied:
Isn't it though...Im not saying they don't deserve help...don't get me wrong, but I don't think we make that much more then them ....not for that high of a jump anyways. If you think about it....a bagger at the commissary usually gets tipped a couple bucks every 10 minutes or so...I always tip like 5-7 dollars on huge grocery days...So she probably made a bit of money.
JAYMESMOM replied: The assistance program anywhere stinks. Jim has not worked since Aug. because of the injury and they cut off his worker's comp in November. I went to apply for state aid and we don't qualify because I make to much for 3 people. They DO NOT consider the fact that his CS is 400 a month and is still due and that Nick is with us 1/2 of the month.
We can't pay mortgage,utilities, and car payment/ins every month. There solution get rid of the vehicle that would save $$. Now praytell how am i getting to work?
The other thing was they didnt know whey we needed childcare for Jayme? Ummm because he is not supposed to lift her, bend over, and she can't go to his therapy/dr's appts. Oh well they said.
Now if I left him he would qualify because they wouldnt look at my income but because we are married he has to put my income down. If it wouldn't traumatize the kids we actually thought about it.
C&K*s Mommie replied: I agree that subsidies in Canada that will be headed towards the secondary hands, is ludicrous. That is SAHer's & married working couples v single parents. Single parents should have the first dibs at the subsidy, no doubt. By far, the single parents should not have a large chunk taxed; they should be at the top of the tax tier and have the least amount taxed. Reevaluation, and an outcry should be pronounced, since you are the one that will be left empty handed following the taxes on the "extra"  income.
moped replied: SHelly, I understood that whole thing totally different...............ummmmm. Not that I really know anything but I thought say for a single parent it was an additional 100 on top of what subsidy they already get. I will do some research
mummy2girls replied:
nope. he is scratching the subsidy we have right now as of march of 2007 and going to put into play 100 a month for parents that have kids under 6.
what gets me the most is how he says the family that has a sah parnet while thier spouse/So works gets more money that the family that has both parents working or the single parent( like myself)
C&K*s Mommie replied: Whoever had said that should really think harder on that. Single parents- no question could use the extra money. Two working parents could probably use it more as well. If you are blessed to be a SAH'mer money is no doubt tight with only one income; however, for us, I cannot complain because there is no daycare cost taking away what little I would be earning out in the workforce. Having that extra subsidy would be beneficial to all, but the two working parents and single parents (IMHO) could use it much more than I could as a SAHM.
mummy2girls replied: yes... i have no problem that the family with stah moms get money because that extra money can go towards preschool or other progranms thier child is in .. i just dont get how he is taking away more from the single parents and 2 working parents .. thats what irks me... every parent should the exact amount...
Hillbilly Housewife replied: Sucks, don't it?
Did I mention S***head Harper wasn't my first choice for PM?
It's totally dumb. WHERE in the world does 100$ a month, taxable, no less, pay for a month of childcare? Frig... My kids was 1200$+ for 2 children, 1 month... with 3... like 1700$ with the 2nd and 3rd child discounts...
1700$ - 300$ = not much difference
it's so stupid. In the agency I'm with (getting 2 kids soon) I'll only be getting 23$ a day, per child, (minus taxes) but I can deduct a portion of rent, utilities, groceries, phone, cable, and anything else the kids will be using. So after taxes, probably about 850$, plus whatever was deductible... and in september while zach is at school i'll get a 3rd child part time (6 hours in a day) at the same pay.
At least my Mother's Allowance will go up to almost full amount... 
I'm not touching the 300$ i'll get. I can put up to 18K to put in RRSPs this year...as does dh... so it'll be a fart in the wind.
ilovemybaby replied: That sucks. I don't think it works that way here in NZ. They do it all based on how much your income is. We get more now (as of April 1st).
They just brought in a new thing where if you or your spouse or both work at least part-time (for single parent that would be 20 hours and for us (both Paul and I) it's 30 hours I think) then you qualify for extra from them. Since Paul works 40 hours we qualify. So if you are a single mother and you are working 20 or more hours you get more than what you did before April 1st.
I really don't know how they could give only some people child care subsidy and not give it to single mothers/fathers. You are the ones working the most to get by right?
|
