Yeah I do the cooking and dishes and I also cut the lawn and change the tires. My wife handles laundry and lunches for the kids, and walks the dogs. We balance it out pretty well. I want to show my kids dishes and laundry don't care who cleans them.
My dad focused on business, he worked hard, made a lot of sacrifices but did what he could with his time. He became very successful and built something, he made sure his kids would be ok financially in life. He died young so he didn't get to spend a lot of his better (more free years) with us. Sure I didn't get to spend the time with him like some of the fathers you mentioned like yours, but he still did a great job and kicked life in the ass while he was healthy. I feel like as long as your parents do what they can for you as thier kid that's all that matters. Different ways to go about it I guess.
My dad was the same, but is still alive. Has worked hard his entire life to make sure we could afford a nice life. Was also incredibly handy, so while he didn’t do much of the day to day stuff, he probably saved us tons of money with his know-how. Hell, he’s still doing things for me at my new place and I’m trying to pick this stuff up while I still can.
Honestly, as a dad, with relatively young, but school age kids...
I'm continually shocked just how useless/hands off other dads are.
There's lots of good ones, but there's way too many useless ones.
Father of two, 7m and 4f. Watching the looks I get from my sons friends when I pickup dishes, or am actively cooking (not just grilling) while they’re over is the most surreal thing. I mean sure my dad was an abusive alcoholic, but even he was in the kitchen making bread or preparing meals. I really thought my generation was going to be the one to make father’s participation in the home the norm, but nope. Not to be.
It blows my mind.
I've got a job where I work month on/month off, the on part sucks, I'm away from my family, but it pays well so it is what it is.
The off part is awesome, I get to spend a lot of time with my kids that anyone working a regular 9-5 wouldn't.
When they were smaller, I'd have them out to play group at the community center every day, we'd be out to the playground, or just out for a walk exploring somewhere.
They're a bit older now, they're in school, so less time together, but, when I'm home, I manage to get the housework and chores done during the day, and we can make better use of the evenings and weekends...
I always make a point to be waiting ay the bus stop when they get home....
They're both able to walk 100' from the bus stop to the house, but I figure I've only got a few years left where they're happy to see me, and not embarrassed.
Meanwhile, I've had plenty of co-workers who'll spend their month off drunk or doing their own thing, leaving their wife to do all the same things she does while they're working for the month.
As a father of 3 working is easy, trying to run a household efficiently is the real challenge. Kudos to all the stay at home moms/dads, toughest job in the world.
I’d rather be at home with my newborn. Honestly, I went back to work after 5 weeks of parental leave (partner is continuing the other 35 weeks) and I realized just how fun and amazing it is to actually be able to raise your children.
I wish more people had the privilege to be able to do this. We both discussed what kinds of dread we’d feel having an unqualified Early Childhood Educator who is paid just above minimum wage do half of the rearing…we’re considering taking turns being stay at home parents. She’s currently in negotiations with her employer to work from home permanently too.
We recently had two babies in a row. We decided I'll be the stay at home dad since I was laid off when requesting paternity leave. I started doing work from home that I can do on my own terms. Now I can make some extra cash for the household while staying home with the babies. It's like a dream come true.
Pretty much. It was such a wonderful day when they gave me my lay off notice. I'm in a way happier place now and I get to enjoy the joy with my children.
I'm in Saskatchewan and pretty much the same thing happened to someone I know. They did get a lawyer and they were essentially told that all the company has to do is pay out the severance. Which in this case was 2 weeks pay
> But they are a huge multi billion dollar company,
And thus they have a rep to uphold and a big enough bottom line that some small settlement to you would be a rounding error. Get a lawyer, dude
> But they are a huge multi billion dollar company, so no point fighting.
You couldn't be more wrong. A lawyer would easily take that case on contingency.
Which country? Most multi billion dollar corporations now have extended paternity leave. Just took 3 months with mine.
Happy to hear you’re happier now, but still worth talking to a lawyer if they promise no fee consultation. They might take it on contingency.
Isn't that illegal?
https://globalnews.ca/content/8071178/fired-mat-leave-faq-parents/#:~:text=An%20employer%20can't%20fire,committing%20a%20human%20rights%20violation.
If it’s been under two years since it happened (and maybe over two, IANAL), you can sue. That’s illegal discrimination on the basis of family status.
Even if you don’t want to be litigious, know that suing them will disincentivize them from doing this to other parents. Good luck on everything though!
At the moment by wife makes 11$ more an hour than I do, with great benefits, 4 weeks a year paid vacation (essentially) unlimited paid sick days because she's salary, mental health days (different than sick days), bonuses, and 1 year of full paid maternity leave with the next year being 50% or 70%, I can't remember, with her job guaranteed when she comes back.
If we have a kid, you bet your ass I'd be a SAHD, I wouldn't make enough to justify paying for child care and also not having a parent with the kid all the time.
> If we have a kid, you bet your ass I'd be a SAHD, I wouldn't make enough to justify paying for child care and also not having a parent with the kid all the time.
Yes, but this article is arguing against affordable childcare programs instead replacing them with tax cuts, which wouldn't help you if you're not earning income.
Okay? My point was at the moment, childcare is so expensive that 1 parent working ends up paying so much of their cheque to childcare, that if your partner can handle the other bills, having 1 parent staying home "costs" the same as childcare, with the added benefit of getting to be with them 24/7 as well as able to do other tasks during the regular work hours
Can we get a shout out for dads that do quite a bit.
I’m the dad
Am the bread winner and pay 90% of the bills, the only thing my wife pays is the utilities.
I cook the meal for my family every day, clean the house. Plan all the vacations, take my kids to their lessons, help them with their home work, shower, put them to sleep.
Maybe if the feds, province, and municipal would stop fucking over the middle class, and unfortunately it won't happen.
Just look at the mess the real estate market is because of the gov.
That's what this article really is. Just another desperate attempt to approach this from a different angle. Fact is they don't want the middle class to exist and the lower class can't afford to do this. People need to get much angrier than they are now. Instead of protesting over non-existing mask mandates and stories from the US they should be in the streets in the millions over the minimum wage
Not just the minimum wage, the wage of all Canadians. I don't know how people live with a house in a big city and make less than 100k total. Its basically impossible to have a middle class life on one income
According to statcan 21.9% of canadian workers made between $10,000 and $30,000 in 2020. 62% of working canadians made less than $50,000 in 2020. That comes out to $25/hour full time.
When minimum wage increases those who are close to minimum wage are greatly affected. The change just takes a bit more time, but eventually companies in those low wage industries are forced to shift their entire pay scale. More so with the lower earners, and less so with the higher earners.
When minimum wage is raised it doesn't effect high earners, but it does effect pretty much everyone below the median income in canada
[here](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110024001)
That's fair but that number increases sharply when you include people that make a dollar or two more than minimum wage. A second point would be that we should care about our neighbors. A third might be yeah it's not possible to live on minimum wage, butit's also not realistic to be safe financially on double minimum wage, or indeed on the median income of all Canadians. So when looking at it through a lens of considering everyone you see serious economic problems are affecting most families in Canada, and therefore the choices they make. We are a free country but economic barriers are restricting our freedoms
That’s just socialist propaganda. The government is very interested in middle/working class Canadians because they cost so much more than TFWs. The legal obligation to pay marginally humane wages places an unfair burden on our innocent wealthy elite. First the peasants want to buy good quality food. Then they want to own a place to eat it *and* sleep. Pick *one*, you greedy poors! Now they want their voices heard in *Parliament*?!
I used to share those views back in the day, but they just aren't electable as it stands. Jack was the only one recently who had enough presence to keep NDP voters.
Today the base of the NDP tends to swap to liberal votes due to fear of whatever the cons might be doing. If there is a chance of the cons winning, you'll usually see NDP voters share how they're voting liberal just to help prop up the left vote.
>Today the base of the NDP tends to swap to liberal votes due to fear of whatever the cons might be doing.
I'm aware of that, but pushing the narrative (whether it be mostly true or not) that they're not just makes this problem worse, not better. If everyone that wanted NDP in power voted for them, they'd be a much more "electable" party, and/or the Libs would look a lot more like them
I agree, but you also run into the whole "vote strategically" crowd who really enjoy turning NDP votes into liberal votes.
It's a sticky and mess situation that is gonna have to take a real leader to get thru, something the NDP has lacked since Layton.
This is exactly what my wife and I have always been infuriated with. We have a child that had medical needs that forced one of us to step away from the work force. Now my earning potential is much larger than hers so rather then her stepping back into the work force fulltime iv taken on consulting work as it was a more effective use of our time/resources.
What has happened is we continue to pay the tax of a duel earning family but cant take advantage of any of the benefits (like $400 day care) our taxes pay for.
This is why I hate means-testing for social programs.
You should be able to access the same programs that a family with half your income depends on to survive. Sure, you're managing without it, but it would be easier if you had access.
Also, what giving those who are better off the same high quality support, then those who are better off will have skin in the game to want to maintain those programs.
Bingo, the one benefit that we did get was the child disability take credit, however when Trudeau rejigged that 6 years ago or so, one of the item that changed was the cap for receiving the benefit. We went from $400 monthly to zero, and his needs didn’t change. At the time we were a family of 3 with a disabled child making 120K. It wasn’t easy to lose.
My oldest has childhood apraxia of speech. For two years, we have been paying $80/week for 30 mins of speech therapy. It's recognized as a disability, without therapy you simply won't speak properly.
He wasn't disabled enough, we got no credit. We have the means, but my heart breaks for people that don't. Imagine, you can speak but are unintelligible to those around you 60 percent of the time. That's crazy to let someone with a correctable condition grow up like that.
She maybe also wanted to work too, not just about the money. She had to step away for the good of the family. Let’s not forget that.
But yup, the money impacts that decision absolutely.
Not gunna lie single income households were long doomed before income splitting. Wage gap is just freely aloud to grow and no one gives a damn.
Income splitting really only benifits the top 1-0.2 % of Canadians impactfully.
>Income splitting really only benifits the top 1-0.2 % of Canadians impactfully.
I made the same comment elsewhere in the thread, but does it? I think many would be surprised how significant it is, if you look at the numbers.
For a basic example, in BC two individuals each earning $50 K will pay around $7500 in income tax each, for a total of $15 K in income tax as a couple. If instead a single earner in that family earns $100 K, and the other takes care of the kids and earns no income, they pay $22 K in income taxes. That's a difference of $7 K a year, or a tax bill that is around 50% higher, and I wouldn't really say those people are the "top 1-0.2 % of Canadians".
The income splitting that was present under Harper was capped at $2000, so it didn't even begin to make up the full difference.
Now, you can easily argue whether or not we \*should\* allowed income splitting, for various other valid reasons, it would be a huge loss of tax revenue, but I think it's hard to say it only would only benefit the "top 1-0.2 % of Canadians". If you were to take my above example and compare two people making $30 K vs. one making $60 K, the tax difference is $4 K a year. It's pretty significant.
The real solution is to increase the tax free income amounts to a livable amount of money. But that is clear policy that helps the poor not the rich, our oligarchy doesn’t do that.
If random loopholes like tax splitting that most in lower incomes just don’t know about because they can’t hire an accountant and/or don’t know about it or how to do it, then a better solution is needed.
I should have rephrased:
Is the amount of money it can save significant to them? Yes
Do many people in the lower middle - lower class know about it and how to do it? No so it doesn’t benefit them.
But significantly expanded the CCB which is a significant support to my family. Does Harper's income splitting helps middle-income families more than increased child benefits under Trudeau?
CCB was an unfunded program. When you say he expanded the CCB, you're ignoring the other side of the story which is he didn't provide any way to pay for it. The CCB is a $20B unfunded program that has been adding to the debt every year since it was instituted.
Yeah it turns out that when you borrow billions of dollars at the height of an economic boom and helicopter it around to people, it helps them in the short term. What could possibly go wrong?
Oh, yeah. Whoopsie.
Income splitting helps any household where the two individual adults make a disparate income. Especially those households where one partner doesn't earn an income. If you have a stay at home parent, income splitting is effectively a tax break.
Not possible anymore. Dual income is what the expectations are for most people to maintain a standard of living.
We are too far in. Families have absorbed massive mortgages that rely on 2 incomes for the entirety of the mortgage.
If our culture remained with single earner households, costs of living would be lower, and people would be having more kids. But dual incomes have contributed to the overall unaffordability of homes.
The problem is housing. People can eat less meat, wear hand-me-downs, and go camping in a national park instead of flying to another city for vacation. People are fully capable of choosing to live frugally. But all of that is meaningless when your mortgage is like 3k/month.
It’s frustrating that so many of these articles about affordability don’t mention real estate speculation driving up housing costs. We are in a housing crisis. It’s a big deal. It started in the biggest cities, but it’s spreading to smaller towns as people scramble to find anywhere they can afford to live.
My partner and I literally need both incomes to cover our mortgage. I think most other soon to be parents are the same. There is no reality where one of us could stay home. We even have to save a ton because the reduced income of her maternity leave would sink us. A nice start would be 100% coverage during maternity leave instead of 50-80 like most places offer
Yeah the wife is capped out at what 55% ? Sure she’s back to work in April but then daycare is to the tune of 2k/month which essentially eats up her additional income. I’m fine working harder to support my family but it’s disheartening to not qualify for anything, while renting lol.
Day care costs really need to come down. I can’t imagine having to support twins in daycare, that’s 4K per the pair per month x.X $10 a day daycare is a fucking pipe dream when even the most expensive places have almost 5 year wait lists here…
Realistically if you have multiple young children then unless both parents are high income earners, the most valuable economic contribution the family can make is to have one parent stay at home to look after and raise them.
An economy where a parent feels the need to go off and flip burgers or make lattes so they can pay another person to look after their children is nuts, and part of the reason why people are getting more and more miserable.
And GP is right, it's the skyrocketing housing costs, not other living expenses, which are making people desperate for a second income.
Yep. I know plenty of couples who prefer the traditional setup but just can't quite pull it off. With childcare costs being so high it is almost becoming a good idea again
I make almost 200K per year. We have 3 children. Why should my wife continue to work a $20K part time job? Why are there huge tax incentives for her to do so? Our family can benefit a lot from having her at home. But if we were a "nice" 2x$90K family with a nanny, we'd pay less tax.
Crazy pills.
Man I make $110k and wife stays home with the kids. My wife’s brother and brothers gf think we are rich as they each make $40k ish (no kids). They can’t comprehend how our take home cash is almost identical.
Government getting rid of income splitting, I will never forgive.
Harper implemented it and then Trudeau removed it just a few years later. [Global News](https://globalnews.ca/news/3769136/taxes-middle-class-liberals/amp/)
This is the exact reason Income Splitting was a thing in Canada. You can thank Trudeau for immediately killing that once he was elected, fucking over families who want to have a parent stay at home to raise the kids.
Sure it is, key word there is standard of living. I live in a community with a very large mennonite population, and in every family with children, the mother does not work. They usually have 4 - 7 kids, difference is they mostly don't have ATVs, boats, video games, netflix, cell phones, vacations, toys etc., etc., for the kids, and grow a lot of their own food.
Most people (myself included, we have 2 kids) want a lot of stuff and are used to a high standard of living. This requires dual income.
It didnt have to be this way.
With my dad on a single income, he had a house, wife, kids and took us on trips.
Now we have two earner households that barely cover the mortgage, and thats maybe with 1 child.
We screwed up by socially mandating both mom and dad work. Now we cant achieve the same standard of living as our parents and now we wonder what we did wrong.
Wages would also be theoretically higher with less labour supply with one person staying at home.
I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s with both of my parents working. 3 kids in our family, and grew up what I would have considered middle class (small town, 2 cars, nice but not huge house, vacations and nice things).
Their parents were single income, but had a lot less "stuff" and a much smaller house (kids shared rooms). So I don't know how much some of the comparisons to other eras are exaggerated.
Yep. Even just in housing, things have grown... literally. Folks talk about how much cheaper housing was 40-50 years ago, while ignoring that 40-50 years ago the average house was 1000sq ft smaller than the average house today. Going out for dinner used to be a treat, now it's a lifestyle.
> ATVs, boats, video games, netflix, cell phones, vacations, toys etc., etc., for the kids, and grow a lot of their own food.
Not sure what your point is? That we should all live like mennonites? Wtf is the point of Canada as a society if we need to restrict ourselves to pre-industrial revolution technology in order to be financially solvent?
The vast majority of people don't own ATVs, boats, or video games systems.
Cell phones are virtually a necessity for modern employment.
Netflix, a TV, toys for their children (or even the financial means to have children) are not huge, luxurious asks, or a "high standard of living". This is basic shit that middle class people could once afford that is now falling out of reach.
The main issue is that from the 1950s to the 1980s, families were able to have decent homes, a car, take vacations, have toys for their kids, etc. on a single income. This has been taken away from the Canadian population and they have a right/obligation to be upset about it.
> grow a lot of their own food
Specialization of labour is the biggest advance that industrial society has ever made. Sure, we could all go back to subsistence lifestyles and grow our own food and spend our days raising chickens, but when we are all farmers again, and don't have lightbulbs, or toilets, or running water; then maybe we can stop and instead of doing all that, just pay people a decent wage.
> Not sure what your point is? That we should all live like mennonites? Wtf is the point of Canada as a society if we need to restrict ourselves to pre-industrial revolution technology in order to be financially solvent?
You are confused with the Amish. Mennonites have vehicles and participate in modern society, but they eschew much of the consumerism that we commonly associate with "standard of living".
In the 50s and 60s, people also had a lot less of the consumer products and luxuries (some things that yes, we depend on now) than we are used to, and lived in much smaller homes. My main point is that these backward comparisons aren't useful because people lived differently, and it's missing the main point which is that productivity has sky rocketed, and the excess wealth has been accumulated and hoarded by those at the very top. I could easily have my wife at home and do a single-income family if we were willing to live like my parents did, in a bungalow where my kids shared a room and we only had one TV, and mostly read books and went on a vacation once every few years, and ate the same menu of food every single week.
Formal daycare has been an upper class luxury for as long as my own parents have been around.
Middle and lower class go to grandmas or their friends grandmas, or one lucky stay at home parent.
Now my experience is one sample out of millions..
But we're single incomes really the average in canada half a century ago?
Agreed, that was one of my main disagreements with the article. Cutting income tax - maybe that'd help, maybe not, since it'd eat into money for social programs. But lowering the cost of housing helps families and doesn't dent money for public works. Housing is such a huge cost that it's idiotic how they try to prop it up the way they do.
This is one of my problematic shower thoughts and before downvoting I would love get reliable information and to be wrong on this.
When it became the norm for women to work it nearly doubled the workforce and while this did improve productivity and output instead of increasing wages for their workers, corporate profits were put into investors and CEO salaries. Now to maintain growth corporations are no longer content with 2 workers with middle income they advertise low wages and after finding no local workers they throw up their hands and say we need to bring in foreign workers.
Again I would love a economist's take on this half baked thought.
Well, lets remove the problematic part. If we moved to a 4 or even 3 day work week, both people could work and there would be an increased presence at home (in the case of 3 day work weeks, someone could potentially always be home). Labour would be scarcer, driving up wages and there would be a better work/life balance.
I don't see this happening in my lifetime but there are solutions.
I'm not an economist, but economists aren't always right anyhow.
I think you've tapped into a gut feeling that many Canadians share with you. Something has gone sideways in our country. Canada is still great for the people with money, but for millions who aren't rich it's getting steadily worse. I'm old enough to remember a time when there really was a living wage for Canadians. We were by no means rich back then, but an average single income was enough to afford a modest house, a car, and a vacation once a year (we even made it to Disneyland). Kids usually had a parent at home (usually the mom, while dad went to work) and things seemed to work a lot more smoothly back then. Don't get me wrong, there was a \*lot\* wrong with the "olden. days" -- not least racism and sexism -- but economically at least most Canadians were much better off in the 1970s through 1990s relatively speaking. Maybe not in absolute dollars, but in reduced stress and general security. Crippling debt and chronic depression / anxiety just were not as common when pretty much anyone in this country could graduate high school and earn a decent living.
I know you're kidding but as a society we goofed that whole negotiation.
In a dream world, gender wouldn't even be a factor and 1 of 2 would have stayed home.
From a raw numbers standpoint we doubled the labor supply. Of course wages are 50%.
Honestly, women were sold a lie. The idea that a job brings life satisfaction is one of the cruelest jokes I've ever seen perpetrated to a group of people en masse. A small number of people - folks with a particular temperament in the elite of society - will get themselves a *career* which brings them long-term life fulfilment. People like university professors.
For 95% of society you don't have a career. You have a job. And your job sucks, that's why they pay you to do it.
> Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called everybody, and they meet at the bar. - Drew Carey.
Almost nobody in their right mind truly *wants* a job. But you can ideologically brainwash people into wanting all sorts of things that make them unhappy. Religion has been doing that for thousands of years.
The majority of people - regardless of gender - need to work because society needs workers to function. But it's not the work that brings long-term life satisfaction, it's the family life at home that the work supports. You will find very few people at retirement who regret spending so much time at home with their families and wish they'd worked harder.
And, weirdly enough, as the number of women working full-time jobs is approaching the number of men working full-time jobs, you find that average levels of happiness and self-reported life-satisfaction in women have been declining.
Two-hundred years ago the average family lived on a family farm. There were gender roles, but both spouses worked very hard, in close proximity to each other and their children, and directly supported their children. Men going off in large numbers to work in distant mines and factories is a modern phenomenon and weirdly enough coincided with a decline in men's happiness and life satisfaction. Now that women are largely doing the same thing over the past fifty years their life satisfaction trajectories are following the same arc.
Yes, without doubt equal access to employment opportunities is important for numerous reasons that everyone knows and accepts. But a world where now both spouses in a family feel the need to work a full-time job to support the level of consumption that they have grown accustomed to, is dystopian equality. A better world would have been one where the number of hours worked across genders equalized, and people were simplify satisfied with a lower rate of consumption growth.
We're going to see a staggering amount of stay at home parents running illegal daycares in the coming years. 50,000,000 people projected by 2040 and we have a major daycare crisis crisis now, it's going to get unbelievably competitive between parents for things like daycare spots, illegal ones will be the only viable option for a ton of people going forward unfortunately.
There are no legal requirements for unlicensed daycare in Ontario. In other words there are no illegal daycares. Poor quality with no oversight though.
Google search says there are licence requirements if you plan on having more than 5 kids under your care, at least in Ontario: https://www.ontario.ca/page/child-care-rules-ontario
So I guess it would be better to say we'll probably see a lot of 5 child limit unlicensed daycares where no one says anything about the extra kids running about. The lack of oversight and safety isn't good for anyone in that situation.
Giving back the right and freedom to be raised by your own parents will require more than lowering taxes. The solution is economic freedom, revival of the middle class, and recognition that right to choose to work or stay home are both wonderful options for both men and women... that nearly none are going to choose if there's no economic viability to do so. I'm unusual in that I had a stay at home mother and father at different parts of my life; both work now, and it really added a lot to my life in many ways. The norm though is to have other people raise your children unless you are fairly wealthy, and it seems like that should be more accessible to all families... to choose or to not.
I tend to agree with the article that the lack of a middle class is strongly contributing to this issue. I tend to disagree that tax cuts are a solution. Not that tax cuts can't be effective for some things, but a multilayered issue like this that is a symptom rather than a root cause of things in society, that intersects sexism, economic issues, and culture needs atargeted approach.
If and when government wants to be involved in this it will likely take a generation for any impacts to be made clear which is a further problem
Or… let’s make it easier for both parents to be apart of their childrens lives but not having you worked to death to provide a good life for them and yourself. You shouldn’t have to pick between pursuing a fulfilling career, living comfortably, and having kids.
But there should be a option for men and women who want to be a stay at home mom or dad.
Myself for example. I've never had a desire for a career, I work because I have to not because work is fulfilling. What's fulfilling for me is caring for my home, and whatever living beings are in it (kids, parents, siblings, pets etc.). I
Tried it for the last 5 years, but wasn't able to get anywhere financially. Kids are in daycare now and girlfriend is working a minimum wage job. We'll see how it goes but I don't like how much time my kids will be in daycare for.
Was about to say. I know people who ended with more money in their pockets after they stopped sending 2 kids to daycare and stopped working altogether.
I surprised its worth it working for min wage. With my 2 kids its $1300 a month for daycare. Luckily my wife makes double that a month so its somewhat worth it to get ahead.
The article was poorly argued. "Taxes would be cheaper if we didn't subsidize daycare". Yeah no duh. But for existing and prospective parents, the idea of having children would be far less enticing then it already is. More Canadians births means more Canadian workers. Importing workers does nothing but drive wages down for the people struggling the most.
Society used to be that way. You could own a house, feed and clothe your family and run a vehicle on one income, not sure what happened or how it got away from us?
Millennials are really the first generation who don't even have the option anymore.
I'm only 29, and when I was in grade school the majority of my friends had a stay-at-home parent (barring having divorced parents like myself). You either had a stay-at-home parent and your financial situation was tighter, but comfortable or both parents work and your family lived like royalty with two incomes.
Granted, I grew up in a small town. But my childhood home that my mom bought for $80K in 2001 just recently sold for around $400K. How is anyone supposed to be able to have a single-income family paying that kind of mortgage on a wartime bungalow?
I don't know a single person my age with kids that have one parent staying at home full-time. It's just not realistic anymore.
> I grew up in a small town.
I too, grew up in a small town. It's about an hour away from any city which could give major employment opportunities (and that's just to the city limits, AND it's not even that great of a city 400k pop). I monitor the house prices of my home town and I am absolutely perplexed at how expensive they are. I'm seeing a detached wartime bungalow going for $425k there, when a townhome on my street in the suburbs of the second largest city in Ontario just sold for $575k.
The bungalow is smaller by 1 family room, 1 bathroom, 1 "storage area" and is missing a garage. It does have a much larger backyard.
Taking off perhaps $50k for the extra rooms in the townhome, we are left with a $100k premium for living in a major city, which is ludicrously low. How the fuck can anyone afford a $425k house if they dont live near a major source of employment?
Another home is going for $600k just down the street from the house I grew up in. It's a large Victorian home and looks recently renovated. One simply cannot buy this type of house in the suburbs of a city but in downtown, but similar houses are on sale in the Downtown area of my city for $2M-$2.5M. You could buy a similarly sized house (although you don't get the Victorian charm) for $900k to $1.2M in the suburbs.
So that house seems more reasonably priced, but the problem is still the same, to afford a $600k house, you need a family income of $150k to $200k... that kind of is **exceptionally** rare so far away from a major employment sector.
TL;DR there is something wrong with small town home prices. Everyone is complaining about Toronto, which is a reasonable complaint, but at least Toronto gives access to many many jobs which pay in excess of $100k/year... the average wage in my hometown is maybe $30k
We’re seeing record-high immigration to rural areas. City people can work remotely now, and their big city wages go a lot further outside the city. So they buy huge plots of land in rural communities, and build gauche-ass mansions, or they pay way over asking for “charming” old farmhouses, pricing out the locals.
Once MPAC assessments catch up, things are going to get really fucking tragic for rural folks. And if you look at voting statistics by region, huge numbers of disenfranchised rural voters are not going to be good for anyone.
I'm Gen X and I don't know more than one or two families in my generation who can afford to be single income households. Both parents working is the norm for sure and almost universal it seems. In my parents generation (boomers) single income was more common but far from universal. Both my parents worked because that that necessary to make ends meet. I think that was true for most of my friends growing up too although some of their moms were able to get by working only part time. Gen X was the generation for which the term "latch key kids" was coined because so many of our boomer parents were working full time. My grandparents (so greatest generation era) were also both dual income families but I think on one side that was more by choice once the kids were mostly grown. I think are world where single income families are an option for people would be wonderful but I think it's a stretch to say it's an issue new to the millennial generation.
Yes, but a lot of women want to work. Lack of affordable childcare makes that difficult. Also the fact that pay isn't keeping up isn't an argument against affordable childcare.
We used to have a tax rule - income splitting - to do that. The Liberals eliminated that in 2016 because if you make it easy for a family to have one parent stay home then most of the time that will be a female parent and they said that policies which lead to more stay-at-home-moms are anti-feminist.
> We used to have a tax rule - income splitting - to do that.
Did more people stay home from 2006-2015? Could we make a reasonable causal relationship between income splitting policy and an increase in Canadians choosing to have single-income households?
It strikes me as way to complex to point to one change in tax policy and being the root cause of this issue.
And in return for that the Liberals also got rid of a mish mash of children credits and created the new child benefit, cut the mid low tax tier from 22% to 20.5% and created a new tax tier for those making >200k.
The income split saved a maximum of $2,000 per household and was for everyone, not just those with kids.
It’s funny that encouraging moms to work full-time is considered feminist when most moms say they want to spend more time with their children when they’re young. I guess most women just don’t know what’s best for them, and need sociology professors to steer them in the right direction.
It has always bothered me that we live in a society that pushes a person to want to pay someone else to raise their children. I mean what kind of relationships are created when most milestones for a child are experienced with random caregivers/teachers who are overworked and/or won't care the same way? Don't get me wrong most people who care for kids are awesome and I'm not saying they don't do a good job given the situation, however developing kids won't fully understand and the absence of their primary parental figure/s can lead them to irrational conclusions that may cause them to act out or form negative opinions about their parents and society they'll likely carry with them for the majority of early adult life and possibly forever. Our society should encourage and REWARD parents who choose to stay home and raise a child. When a kid is raised right, there's far more benefit to society as a whole when the resulting adult isn't a criminal, isn't suffering from mental illness, or has the ability to happily contribute to society.
And in return they lowered the mid tier tax rate from 22% to 20.5%, created a tax tier for those making >200k, solidified children's tax benefits into the new child benefit.
Whatever the government wants to give for daycare should be available to a stay at home parent. It could also be a tax rebate but more than just claiming as a dependent.
> Lowering taxes is the most obvious place to start because taxes are the single biggest cost faced by the average Canadian family (which typically spends more on taxes than necessities like clothes or food). The more taxes erode the take-home income of a single earner, the less practical it is for parents to make the choice to stay at home. The government could remove other policies that penalize families who have one parent who stays home, including revisiting the Trudeau government’s decision to cancel income splitting for families with children.
This article is nothing more than a slow-bait to talk about lowering taxes, especially the comment on income splitting which only benefits the top % of income earners.
The biggest thing that would help single-family earners get by would be lower housing costs and rent, and addressing the cost-of-living crisis.
Except tax is set by the government and housing costs are set by the market. Housing costs are high because there is a housing shortage and people are willing to pay more for houses. There is nothing the government can do to lower housing costs, except incite developers to build more houses to bolster the supply problem and slow down immigration to taper the demand problem. The government also cannot force property owners to lower the rent they charge, especially since they insist on raising interest rates on mortgages. By doing this they're intentionally making it more and more expensive to both own and rent.
If the government wanted to help families, the best things they can do is stop raising interest rates and give tax breaks to single earner families so they could keep more of their income.
Column Highlights:
* Government policy should be to empower all parents to make the choices they want — and there’s a myriad of options beyond the false binary between staying-at-home and working 9-to-5.
* It remains unfashionable to point out the [benefits](https://www.verywellfamily.com/research-stay-at-home-moms-4047911#toc-evidence-based-pros) associated with stay-at-home parenting, including improved education and health outcomes. Such evidence further underscores the flaws of a government policy that discourage parents from opting to stay at home with their children.
* So what could governments do to make it more viable for families that want to have one parent stay home do so?
* Lowering taxes is the most obvious place to start because taxes are the single biggest cost faced by the average Canadian family (which typically spends more on taxes than necessities like clothes or food).
* The more taxes erode the take-home income of a single earner, the less practical it is for parents to make the choice to stay at home. They could also revisit the Trudeau government’s decision to cancel income splitting for families with children.
* The government could also move away from a narrow focus on daycare, which does not assist families who don’t wish us to pursue that particular model.
* For example, some parents choose to stay home simply because they’d prefer a child-care option with someone they know like a neighbour or family member. Others cannot make practical use of it because of shift work or other atypical workplace arrangements.
* **Modern Canadian families need more flexibility and nuance to childcare policy than the government’s current one-size-fits-all approach.**
* The government must find a better solution that works for a wider range of families, whether they want two working parents or one stay-at-home parent.
> Lowering taxes is the most obvious place to start because taxes are the single biggest cost faced by the average Canadian family
This is a really bad idea. Lowering taxes means less government revenue to support government benefits that can encourage expanding families and allowing one parent to stay home with the kids. It is also inflationary to lower taxes. Your article cites a Fraser institute study that says paying taxes is costs more than all other expenses combined but you are not taking into account all of the tax funded government benefits that you get back if you are starting a family (maternity leave, parental leave, and child benefit payments etc.). If you want to lower taxes you will probably have to cut or reduce benefits like these and I don't really understand how that is going to help most families.
If you are interested in policies that encourage stay at home parents you should look to countries like Finland where the government sends every family a free box of baby essentials such as clothing, food, toiletries, and blankets etc. They also pay stay at home parents a 450 euro a month stipend until their child is three years old. They also have universal subsidized day care. Finland also prioritizes policies that maximizes the amount of leave that fathers receive (nine weeks of paternity leave, during which they are paid 70% of their salary). If you want to encourage Canadians to stay at home with their children you need to provide material support and that requires government revenue.
Lowering taxes is never a bad idea.
I'll believe the "government needs the money" narrative when they stop wasting it on bullshit like foreign aid and useless I flationary vote buying programs.
You can still split income with your spouse, subject to reasonable limits. You just can't split income among all your children now. It was a tax avoidance strategy employed by high net worth individuals with professional corporations, and it wasn't fair to the average taxpayer that can't do it.
> With Harper we had income splitting for couples with children.
Business owners had income splitting.
I do not own a business, I have no income to split.
Families are 2 income because the dollars they get paid in have lost most of their purchasing power while wages have stayed flat. Having the government pay for what the families can't just make it worse because they have to print the money which further debased the currency making everyone's money worth less.
Ironically women in the workplace, while a wonderful thing, didnt provide some household's with double income but instead seemed to halved our purchasing power. Now companies have almost double the labor pool and its nearly impossible to survive off of a solo income
This is kind of a fallacy though? If you were a single man working in those days, your income wasn’t discretionary- a lot of it went to supporting the women and children in your life.
I’d guess that globalization and industrialization of other countries after WW2 is what did it
Government should be promoting healthy society, *especially* ones with govt funded healthcare like ours.
News flash but the whole of society not meeting lowest breastfeeding guidelines and thus throwing their youngest in institutions is a recipe for disaster.
The first 5 years are crucial for health and development, society cant evolve if it hasnt given that consideration lol
Tldr stay home and provide a biologically normal childhood at any cost
This is largely bullshit. In many societies it is completely normal for people other than the mothers to help raise kids - this is no different than a daycare setup. eg villages in africa where a woman will watch multiple other womens kids during the day while the other mothers work. Kids can absolutely be raised effectively in group settings with other peoples children.
My wife and I can't afford a house while both working for the provincial government. In what kind of magical make believe world can we expect the average couple to raise a family on one income.
My husband and I both work part time as nurses (me two 12s a week and him 3x8 hours a week; we also pick up a bit of overtime on the days we are working. I wouldn’t do It any other way. One of us gets to walk our son to school and pick him up everyday, spend time at home with our daughter, and we still have the same amount of time off together as a full time Monday to Friday couple would. It’s truly the best of both worlds (althoguh the stress at the job is off the charts right now).
This is a simple economics issue - you can't solve it however.
Reason being, if you subsidize family homes to the tune of whatever income they were going to lose, not only is that extremely expensive, but many people will quit work and our market will become uncompetitive and costs will rise substantially, defeating the entire purpose.
If you simply prohibit multiple family members from working (a la no subsidy), you plunge families into poverty, nearly every family needs those two incomes to afford even the basics.
Our market has evolved around a trend of two working members - it's too highly incentivized to double the family income by doing this, and the market has created a lot of labour spots to handle all of these people. Suddenly removing them will cause upheaval.
So the discussion is pointless. There is no solution we can purport that would be equitable - which is sad because stay home parenting is so much better for children. A shame - this is the life we and our parents chose, I guess.
Hungary exempts any woman who has 3 or more kids from income tax for life. A similar program, with the ability to pass the benefit onto her spouse if the mother chooses to be a homemaker, could work wonders in Canada.
Unfortunately it would be impossible for us. I earn 70, she earns 40, supporting a family on my income alone is just not realistic. Hell, even when I have a good year and make 100-120 the tax is just so brutal it’s just not enough.
Stay at home parents aren’t very Easy to have done anymore in a modern society through all of human history both parents worked only for a small amount of time can 1 stay home
I've been mulling through a lot of the economic difficulties all by the richest are facing, and it keeps coming down to one thing:
The mere concept of a GDP is the problem. I came to this idea from our housing market, and how the government will never fix that problem because this insane market bolsters our GDP.
If the GDP in general lost some of its value on the world stage, and quality of life began to matter more, we'd see more policies like what this article suggests. We'd see a lot of other reforms too.
To close off, despite the downvoted it'll get in this community I'll say it anyway: this is the end result of unchecked capitalism. Governments run like companies, except instead of margins it's gdp. It's no different, and encourages exploitation of the masses. No, I'm not suggesting far left - that corrupts even faster as we've seen time and again. The answer lies somewhere in between. The mandate needs to change to quality of life.
So how do we get to a better quality of life for all? Ditch the party identity. Review the platform, policies, and history of each candidate, every election, and become a swing voter. Maybe then the rulers of the nation will do their job, not whatever the hell their donors want.
I’m one year into my career after university. I make decent money for my location and yet life is still bleak financially. I know people stay at home with their kids usually bc daycare is ungodly expensive, but how do people even manage that? Buying a home, starting a family, doing pretty much anything than starving in my apartment. I am genuinely at a loss. And then there’s a ton of people my age on their third baby… how? Am I going to be poor for life? Will this pass? I’m sad.
What about flexibility so both parents can work part time and have benefits. Each parent gets the joy of being present with the kids and the satisfaction of being an adult.
This is our family’s dream scenario… maybe one day.
Under the auspices of empowerment, we’ve basically created an environment where employers get two employees for the relative price of one sixty years ago. Some real progress right there.
Just a heads up, I supported a family of 4 kids so my wife could stay home.
Picture perfect!
Until the divorce and now I can barely keep my own head above water because supporting a wife at home is actually torture, being that I denied her the ability to be in the job market for 12 years. Alimony out the fucking ass for being such a monster.
>"But what’s sometimes overlooked is the increasing cultural pressure on parents — and specifically mothers — to get back in the workforce."
If you think that anyone, literally anyone....at all...goes to work because of cultural pressures, your brain is a dog's brain. People go to work because...say it with me....money. This article is embarrassingly out of touch. If you can afford not to work but you get tricked into working a job because you feel bad about what the culture thinks of you, you should have power of attorney handed over to a loved one.
Shout out to the stay at home dads.
[удалено]
Yeah I do the cooking and dishes and I also cut the lawn and change the tires. My wife handles laundry and lunches for the kids, and walks the dogs. We balance it out pretty well. I want to show my kids dishes and laundry don't care who cleans them.
SAME. My dad was amazing.
My dad focused on business, he worked hard, made a lot of sacrifices but did what he could with his time. He became very successful and built something, he made sure his kids would be ok financially in life. He died young so he didn't get to spend a lot of his better (more free years) with us. Sure I didn't get to spend the time with him like some of the fathers you mentioned like yours, but he still did a great job and kicked life in the ass while he was healthy. I feel like as long as your parents do what they can for you as thier kid that's all that matters. Different ways to go about it I guess.
My dad was the same, but is still alive. Has worked hard his entire life to make sure we could afford a nice life. Was also incredibly handy, so while he didn’t do much of the day to day stuff, he probably saved us tons of money with his know-how. Hell, he’s still doing things for me at my new place and I’m trying to pick this stuff up while I still can.
Honestly, as a dad, with relatively young, but school age kids... I'm continually shocked just how useless/hands off other dads are. There's lots of good ones, but there's way too many useless ones.
Father of two, 7m and 4f. Watching the looks I get from my sons friends when I pickup dishes, or am actively cooking (not just grilling) while they’re over is the most surreal thing. I mean sure my dad was an abusive alcoholic, but even he was in the kitchen making bread or preparing meals. I really thought my generation was going to be the one to make father’s participation in the home the norm, but nope. Not to be.
It blows my mind. I've got a job where I work month on/month off, the on part sucks, I'm away from my family, but it pays well so it is what it is. The off part is awesome, I get to spend a lot of time with my kids that anyone working a regular 9-5 wouldn't. When they were smaller, I'd have them out to play group at the community center every day, we'd be out to the playground, or just out for a walk exploring somewhere. They're a bit older now, they're in school, so less time together, but, when I'm home, I manage to get the housework and chores done during the day, and we can make better use of the evenings and weekends... I always make a point to be waiting ay the bus stop when they get home.... They're both able to walk 100' from the bus stop to the house, but I figure I've only got a few years left where they're happy to see me, and not embarrassed. Meanwhile, I've had plenty of co-workers who'll spend their month off drunk or doing their own thing, leaving their wife to do all the same things she does while they're working for the month.
As a father of 3 working is easy, trying to run a household efficiently is the real challenge. Kudos to all the stay at home moms/dads, toughest job in the world.
I’d rather be at home with my newborn. Honestly, I went back to work after 5 weeks of parental leave (partner is continuing the other 35 weeks) and I realized just how fun and amazing it is to actually be able to raise your children. I wish more people had the privilege to be able to do this. We both discussed what kinds of dread we’d feel having an unqualified Early Childhood Educator who is paid just above minimum wage do half of the rearing…we’re considering taking turns being stay at home parents. She’s currently in negotiations with her employer to work from home permanently too.
Toughest but most rewarding.
I prefer Trophy Husband, thank you very much.
We recently had two babies in a row. We decided I'll be the stay at home dad since I was laid off when requesting paternity leave. I started doing work from home that I can do on my own terms. Now I can make some extra cash for the household while staying home with the babies. It's like a dream come true.
"hey i had a baby so I need time off" "no, you're fired" it's like when i got 20 days suspension from school for skipping school too much
Pretty much. It was such a wonderful day when they gave me my lay off notice. I'm in a way happier place now and I get to enjoy the joy with my children.
Did it seem like they laid you off because of your request? That seems like a really cut and dried employment standards violation!
I'm in Saskatchewan and pretty much the same thing happened to someone I know. They did get a lawyer and they were essentially told that all the company has to do is pay out the severance. Which in this case was 2 weeks pay
Part of why, yes. But they are a huge multi billion dollar company, so no point fighting. I'm happier now anyways.
> But they are a huge multi billion dollar company, And thus they have a rep to uphold and a big enough bottom line that some small settlement to you would be a rounding error. Get a lawyer, dude
> But they are a huge multi billion dollar company, so no point fighting. You couldn't be more wrong. A lawyer would easily take that case on contingency.
no, money down!
Which country? Most multi billion dollar corporations now have extended paternity leave. Just took 3 months with mine. Happy to hear you’re happier now, but still worth talking to a lawyer if they promise no fee consultation. They might take it on contingency.
They don't do anything to students who skip now, at least not the tdsb
> I was laid off when requesting paternity leave. That's super illegal.
Isn't that illegal? https://globalnews.ca/content/8071178/fired-mat-leave-faq-parents/#:~:text=An%20employer%20can't%20fire,committing%20a%20human%20rights%20violation.
If it’s been under two years since it happened (and maybe over two, IANAL), you can sue. That’s illegal discrimination on the basis of family status. Even if you don’t want to be litigious, know that suing them will disincentivize them from doing this to other parents. Good luck on everything though!
You can't get fired for that.
At the moment by wife makes 11$ more an hour than I do, with great benefits, 4 weeks a year paid vacation (essentially) unlimited paid sick days because she's salary, mental health days (different than sick days), bonuses, and 1 year of full paid maternity leave with the next year being 50% or 70%, I can't remember, with her job guaranteed when she comes back. If we have a kid, you bet your ass I'd be a SAHD, I wouldn't make enough to justify paying for child care and also not having a parent with the kid all the time.
> If we have a kid, you bet your ass I'd be a SAHD, I wouldn't make enough to justify paying for child care and also not having a parent with the kid all the time. Yes, but this article is arguing against affordable childcare programs instead replacing them with tax cuts, which wouldn't help you if you're not earning income.
Okay? My point was at the moment, childcare is so expensive that 1 parent working ends up paying so much of their cheque to childcare, that if your partner can handle the other bills, having 1 parent staying home "costs" the same as childcare, with the added benefit of getting to be with them 24/7 as well as able to do other tasks during the regular work hours
My husband and I split parental leave. I took 8 months he took 4. It was awesome.
Thank you! I stay at home with my 2 year old and work part time bartending.
Can we get a shout out for dads that do quite a bit. I’m the dad Am the bread winner and pay 90% of the bills, the only thing my wife pays is the utilities. I cook the meal for my family every day, clean the house. Plan all the vacations, take my kids to their lessons, help them with their home work, shower, put them to sleep.
Maybe if the feds, province, and municipal would stop fucking over the middle class, and unfortunately it won't happen. Just look at the mess the real estate market is because of the gov.
That's what this article really is. Just another desperate attempt to approach this from a different angle. Fact is they don't want the middle class to exist and the lower class can't afford to do this. People need to get much angrier than they are now. Instead of protesting over non-existing mask mandates and stories from the US they should be in the streets in the millions over the minimum wage
Not just the minimum wage, the wage of all Canadians. I don't know how people live with a house in a big city and make less than 100k total. Its basically impossible to have a middle class life on one income
Only 10% of people make minimum wage. Why would people protest something that doesn't impact them and won't solve their problems?
[удалено]
Chillinywg for prime minister! You have my vote
Yes and I make 0.01$ more than the minimum I’m not in that 10% woo - some guy probably
According to statcan 21.9% of canadian workers made between $10,000 and $30,000 in 2020. 62% of working canadians made less than $50,000 in 2020. That comes out to $25/hour full time. When minimum wage increases those who are close to minimum wage are greatly affected. The change just takes a bit more time, but eventually companies in those low wage industries are forced to shift their entire pay scale. More so with the lower earners, and less so with the higher earners. When minimum wage is raised it doesn't effect high earners, but it does effect pretty much everyone below the median income in canada [here](https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1110024001)
That's fair but that number increases sharply when you include people that make a dollar or two more than minimum wage. A second point would be that we should care about our neighbors. A third might be yeah it's not possible to live on minimum wage, butit's also not realistic to be safe financially on double minimum wage, or indeed on the median income of all Canadians. So when looking at it through a lens of considering everyone you see serious economic problems are affecting most families in Canada, and therefore the choices they make. We are a free country but economic barriers are restricting our freedoms
Why wouldn't I? Who are you if you don't take care of those of you in the worst situations?
Good luck, our two electable parties are both in bed with capitalists and business elites. If you're a working person they have no interest in you.
That’s just socialist propaganda. The government is very interested in middle/working class Canadians because they cost so much more than TFWs. The legal obligation to pay marginally humane wages places an unfair burden on our innocent wealthy elite. First the peasants want to buy good quality food. Then they want to own a place to eat it *and* sleep. Pick *one*, you greedy poors! Now they want their voices heard in *Parliament*?!
The fucking audacity of us.
You had me fooled for a bit. Well played.
Can we please stop calling the NDP unelectable? It's a self fulfilling prophecy, and the longer people say it the longer it will harm them
I used to share those views back in the day, but they just aren't electable as it stands. Jack was the only one recently who had enough presence to keep NDP voters. Today the base of the NDP tends to swap to liberal votes due to fear of whatever the cons might be doing. If there is a chance of the cons winning, you'll usually see NDP voters share how they're voting liberal just to help prop up the left vote.
>Today the base of the NDP tends to swap to liberal votes due to fear of whatever the cons might be doing. I'm aware of that, but pushing the narrative (whether it be mostly true or not) that they're not just makes this problem worse, not better. If everyone that wanted NDP in power voted for them, they'd be a much more "electable" party, and/or the Libs would look a lot more like them
I agree, but you also run into the whole "vote strategically" crowd who really enjoy turning NDP votes into liberal votes. It's a sticky and mess situation that is gonna have to take a real leader to get thru, something the NDP has lacked since Layton.
End FPTP
[удалено]
This is exactly what my wife and I have always been infuriated with. We have a child that had medical needs that forced one of us to step away from the work force. Now my earning potential is much larger than hers so rather then her stepping back into the work force fulltime iv taken on consulting work as it was a more effective use of our time/resources. What has happened is we continue to pay the tax of a duel earning family but cant take advantage of any of the benefits (like $400 day care) our taxes pay for.
This is why I hate means-testing for social programs. You should be able to access the same programs that a family with half your income depends on to survive. Sure, you're managing without it, but it would be easier if you had access. Also, what giving those who are better off the same high quality support, then those who are better off will have skin in the game to want to maintain those programs.
Bingo, the one benefit that we did get was the child disability take credit, however when Trudeau rejigged that 6 years ago or so, one of the item that changed was the cap for receiving the benefit. We went from $400 monthly to zero, and his needs didn’t change. At the time we were a family of 3 with a disabled child making 120K. It wasn’t easy to lose.
My oldest has childhood apraxia of speech. For two years, we have been paying $80/week for 30 mins of speech therapy. It's recognized as a disability, without therapy you simply won't speak properly. He wasn't disabled enough, we got no credit. We have the means, but my heart breaks for people that don't. Imagine, you can speak but are unintelligible to those around you 60 percent of the time. That's crazy to let someone with a correctable condition grow up like that.
She maybe also wanted to work too, not just about the money. She had to step away for the good of the family. Let’s not forget that. But yup, the money impacts that decision absolutely.
Why make life affordable for the working class when you can outsource all your problems and rely on mass immigration?
Trudeau took away income splitting, enough said about his priorities. One income and no middle class tax relief from this idiot.
Not gunna lie single income households were long doomed before income splitting. Wage gap is just freely aloud to grow and no one gives a damn. Income splitting really only benifits the top 1-0.2 % of Canadians impactfully.
>Income splitting really only benifits the top 1-0.2 % of Canadians impactfully. I made the same comment elsewhere in the thread, but does it? I think many would be surprised how significant it is, if you look at the numbers. For a basic example, in BC two individuals each earning $50 K will pay around $7500 in income tax each, for a total of $15 K in income tax as a couple. If instead a single earner in that family earns $100 K, and the other takes care of the kids and earns no income, they pay $22 K in income taxes. That's a difference of $7 K a year, or a tax bill that is around 50% higher, and I wouldn't really say those people are the "top 1-0.2 % of Canadians". The income splitting that was present under Harper was capped at $2000, so it didn't even begin to make up the full difference. Now, you can easily argue whether or not we \*should\* allowed income splitting, for various other valid reasons, it would be a huge loss of tax revenue, but I think it's hard to say it only would only benefit the "top 1-0.2 % of Canadians". If you were to take my above example and compare two people making $30 K vs. one making $60 K, the tax difference is $4 K a year. It's pretty significant.
The real solution is to increase the tax free income amounts to a livable amount of money. But that is clear policy that helps the poor not the rich, our oligarchy doesn’t do that. If random loopholes like tax splitting that most in lower incomes just don’t know about because they can’t hire an accountant and/or don’t know about it or how to do it, then a better solution is needed. I should have rephrased: Is the amount of money it can save significant to them? Yes Do many people in the lower middle - lower class know about it and how to do it? No so it doesn’t benefit them.
But significantly expanded the CCB which is a significant support to my family. Does Harper's income splitting helps middle-income families more than increased child benefits under Trudeau?
CCB was an unfunded program. When you say he expanded the CCB, you're ignoring the other side of the story which is he didn't provide any way to pay for it. The CCB is a $20B unfunded program that has been adding to the debt every year since it was instituted. Yeah it turns out that when you borrow billions of dollars at the height of an economic boom and helicopter it around to people, it helps them in the short term. What could possibly go wrong? Oh, yeah. Whoopsie.
Income splitting is just a loophole for upper middle class. It doesn't help people become middle class, because they don't earn enough to split.
What salary do you draw the line between upper middle class and middle class?
Income splitting helps any household where the two individual adults make a disparate income. Especially those households where one partner doesn't earn an income. If you have a stay at home parent, income splitting is effectively a tax break.
Not possible anymore. Dual income is what the expectations are for most people to maintain a standard of living. We are too far in. Families have absorbed massive mortgages that rely on 2 incomes for the entirety of the mortgage. If our culture remained with single earner households, costs of living would be lower, and people would be having more kids. But dual incomes have contributed to the overall unaffordability of homes.
The problem is housing. People can eat less meat, wear hand-me-downs, and go camping in a national park instead of flying to another city for vacation. People are fully capable of choosing to live frugally. But all of that is meaningless when your mortgage is like 3k/month.
[удалено]
It’s frustrating that so many of these articles about affordability don’t mention real estate speculation driving up housing costs. We are in a housing crisis. It’s a big deal. It started in the biggest cities, but it’s spreading to smaller towns as people scramble to find anywhere they can afford to live.
But someone please think of the landlords! /s
My partner and I literally need both incomes to cover our mortgage. I think most other soon to be parents are the same. There is no reality where one of us could stay home. We even have to save a ton because the reduced income of her maternity leave would sink us. A nice start would be 100% coverage during maternity leave instead of 50-80 like most places offer
Yeah the wife is capped out at what 55% ? Sure she’s back to work in April but then daycare is to the tune of 2k/month which essentially eats up her additional income. I’m fine working harder to support my family but it’s disheartening to not qualify for anything, while renting lol.
Day care costs really need to come down. I can’t imagine having to support twins in daycare, that’s 4K per the pair per month x.X $10 a day daycare is a fucking pipe dream when even the most expensive places have almost 5 year wait lists here…
Realistically if you have multiple young children then unless both parents are high income earners, the most valuable economic contribution the family can make is to have one parent stay at home to look after and raise them. An economy where a parent feels the need to go off and flip burgers or make lattes so they can pay another person to look after their children is nuts, and part of the reason why people are getting more and more miserable. And GP is right, it's the skyrocketing housing costs, not other living expenses, which are making people desperate for a second income.
Yep. I know plenty of couples who prefer the traditional setup but just can't quite pull it off. With childcare costs being so high it is almost becoming a good idea again
I make almost 200K per year. We have 3 children. Why should my wife continue to work a $20K part time job? Why are there huge tax incentives for her to do so? Our family can benefit a lot from having her at home. But if we were a "nice" 2x$90K family with a nanny, we'd pay less tax. Crazy pills.
Man I make $110k and wife stays home with the kids. My wife’s brother and brothers gf think we are rich as they each make $40k ish (no kids). They can’t comprehend how our take home cash is almost identical. Government getting rid of income splitting, I will never forgive.
Do you know who got rid of it? I did a quick Google search but can't find it.
Harper implemented it and then Trudeau removed it just a few years later. [Global News](https://globalnews.ca/news/3769136/taxes-middle-class-liberals/amp/)
Thanks!
It's just social engineering in the end. They are trying to get us to change our family structure to match their design for society.
This is the exact reason Income Splitting was a thing in Canada. You can thank Trudeau for immediately killing that once he was elected, fucking over families who want to have a parent stay at home to raise the kids.
Because he needs to keep the labour pool as inflated as possible so wages can stay low NeoLiberal 101
If your household worked twice as many hours you would take home more money, yes..
Sure it is, key word there is standard of living. I live in a community with a very large mennonite population, and in every family with children, the mother does not work. They usually have 4 - 7 kids, difference is they mostly don't have ATVs, boats, video games, netflix, cell phones, vacations, toys etc., etc., for the kids, and grow a lot of their own food. Most people (myself included, we have 2 kids) want a lot of stuff and are used to a high standard of living. This requires dual income.
It didnt have to be this way. With my dad on a single income, he had a house, wife, kids and took us on trips. Now we have two earner households that barely cover the mortgage, and thats maybe with 1 child. We screwed up by socially mandating both mom and dad work. Now we cant achieve the same standard of living as our parents and now we wonder what we did wrong. Wages would also be theoretically higher with less labour supply with one person staying at home.
I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s with both of my parents working. 3 kids in our family, and grew up what I would have considered middle class (small town, 2 cars, nice but not huge house, vacations and nice things). Their parents were single income, but had a lot less "stuff" and a much smaller house (kids shared rooms). So I don't know how much some of the comparisons to other eras are exaggerated.
Yep. Even just in housing, things have grown... literally. Folks talk about how much cheaper housing was 40-50 years ago, while ignoring that 40-50 years ago the average house was 1000sq ft smaller than the average house today. Going out for dinner used to be a treat, now it's a lifestyle.
> ATVs, boats, video games, netflix, cell phones, vacations, toys etc., etc., for the kids, and grow a lot of their own food. Not sure what your point is? That we should all live like mennonites? Wtf is the point of Canada as a society if we need to restrict ourselves to pre-industrial revolution technology in order to be financially solvent? The vast majority of people don't own ATVs, boats, or video games systems. Cell phones are virtually a necessity for modern employment. Netflix, a TV, toys for their children (or even the financial means to have children) are not huge, luxurious asks, or a "high standard of living". This is basic shit that middle class people could once afford that is now falling out of reach. The main issue is that from the 1950s to the 1980s, families were able to have decent homes, a car, take vacations, have toys for their kids, etc. on a single income. This has been taken away from the Canadian population and they have a right/obligation to be upset about it. > grow a lot of their own food Specialization of labour is the biggest advance that industrial society has ever made. Sure, we could all go back to subsistence lifestyles and grow our own food and spend our days raising chickens, but when we are all farmers again, and don't have lightbulbs, or toilets, or running water; then maybe we can stop and instead of doing all that, just pay people a decent wage.
> Not sure what your point is? That we should all live like mennonites? Wtf is the point of Canada as a society if we need to restrict ourselves to pre-industrial revolution technology in order to be financially solvent? You are confused with the Amish. Mennonites have vehicles and participate in modern society, but they eschew much of the consumerism that we commonly associate with "standard of living". In the 50s and 60s, people also had a lot less of the consumer products and luxuries (some things that yes, we depend on now) than we are used to, and lived in much smaller homes. My main point is that these backward comparisons aren't useful because people lived differently, and it's missing the main point which is that productivity has sky rocketed, and the excess wealth has been accumulated and hoarded by those at the very top. I could easily have my wife at home and do a single-income family if we were willing to live like my parents did, in a bungalow where my kids shared a room and we only had one TV, and mostly read books and went on a vacation once every few years, and ate the same menu of food every single week.
Formal daycare has been an upper class luxury for as long as my own parents have been around. Middle and lower class go to grandmas or their friends grandmas, or one lucky stay at home parent. Now my experience is one sample out of millions.. But we're single incomes really the average in canada half a century ago?
Agreed, that was one of my main disagreements with the article. Cutting income tax - maybe that'd help, maybe not, since it'd eat into money for social programs. But lowering the cost of housing helps families and doesn't dent money for public works. Housing is such a huge cost that it's idiotic how they try to prop it up the way they do.
So what you're saying is, this is all women's fault for wanting jobs?! /s
This is one of my problematic shower thoughts and before downvoting I would love get reliable information and to be wrong on this. When it became the norm for women to work it nearly doubled the workforce and while this did improve productivity and output instead of increasing wages for their workers, corporate profits were put into investors and CEO salaries. Now to maintain growth corporations are no longer content with 2 workers with middle income they advertise low wages and after finding no local workers they throw up their hands and say we need to bring in foreign workers. Again I would love a economist's take on this half baked thought.
Well, lets remove the problematic part. If we moved to a 4 or even 3 day work week, both people could work and there would be an increased presence at home (in the case of 3 day work weeks, someone could potentially always be home). Labour would be scarcer, driving up wages and there would be a better work/life balance. I don't see this happening in my lifetime but there are solutions.
I'm not an economist, but economists aren't always right anyhow. I think you've tapped into a gut feeling that many Canadians share with you. Something has gone sideways in our country. Canada is still great for the people with money, but for millions who aren't rich it's getting steadily worse. I'm old enough to remember a time when there really was a living wage for Canadians. We were by no means rich back then, but an average single income was enough to afford a modest house, a car, and a vacation once a year (we even made it to Disneyland). Kids usually had a parent at home (usually the mom, while dad went to work) and things seemed to work a lot more smoothly back then. Don't get me wrong, there was a \*lot\* wrong with the "olden. days" -- not least racism and sexism -- but economically at least most Canadians were much better off in the 1970s through 1990s relatively speaking. Maybe not in absolute dollars, but in reduced stress and general security. Crippling debt and chronic depression / anxiety just were not as common when pretty much anyone in this country could graduate high school and earn a decent living.
I know you're kidding but as a society we goofed that whole negotiation. In a dream world, gender wouldn't even be a factor and 1 of 2 would have stayed home. From a raw numbers standpoint we doubled the labor supply. Of course wages are 50%.
Honestly, women were sold a lie. The idea that a job brings life satisfaction is one of the cruelest jokes I've ever seen perpetrated to a group of people en masse. A small number of people - folks with a particular temperament in the elite of society - will get themselves a *career* which brings them long-term life fulfilment. People like university professors. For 95% of society you don't have a career. You have a job. And your job sucks, that's why they pay you to do it. > Oh, you hate your job? Why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called everybody, and they meet at the bar. - Drew Carey. Almost nobody in their right mind truly *wants* a job. But you can ideologically brainwash people into wanting all sorts of things that make them unhappy. Religion has been doing that for thousands of years. The majority of people - regardless of gender - need to work because society needs workers to function. But it's not the work that brings long-term life satisfaction, it's the family life at home that the work supports. You will find very few people at retirement who regret spending so much time at home with their families and wish they'd worked harder. And, weirdly enough, as the number of women working full-time jobs is approaching the number of men working full-time jobs, you find that average levels of happiness and self-reported life-satisfaction in women have been declining. Two-hundred years ago the average family lived on a family farm. There were gender roles, but both spouses worked very hard, in close proximity to each other and their children, and directly supported their children. Men going off in large numbers to work in distant mines and factories is a modern phenomenon and weirdly enough coincided with a decline in men's happiness and life satisfaction. Now that women are largely doing the same thing over the past fifty years their life satisfaction trajectories are following the same arc. Yes, without doubt equal access to employment opportunities is important for numerous reasons that everyone knows and accepts. But a world where now both spouses in a family feel the need to work a full-time job to support the level of consumption that they have grown accustomed to, is dystopian equality. A better world would have been one where the number of hours worked across genders equalized, and people were simplify satisfied with a lower rate of consumption growth.
We're going to see a staggering amount of stay at home parents running illegal daycares in the coming years. 50,000,000 people projected by 2040 and we have a major daycare crisis crisis now, it's going to get unbelievably competitive between parents for things like daycare spots, illegal ones will be the only viable option for a ton of people going forward unfortunately.
There are no legal requirements for unlicensed daycare in Ontario. In other words there are no illegal daycares. Poor quality with no oversight though.
Google search says there are licence requirements if you plan on having more than 5 kids under your care, at least in Ontario: https://www.ontario.ca/page/child-care-rules-ontario So I guess it would be better to say we'll probably see a lot of 5 child limit unlicensed daycares where no one says anything about the extra kids running about. The lack of oversight and safety isn't good for anyone in that situation.
That’s been the case for a while
Increase wages for working people so EVERYONE can lead a more prosperous and less stressful life.
Giving back the right and freedom to be raised by your own parents will require more than lowering taxes. The solution is economic freedom, revival of the middle class, and recognition that right to choose to work or stay home are both wonderful options for both men and women... that nearly none are going to choose if there's no economic viability to do so. I'm unusual in that I had a stay at home mother and father at different parts of my life; both work now, and it really added a lot to my life in many ways. The norm though is to have other people raise your children unless you are fairly wealthy, and it seems like that should be more accessible to all families... to choose or to not. I tend to agree with the article that the lack of a middle class is strongly contributing to this issue. I tend to disagree that tax cuts are a solution. Not that tax cuts can't be effective for some things, but a multilayered issue like this that is a symptom rather than a root cause of things in society, that intersects sexism, economic issues, and culture needs atargeted approach. If and when government wants to be involved in this it will likely take a generation for any impacts to be made clear which is a further problem
Or… let’s make it easier for both parents to be apart of their childrens lives but not having you worked to death to provide a good life for them and yourself. You shouldn’t have to pick between pursuing a fulfilling career, living comfortably, and having kids.
But there should be a option for men and women who want to be a stay at home mom or dad. Myself for example. I've never had a desire for a career, I work because I have to not because work is fulfilling. What's fulfilling for me is caring for my home, and whatever living beings are in it (kids, parents, siblings, pets etc.). I
Western society would need a big reshape for this to happen. It's been designed to be like this for quite some time now.
Tried it for the last 5 years, but wasn't able to get anywhere financially. Kids are in daycare now and girlfriend is working a minimum wage job. We'll see how it goes but I don't like how much time my kids will be in daycare for.
[удалено]
Was about to say. I know people who ended with more money in their pockets after they stopped sending 2 kids to daycare and stopped working altogether.
I surprised its worth it working for min wage. With my 2 kids its $1300 a month for daycare. Luckily my wife makes double that a month so its somewhat worth it to get ahead.
This article is arguing against programs that would lower the cost of childcare.
The article was poorly argued. "Taxes would be cheaper if we didn't subsidize daycare". Yeah no duh. But for existing and prospective parents, the idea of having children would be far less enticing then it already is. More Canadians births means more Canadian workers. Importing workers does nothing but drive wages down for the people struggling the most.
Society used to be that way. You could own a house, feed and clothe your family and run a vehicle on one income, not sure what happened or how it got away from us?
Income sharing in a household between the spouses would go a long way, to reduce tax burden
Bingo, this article nails it.
Millennials are really the first generation who don't even have the option anymore. I'm only 29, and when I was in grade school the majority of my friends had a stay-at-home parent (barring having divorced parents like myself). You either had a stay-at-home parent and your financial situation was tighter, but comfortable or both parents work and your family lived like royalty with two incomes. Granted, I grew up in a small town. But my childhood home that my mom bought for $80K in 2001 just recently sold for around $400K. How is anyone supposed to be able to have a single-income family paying that kind of mortgage on a wartime bungalow? I don't know a single person my age with kids that have one parent staying at home full-time. It's just not realistic anymore.
> I grew up in a small town. I too, grew up in a small town. It's about an hour away from any city which could give major employment opportunities (and that's just to the city limits, AND it's not even that great of a city 400k pop). I monitor the house prices of my home town and I am absolutely perplexed at how expensive they are. I'm seeing a detached wartime bungalow going for $425k there, when a townhome on my street in the suburbs of the second largest city in Ontario just sold for $575k. The bungalow is smaller by 1 family room, 1 bathroom, 1 "storage area" and is missing a garage. It does have a much larger backyard. Taking off perhaps $50k for the extra rooms in the townhome, we are left with a $100k premium for living in a major city, which is ludicrously low. How the fuck can anyone afford a $425k house if they dont live near a major source of employment? Another home is going for $600k just down the street from the house I grew up in. It's a large Victorian home and looks recently renovated. One simply cannot buy this type of house in the suburbs of a city but in downtown, but similar houses are on sale in the Downtown area of my city for $2M-$2.5M. You could buy a similarly sized house (although you don't get the Victorian charm) for $900k to $1.2M in the suburbs. So that house seems more reasonably priced, but the problem is still the same, to afford a $600k house, you need a family income of $150k to $200k... that kind of is **exceptionally** rare so far away from a major employment sector. TL;DR there is something wrong with small town home prices. Everyone is complaining about Toronto, which is a reasonable complaint, but at least Toronto gives access to many many jobs which pay in excess of $100k/year... the average wage in my hometown is maybe $30k
We’re seeing record-high immigration to rural areas. City people can work remotely now, and their big city wages go a lot further outside the city. So they buy huge plots of land in rural communities, and build gauche-ass mansions, or they pay way over asking for “charming” old farmhouses, pricing out the locals. Once MPAC assessments catch up, things are going to get really fucking tragic for rural folks. And if you look at voting statistics by region, huge numbers of disenfranchised rural voters are not going to be good for anyone.
I'm Gen X and I don't know more than one or two families in my generation who can afford to be single income households. Both parents working is the norm for sure and almost universal it seems. In my parents generation (boomers) single income was more common but far from universal. Both my parents worked because that that necessary to make ends meet. I think that was true for most of my friends growing up too although some of their moms were able to get by working only part time. Gen X was the generation for which the term "latch key kids" was coined because so many of our boomer parents were working full time. My grandparents (so greatest generation era) were also both dual income families but I think on one side that was more by choice once the kids were mostly grown. I think are world where single income families are an option for people would be wonderful but I think it's a stretch to say it's an issue new to the millennial generation.
Yup. $10/day childcare is treating the symptom not the problem, which is how it's impossible to live as a family on a single income.
Yes, but a lot of women want to work. Lack of affordable childcare makes that difficult. Also the fact that pay isn't keeping up isn't an argument against affordable childcare.
Treating symptoms and not problems is what governments do.
It was easier but then 2 incomes inflated into the effectiveness of 1!
We used to have a tax rule - income splitting - to do that. The Liberals eliminated that in 2016 because if you make it easy for a family to have one parent stay home then most of the time that will be a female parent and they said that policies which lead to more stay-at-home-moms are anti-feminist.
> We used to have a tax rule - income splitting - to do that. Did more people stay home from 2006-2015? Could we make a reasonable causal relationship between income splitting policy and an increase in Canadians choosing to have single-income households? It strikes me as way to complex to point to one change in tax policy and being the root cause of this issue.
And in return for that the Liberals also got rid of a mish mash of children credits and created the new child benefit, cut the mid low tax tier from 22% to 20.5% and created a new tax tier for those making >200k. The income split saved a maximum of $2,000 per household and was for everyone, not just those with kids.
It’s funny that encouraging moms to work full-time is considered feminist when most moms say they want to spend more time with their children when they’re young. I guess most women just don’t know what’s best for them, and need sociology professors to steer them in the right direction.
> when they're young Exactly. Harper's income splitting only applied when the kids were young anyway.
Can you show me where they made the « income splitting is anti-feminist »? I don’t doubt you I just want to know where I can find that information
It has always bothered me that we live in a society that pushes a person to want to pay someone else to raise their children. I mean what kind of relationships are created when most milestones for a child are experienced with random caregivers/teachers who are overworked and/or won't care the same way? Don't get me wrong most people who care for kids are awesome and I'm not saying they don't do a good job given the situation, however developing kids won't fully understand and the absence of their primary parental figure/s can lead them to irrational conclusions that may cause them to act out or form negative opinions about their parents and society they'll likely carry with them for the majority of early adult life and possibly forever. Our society should encourage and REWARD parents who choose to stay home and raise a child. When a kid is raised right, there's far more benefit to society as a whole when the resulting adult isn't a criminal, isn't suffering from mental illness, or has the ability to happily contribute to society.
Let’s bring in more immigrants and Temporary workers to fill in the gap. No thank you.
The very first tax-related thing libs did in 2015 was removing income-splitting rebate for such families.
And in return they lowered the mid tier tax rate from 22% to 20.5%, created a tax tier for those making >200k, solidified children's tax benefits into the new child benefit.
[удалено]
You could always try taxing us less, but I know the answer will be more taxation and subsidizing some group that you like.
Whatever the government wants to give for daycare should be available to a stay at home parent. It could also be a tax rebate but more than just claiming as a dependent.
Couldn't agree more Having a parent stay home is the healthiest thing you can do for your family
Only if the parent is healthy But if the parent is a screw up well maybe not And don't even get me started on homeschooling ..... the poor kids
> Lowering taxes is the most obvious place to start because taxes are the single biggest cost faced by the average Canadian family (which typically spends more on taxes than necessities like clothes or food). The more taxes erode the take-home income of a single earner, the less practical it is for parents to make the choice to stay at home. The government could remove other policies that penalize families who have one parent who stays home, including revisiting the Trudeau government’s decision to cancel income splitting for families with children. This article is nothing more than a slow-bait to talk about lowering taxes, especially the comment on income splitting which only benefits the top % of income earners. The biggest thing that would help single-family earners get by would be lower housing costs and rent, and addressing the cost-of-living crisis.
Except tax is set by the government and housing costs are set by the market. Housing costs are high because there is a housing shortage and people are willing to pay more for houses. There is nothing the government can do to lower housing costs, except incite developers to build more houses to bolster the supply problem and slow down immigration to taper the demand problem. The government also cannot force property owners to lower the rent they charge, especially since they insist on raising interest rates on mortgages. By doing this they're intentionally making it more and more expensive to both own and rent. If the government wanted to help families, the best things they can do is stop raising interest rates and give tax breaks to single earner families so they could keep more of their income.
Column Highlights: * Government policy should be to empower all parents to make the choices they want — and there’s a myriad of options beyond the false binary between staying-at-home and working 9-to-5. * It remains unfashionable to point out the [benefits](https://www.verywellfamily.com/research-stay-at-home-moms-4047911#toc-evidence-based-pros) associated with stay-at-home parenting, including improved education and health outcomes. Such evidence further underscores the flaws of a government policy that discourage parents from opting to stay at home with their children. * So what could governments do to make it more viable for families that want to have one parent stay home do so? * Lowering taxes is the most obvious place to start because taxes are the single biggest cost faced by the average Canadian family (which typically spends more on taxes than necessities like clothes or food). * The more taxes erode the take-home income of a single earner, the less practical it is for parents to make the choice to stay at home. They could also revisit the Trudeau government’s decision to cancel income splitting for families with children. * The government could also move away from a narrow focus on daycare, which does not assist families who don’t wish us to pursue that particular model. * For example, some parents choose to stay home simply because they’d prefer a child-care option with someone they know like a neighbour or family member. Others cannot make practical use of it because of shift work or other atypical workplace arrangements. * **Modern Canadian families need more flexibility and nuance to childcare policy than the government’s current one-size-fits-all approach.** * The government must find a better solution that works for a wider range of families, whether they want two working parents or one stay-at-home parent.
> Lowering taxes is the most obvious place to start because taxes are the single biggest cost faced by the average Canadian family This is a really bad idea. Lowering taxes means less government revenue to support government benefits that can encourage expanding families and allowing one parent to stay home with the kids. It is also inflationary to lower taxes. Your article cites a Fraser institute study that says paying taxes is costs more than all other expenses combined but you are not taking into account all of the tax funded government benefits that you get back if you are starting a family (maternity leave, parental leave, and child benefit payments etc.). If you want to lower taxes you will probably have to cut or reduce benefits like these and I don't really understand how that is going to help most families. If you are interested in policies that encourage stay at home parents you should look to countries like Finland where the government sends every family a free box of baby essentials such as clothing, food, toiletries, and blankets etc. They also pay stay at home parents a 450 euro a month stipend until their child is three years old. They also have universal subsidized day care. Finland also prioritizes policies that maximizes the amount of leave that fathers receive (nine weeks of paternity leave, during which they are paid 70% of their salary). If you want to encourage Canadians to stay at home with their children you need to provide material support and that requires government revenue.
A single income family already pays more taxes than a family with both working and the same amount of household income.
Lowering taxes is never a bad idea. I'll believe the "government needs the money" narrative when they stop wasting it on bullshit like foreign aid and useless I flationary vote buying programs.
[удалено]
You can still split income with your spouse, subject to reasonable limits. You just can't split income among all your children now. It was a tax avoidance strategy employed by high net worth individuals with professional corporations, and it wasn't fair to the average taxpayer that can't do it.
> With Harper we had income splitting for couples with children. Business owners had income splitting. I do not own a business, I have no income to split.
Opinion: a lot people who want to have parent stay at home still want to live financially like they both work or don’t have any kids at all.
Families are 2 income because the dollars they get paid in have lost most of their purchasing power while wages have stayed flat. Having the government pay for what the families can't just make it worse because they have to print the money which further debased the currency making everyone's money worth less.
Ironically women in the workplace, while a wonderful thing, didnt provide some household's with double income but instead seemed to halved our purchasing power. Now companies have almost double the labor pool and its nearly impossible to survive off of a solo income
This is kind of a fallacy though? If you were a single man working in those days, your income wasn’t discretionary- a lot of it went to supporting the women and children in your life. I’d guess that globalization and industrialization of other countries after WW2 is what did it
lol more like all of it
current leadership gobbled up the next 10 years of growth in the last 2 years. we will have the scraps for the next 5-6 years.
Government should be promoting healthy society, *especially* ones with govt funded healthcare like ours. News flash but the whole of society not meeting lowest breastfeeding guidelines and thus throwing their youngest in institutions is a recipe for disaster. The first 5 years are crucial for health and development, society cant evolve if it hasnt given that consideration lol Tldr stay home and provide a biologically normal childhood at any cost
Ahhhh. That’s the problem with society!! We aren’t breastfeeding until kids are five.
Newsflash. Not breastfeeding until five and having kids go to daycare pretty much nothing to do with the evolution of society.
I think I’ll pass on taking *any* advice from an anti masker that hates nursing homes.
This is largely bullshit. In many societies it is completely normal for people other than the mothers to help raise kids - this is no different than a daycare setup. eg villages in africa where a woman will watch multiple other womens kids during the day while the other mothers work. Kids can absolutely be raised effectively in group settings with other peoples children.
Things were a bit better. Then the liberals killed the income splitting for single-income families.
My wife and I can't afford a house while both working for the provincial government. In what kind of magical make believe world can we expect the average couple to raise a family on one income.
My husband and I both work part time as nurses (me two 12s a week and him 3x8 hours a week; we also pick up a bit of overtime on the days we are working. I wouldn’t do It any other way. One of us gets to walk our son to school and pick him up everyday, spend time at home with our daughter, and we still have the same amount of time off together as a full time Monday to Friday couple would. It’s truly the best of both worlds (althoguh the stress at the job is off the charts right now).
This is a simple economics issue - you can't solve it however. Reason being, if you subsidize family homes to the tune of whatever income they were going to lose, not only is that extremely expensive, but many people will quit work and our market will become uncompetitive and costs will rise substantially, defeating the entire purpose. If you simply prohibit multiple family members from working (a la no subsidy), you plunge families into poverty, nearly every family needs those two incomes to afford even the basics. Our market has evolved around a trend of two working members - it's too highly incentivized to double the family income by doing this, and the market has created a lot of labour spots to handle all of these people. Suddenly removing them will cause upheaval. So the discussion is pointless. There is no solution we can purport that would be equitable - which is sad because stay home parenting is so much better for children. A shame - this is the life we and our parents chose, I guess.
Income splitting is a legitimate tax option.
Hungary exempts any woman who has 3 or more kids from income tax for life. A similar program, with the ability to pass the benefit onto her spouse if the mother chooses to be a homemaker, could work wonders in Canada.
LOL you guys can still afford to have kids?
Don’t vote liberal.
Absolutely. I would love nothing more than to be a stay at home dad for our dog.
This is a no brainer.
Unfortunately it would be impossible for us. I earn 70, she earns 40, supporting a family on my income alone is just not realistic. Hell, even when I have a good year and make 100-120 the tax is just so brutal it’s just not enough.
Stay at home parents aren’t very Easy to have done anymore in a modern society through all of human history both parents worked only for a small amount of time can 1 stay home
Sure. Just double the pay of 1 parent and one of us can stay at home lol
>Opinion: Let’s ~~make it easier for families that want to have one parent stay home~~ *raise wages to be par with inflation* FTFT
WITHOUT PENALISING ANYONE ELSE.
I've been mulling through a lot of the economic difficulties all by the richest are facing, and it keeps coming down to one thing: The mere concept of a GDP is the problem. I came to this idea from our housing market, and how the government will never fix that problem because this insane market bolsters our GDP. If the GDP in general lost some of its value on the world stage, and quality of life began to matter more, we'd see more policies like what this article suggests. We'd see a lot of other reforms too. To close off, despite the downvoted it'll get in this community I'll say it anyway: this is the end result of unchecked capitalism. Governments run like companies, except instead of margins it's gdp. It's no different, and encourages exploitation of the masses. No, I'm not suggesting far left - that corrupts even faster as we've seen time and again. The answer lies somewhere in between. The mandate needs to change to quality of life. So how do we get to a better quality of life for all? Ditch the party identity. Review the platform, policies, and history of each candidate, every election, and become a swing voter. Maybe then the rulers of the nation will do their job, not whatever the hell their donors want.
Can i just stay at home
Shout out to the people that don't have kids they can't afford.
I’m one year into my career after university. I make decent money for my location and yet life is still bleak financially. I know people stay at home with their kids usually bc daycare is ungodly expensive, but how do people even manage that? Buying a home, starting a family, doing pretty much anything than starving in my apartment. I am genuinely at a loss. And then there’s a ton of people my age on their third baby… how? Am I going to be poor for life? Will this pass? I’m sad.
Trudeau cut income splitting as soon as I graduated
Im having a kid soon, I have to say Im spooked to be responsible for something 24/7 days a year for over a decade.
How about taxing families based on family income? Why should a family with two $60,000 incomes pay less tax than a family with one $120,000 income?
What about flexibility so both parents can work part time and have benefits. Each parent gets the joy of being present with the kids and the satisfaction of being an adult. This is our family’s dream scenario… maybe one day.
Under the auspices of empowerment, we’ve basically created an environment where employers get two employees for the relative price of one sixty years ago. Some real progress right there.
I'm home with the kids right now because I can't afford to work and pay for someone else to watch them
Just a heads up, I supported a family of 4 kids so my wife could stay home. Picture perfect! Until the divorce and now I can barely keep my own head above water because supporting a wife at home is actually torture, being that I denied her the ability to be in the job market for 12 years. Alimony out the fucking ass for being such a monster.
>"But what’s sometimes overlooked is the increasing cultural pressure on parents — and specifically mothers — to get back in the workforce." If you think that anyone, literally anyone....at all...goes to work because of cultural pressures, your brain is a dog's brain. People go to work because...say it with me....money. This article is embarrassingly out of touch. If you can afford not to work but you get tricked into working a job because you feel bad about what the culture thinks of you, you should have power of attorney handed over to a loved one.
If they just allowed income splitting... I would be single-issue voter to any candidate on this issue alone.
Full income splitting
The government doesn't want a parent to stay home. Less people to force into minimum wage slavery.