Showing posts with label daycare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label daycare. Show all posts

Friday, February 08, 2008

Ed Promises More Temporary Workers

Another unrealistic election pledge by Ed leader of the Party With No Plan. Like his more doctors pledge, this too relies on hiring more temporary workers from other countries.


Premier Ed Stelmach made a campaign stop in Red Deer today
to announce daycare help for families, but a group of moms who were watching say they were not impressed.

Stelmach promised minor improvements to the Family Employment Tax Credit, but he couldn’t tell more than a dozen moms at the daycare centre how much they would save.

The premier also promised that his Tories would help private groups and others create 14,000 new child care spaces over three years, but again the moms were skeptical.

Stelmach says even existing daycares have trouble attracting and retaining staff, so he says foreign workers would be recruited for Alberta’s new daycare spaces.

But several moms at the campaign event later said they’re reluctant to send their children to daycares where the staff are not adequately trained or don’t speak English.


Gee aren't those called nannies?

And as this Liberal Blogger points out, those daycare spaces were already paid for by the Liberal Federal Government. Talk about recycling Ed and the Tired Old Tories truly are the green party when it comes to announcing nothing new, and nothing they could not have done in the past twelve months.

And apparently the Tired Old Tories are making promises they have not calculated the costs for, again. Tax breaks for instance that do not pay for real out of pocket costs of daycare.

Sharlene Dolan, who has a two-year-old daughter, says she doubts the premier’s announcement will have any significant impact on the $875 a month she pays for daycare.

"OK, he's going to cut our taxes, right, but it still doesn't put a cap on the daycare [fees]," said Sharlene Dolan, who pays $875 a month for her daughter's care. "It can sound really good right now on paper but if the daycare costs go up it doesn't help," she said.

The Tory promise focused on changes to the Family Employment Tax Credit, which Stelmach said would help up to 170,000 families with tax credits ranging from $639 a year for one child to $1,685 for four or more children.

Stelmach could not say how much money those families would receive as a result of having those additional deductions on their tax returns.

These guys cannot budget nor do they seem to know what a calculator is for.



SEE

Padrone Me Is This Alberta

Alberta's Free Market In Labour

The Labour Shortage Myth

Baba Sitting

Feminizing the Proletariat

Build It And They Will Come


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , ,

, , , , , , , , , , , ,
,, , ,, , ,

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

The ABC's of Privatizing Daycare

Coming to a city near you, sooner than you think; state subsidized Big Box Day Care. Not public non-profit daycare but private for profit daycare.


- A multinational chain that some day-care advocates warn will bring a big-box concept to Alberta child care has started shopping for day-care centres in the province.

Now will our 'pals for child care choice' be outraged? Somehow I doubt it.

Edmund Groves is CEO of Australia-based ABC Learning Centres, which has aggressively expanded into jurisdictions where governments provide generous payouts to offset child-care costs. Tens of millions of those public dollars have contributed to ABC profits.

In a 2006 report by the Australian Institute, a respected Australian think-tank, researchers said poor food quality and cost-cutting have compromised quality even as ABC has amassed a fortune from public child care subsidies given to parents.

The report was based on a survey of employees at daycares across Australia. The report singled out ABC, saying that despite an estimated $172 million in government subsidies, the daycare giant fell short in most areas of quality care when compared to community based, non-profit centres.

The report said the chain did not always serve nutritious food (one staffer interviewed called the food "atrocious"); did not always provide enough quality toys and equipment (toys often have to be purchased from an ABC-owned company); and hired only the minimum number of staff required by law. It notes daycare teachers "are required to do all the cleaning themselves as well as care for the children."


In Alberta clearly the Tired Old Tories don't care.
Jody Korchinski, spokeswoman for Alberta Children's Services, said foreign and chain ownership (of daycares) are not concerns of the government.

In Alberta the government has always favoured private operators, baba sitting, anything but publicly funded, public day care.

With 65% of day care provided by private owners in Alberta why would the government care about corporate Big Box Day Cares making a profit off of parents and taxpayers. The government has one of the worst records for enforcement of regulations of private operators who have faced scandals over the past number of years.

But this big box operator from Australia is not pursuing the small private daycares, it is after the publicly funded not for profit sector. One entrenched it will then eliminate by sheer size the small operators not unlike the capitalist model it is built on; Wal-Mart.

And after all it's just another form of the Tired Old Tories beloved P3's .

Of course it is inevitable that if a corporate monopoly like Australia's ABC takes over in Alberta it will wipe out both private and public daycares. It fulfills the dictum of the market; capitalism exists to concentrate capital through monopoly.

It isn't known exactly how many operators are selling their facilities, but day-care operators say they have heard nine centres in Edmonton and even more in Calgary are being sold to 123 Busy Beavers Learning Centres, which is affiliated with the Australian-based day-care giant ABC Learning Centres.

In Edmonton, officials with the Garneau/University Child Care Centre received a letter from Adroit Investments LLC of North Carolina informing them that "we might have an interest in purchasing your child-care centre."

The letter says that if they are interested in selling, they should contact Adroit, and if the centre meets its criteria "we will make you an offer that may be of interest to you ...

"We represent a financial group buying child-care centres in Alberta. We have been contacting and purchasing child-care centres in Alberta since January of this year.

"If we have spoken over the phone over the past six months, please take this time to really think about what you want out of your business."

Meanwhile, a Calgary jobs website has listed postings for child-care workers on behalf of 123 Busy Beavers. Calls to a toll-free number on the Busy Beavers website were not returned.

Mark Davis, a representative of Adroit in Charlotte, N.C., wouldn't say who his company represents.

But an e-mail from Adroit to a B.C. child-care centre refers to websites for 123 Busy Beavers and for ABC's parent company, 123-Global.

The message also contained an Australian fax number.

Child-care advocates are sounding the alarm since learning an investment firm called Adroit Investments LLC has contacted local child-care operators in a bid to buy them out.

The Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C. traced the company back to 123-Global and A.B.C. Learning Centres, a private Australian child-care corporation that's gotten flak in several countries for monopolizing child-care and providing minimal services to cut costs.

Meanwhile, some child-care providers approached by Adroit wonder if they will be able to compete.

"We've known about them for years," said Susan Harney, operator of Country Grove Children's Centre in Langley. "They build up what they call critical mass and put other programs out of business."

Harney has already rejected Adroit's advances and wants others to do the same. "Our child-care system is not for sale," she said. "The focus needs to be on providing good service, not making a profit."

The Groves daycare empire has grown with remarkable speed in the past few years.

Recent purchasing raids into the U.S. and U.K. have made Groves's kiddie care empire the largest in the world with some 2,400 daycares in its stable and a ticker tape value of more than $2.5 billion.

Corporate records show three ABC-related companies – ABC Acquisitions, 123 Global and 123 Busy Beavers – share a director named Donald Jones.

ABC Acquisitions and 123 Global, two companies that scout out international growth opportunities for ABC, share the same Brisbane address where Groves's ABC Learning Centres was also headquartered until recently.

A report by Citigroup analysts last year reported a close corporate lineage between Groves's ABC Learning and Jones's ABC Acquisitions.

It says the acquisitions arm finds daycares appropriate for international expansion and then sells the properties to ABC.

"We believe the purpose of the `arm's length' arrangement is to enable the (daycare) licence to be categorized as an asset in (ABC's) balance sheet," the report concludes. "Once a decision is made to proceed on a centre, (ABC) are committed to acquiring the centre."

The report also says ABC's development team is looking to expand into Canada.

Corporate records also show other signs of Groves's interest in Canada.

In August, Groves and several other ABC executives incorporated a company called ABC Canadian Holdings in Brisbane, which lists ABC Learning Centres as the sole shareholder.

A Groves spokesperson said ABC Canadian Holdings "is a dormant company with no assets and no trading."


In practical life we find not only competition, monopoly and the antagonism between them, but also the synthesis of the two, which is not a formula, but a movement. Monopoly produces competition, competition produces monopoly. Monopolists are made from competition; competitors become monopolists. If the monopolists restrict their mutual competition by means of partial associations, competition increases among the workers; and the more the mass of the proletarians grows as against the monopolists of one nation, the more desperate competition becomes between the monopolists of different nations. The synthesis is of such a character that monopoly can only maintain itself by continually entering into the struggle of competition.

Karl Marx
The Poverty of Philosophy
Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy



SEE

Mrs. PM Stay At Home Mom

Thank the Conservatives

Just The Facts Ma'am

Correction Child Care For Seniors

Feminizing the Proletariat

Whose Family Values?


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , ,

, , , ,

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Mrs. PM Stay At Home Mom



Barbara Smith of Calgary shares something in common with Laureen Teskey aka Mrs. Stephen Harper. They are both professionals from Calgary. One has chosen to be a stay at home mom the other supports her right. Barbara's business is lobbying for tax credits for stay at home moms. Which would include 'professional' working moms; like Laureen.


Laureen Teskey Harper runs a graphic design business from the Harper/Teskey home,

Laureen Teskey, 42, wife of newly-elected Prime Minister designate Stephen Harper is by profession a graphic designer who used to run a thriving design firm in Calgary.

In fact, Ms. Teskey, who now also goes by the name of Laureen Harper, met the her future husband when she was a member of and graphic designer for the Canadian Reform Party, of which Harper was a Member of Parliament for in the 1990s.


Real working women, the majority of Canadian women, professional or wage slaves, support their families by working out side the home .

They don't have the luxury of choice, like Mrs. Stephen Harper nor of benefiting from Barbara's tax breaks.


Engendering the State: Family, Work, and Welfare in Canada -
by Nancy Christie - 2000 - Political Science - 480 pages


See:

Bank Union

Paleontologist Versus Paleo-Conservatives

Feminizing the Proletariat

UN Report Says We Need A Living Wage

Whose Family Values?



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , politics,, ,
, , , , ,

Tuesday, May 08, 2007

Flaherty Flip Flops

Okay so when will the Conservatives back track on their failed Child Care program and reinstate funding for actual child care spaces. Oops that of course affects only Martha, Henry and the kids, not corporations and CEO's.

Flaherty backtracks on tax measure

In a reversal, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says a new controversial tax measure will be rewritten to ensure that legitimate Canadian corporations can continue to invest abroad and deduct the interest charge from their taxes.

Under pressure to back down from a "sleeper" measure in the March 19 budget that Canadian businesses said would cost them more than $1 billion and make them less competitive, Flaherty confirmed yesterday that draft legislation being prepared by the finance department would ensure that the provision only went after tax havens and so-called double dipping.

Flaherty blitzed on Alcan bid

Nevertheless, news yesterday of Alcoa Inc.' s US$33-billion takeover bid for Alcan turned up the heat once again on Mr. Flaherty and his proposed move to limit companies' ability to deduct interest on foreign financings.

Tax specialists, business groups, blue-chip chief execdutives and think-tanks have weighed in in opposition to the move. The government has said the proposal would end the practice by some Canadian-based firms of obtaining two or more deductions for interest expenses incurred to finance offshore operations.

Last month, Richard Evans, Alcan CEO, said in a published interview that the tax change could make the aluminum maker susceptible to a foreign bid because it would hinder Alcan's ability to grow through foreign acquisitions.

SEE:

Gildan Sweat Wear

Tax Fairness For The Rich


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , ,

Monday, March 26, 2007

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Correction Child Care For Seniors

A correction on my post yesterday about Child Care and Seniors here is what Harper actually said;


Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): previous intervention next intervention
Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the government has been investing in areas of core federal responsibility like national defence, international trade, security and direct assistance for Canadian families.

On the other hand, it is interesting to note what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do. He wants to kill pension income splitting for seniors. He wants to repeal our tax cuts, including the GST cut. He votes against anti-crime legislation. He wants to take away the child care benefit from seniors, to scrap the softwood lumber agreement, to rip up military contracts and all the benefits to Canadian firms in all regions. We do not want to go back.


Apparently in Harpers New Canada only seniors are having children. Wow biotechnology sure has come a long ways.

See

Daycare


Childcare



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Child Care for Seniors


In response to a question from Liberal Leader Stephane Dion in QP, PM Harper rattled off the programs his government has instituted since last year when they were elected.

Which included "the Child Care Credit for Seniors" he said.

See I told you their universal child care benefit was for baba sitting.

See

Daycare


Childcare



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,



Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Tax Fairness For The Rich


Income Trust investors were given the bums rush last fall when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that the Conservatives were breaking their promise and taxing this lucrative tax loophole. But wait it was just an announcement they still haven't come up with a policy yet. Canada's income trust bill not ready yet

And so the reason for the rush to judgement on Income Trusts? Why they booted Garth Turner out of caucus only the week before. And then they adopted his policy on Income Splitting which they had denied was a priority prior to October 31. It is all political optics.
In an attempt to appease upset investors, the government said it will increase the seniors tax credit and allow income splitting. “Pension income splitting is a major positive change in tax policy for pensioners and seniors,” Flaherty told the committee.


Because so far Flaherty has not come up with any more evidence of Income Trust impacts on the tax system than what his Liberal predecesors had found. Suspicious that. Of course the rush by big Canadian corporations to become income trusts and avoid corporate taxes caught the Tories off guard.

The boys on Bay Street gave them the bums rush so they returned it in kind. Caught off guard they rushed to judgement and gave Bay Street a Halloween trick while promising retirees and seniors a special treat; income splitting.

This is the key element of the Conservatives tax fairness plan; Garth Turners idea of Income Splitting. Which is neither fair nor good policy, but like the GST cut it is good political optics. However like the Income Trust policy it is still only speculative. Income Splitting is not a reality, yet.

Lobbyists suggest the signals are strong that the minority government could muster enough support for pension-splitting plan. But getting it passed may be complicated because it is likely to be treated as part of a package of measures that includes its controversial plan to phase out tax breaks for income trusts.



Those advocating for income splitting are the same right wing lobbyists like REAL Women, who lobbied for the Tories Child Tax Bonus and opposed daycare funding. They want tax credits for living at home moms with kids. That is they want taxpayer to pay for wealthy folks who can afford not to work two jobs. They do not want to pay for other folks daycare being the greedy parasites they are.

A 34-year-old Kemptville, Ont., woman with three kids at home and a husband commuting to a computer job in Ottawa is the chief organizer for the Parliament Hill conference Turner hosts Tuesday.

Sara Landriault, national coordinator of Care of the Child Coalition, says spouses who care for children at home, the vast majority being women, should be paid through the tax system for their work.

She acknowledges a sobering fact a sobering fact Turner himself discovered in a research paper he commissioned from the Library of Parliament. Though he calls the income-splitting scheme a tax reform for the middle class, the library document shows it is actually the upper - maybe upper-upper - classes that would benefit most.

"Sure, they pay more taxes, they're going to get more of it back," says Landriault.

And that doesn't even take into account lone-parent families, the majority of whom are headed by a woman and many of whom live below the poverty line, says Martha Friendly, one of Landriault's staunchest opponents and co-ordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto.

"Low-income single mothers, they don't get anything out of this," says Friendly, noting with apprehension that Turner's own research shows the move would take $5 billion out of federal revenues when it's combined with income-splitting for pensioners. "It's cutting taxes for people who have more money."

Critics of the idea also point out it will do little or nothing to help low-income singles or couples who arguably need help the most.

But John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation stresses that higher-income couples shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.The weight is especially heavy for single-earner families.

Well duh they earn more they should pay more taxes. But of course that's the right wings definition of class warfare, taxing the rich. Because only those who are wealthy can afford to have an unemployed spouse living at home.

You may have heard the recent news from the Census Bureau that as of 2005, and for the first time in recorded history, more than half of all adult women are living without a spouse. There are plenty of implications that arise from this latest finding, but as the New York Times points out, contrary to popular perception, this so-called “marriage gap” isn’t about gender, but instead, it’s about education and social class -- women with lower socioeconomic attainment are less likely to marry than women with higher socioeconomic attainment.

And to add insult to injury the folks who will benefit the most from income splitting of pensions will not be widows, the largest group of single pensioners in Canada and the poorest, or the average working class family but those who can afford to retire early or retire and continue working.


Tax relief -- at what cost?

Income-splitting is a vote-getter that would save middle-class families billions of dollars a year in taxes, but experts say that doesn't make it sound fiscal policy. MPs inside and outside the Conservative party are urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to lower taxes in his upcoming budget by allowing couples to combine their incomes and divide the tax load. Some experts are saying the cost of income-splitting -- anywhere from $3 billion to $5 billion a year -- could blow a hole in the nation's finances.

Tax fairness is rhetoric for tax breaks for the rich and wealthy in Canada.

Rules for this year's biggest financial-planning treat will discriminate in a tricky and illogical fashion among those who have yet to turn 65. That the treat is tricky may explain why Finance Minister Jim Flaherty chose Halloween to announce his plan, but not why he used the term "tax fairness."

He plans to let many couples save taxes by splitting income more equally between the two partners, starting with 2007 tax returns. This golden opportunity will not be restricted in a simple fashion to those of a certain age, income or work status. Instead, eligibility will depend on the type of income.

This is unfair. At one extreme, we could have a former deputy minister splitting pension income as early as age 55, while also collecting a pay cheque from a new job. Yet, an unemployed retiree who never contributed to a pension – or was forced out before qualifying – would have to wait until age 65 to split income.

Basically, you would need to receive monthly payments directly from a registered pension plan, or be receiving income as the surviving spouse of a deceased member of a pension plan in order to split income with a spouse or common-law partner.

Here's how a finance department spokesperson explained the rationale for discriminating on the basis of income type, rather than a person's age, employment status or, say, one's eligibility for a lifetime income.

"The purpose of the age 65 requirement is to target the pension income credit to retired individuals. Individuals have much greater personal control" over when they withdraw money from registered retirement savings plans, registered retirement income funds and life income funds as opposed to registered pension plans.

"Without the age 65 eligibility rule, many individuals who are not retired could gain significant tax advantages well before they attain age 65 by arranging to withdraw money each year as RRSP annuity or RRIF income while still saving for retirement.

"Individuals in receipt of (registered pension plan) income, on the other hand, generally have little control over the timing of their pension payments; they usually only receive such payments when they are retired."

The problem with the line of reasoning is that many pension recipients can and do retire before age 65, and they can and do find new jobs. That can particularly include former police officers, teachers, armed services personnel and civil servants. They collect both a pension and a paycheque or consulting fees.

Meanwhile, others who do not collect a pension could find themselves unemployed and having to rely on their savings.


See:

Income Trusts

Tax Avoidance

Tax Fairness

Flaherty

Garth Turner

Pensions

Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,