Alternatively, the government could give day care vouchers to parents of toddlers, which they could either cash in at a day care for services or for cash if the parent will care for the child at home. Why could we not give summer school vouchers too, based on the sime idea. This could help parents, especially poorer parents and single parents, while creating jobs for day care workers and teachers, possibly construction workers, electricians, etc. if new schools need to be built, etc.
Sounds more like a plan to subsidize homeschoolers and the fringers who think society should pay/subsidize them to keep on having huge amounts of children.
Why on earth would there need to be schools built in your scenario, which is part of the reason, i think you are floating a ploy to fund homeschoolers and stay home moms.
People do not need to paid to keep their children home, thank you very much
You metioned the frindges, so I assume you're referring to the religious frindges. A simple solution would be to prohibit the money going to religious schools. As for stay home moms and home schoolers, those are two different things. If we're talking about children under 5, I don't wee why a parent couldn't keep the child at home to teach him. If the concern is about subsidizing families with one working parent, then just prohibit the voucher from being cashed in for money, and only for the day care. If the parent doesn't intend to use it, then he gets no voucher.
As for over 5s, of course educaiton should be compulsory. So just say that the voucher cannot be cashed in by home schoolers. Simple as that.
Considering Canada's low birth rate though, I don't see why we wouldn't want to encourage more births anyway.
Or some other similar idea. At least that would be preferable to subsidizing the middle-to-upper class in their gas-guzzling car purchases.
Seems like you are more against the auto industry, aka unions, than subsidizing the poor, as your idea would not work for the poor, a national day care program however, would.
Seems we're talking past each other. I'm not against unions, but am against subsidizing select groups. How does the man who got laid off from Joe Bloggin's toy factory benefit from the subsidies to the car industry? And how do failing restaurants during the recession benefit from subsidies to the car industry? I simply believe that what applies to one must necessarily apply to all. In a just society, there ought never be subsidies to a select industry or union, etc. The government ought to always benefit all equally. Universal improvements to education and training for the unemployed and no subsidies for any industry would achieve just that. A subsidy to this or that particular group violates that principle. For example, I had my hours cut considerably during the recession, but since I wasn't in a unionized auto industry, I did not benefit from the bailout. ANd since I'm not interested in buying a car anytime soon, I did not benefit from a subsidized car purchase either. So, pray tell, how does subsidizing X but not Y conform to the basic principle of justice in your mind?
As for universal daycare, that's exactly what I was suggesting. Though a Swedish-style voucher programme, however, it could provide more freedom for parents to choose the school that would benefit them. If we wanted to limit the voucher programme to public schools or daycares only, it would still be a beneficial programme by pressuring public schools to compete with one another thus making them more responsive to parents.