-
文章内容
www.fraserinstitute.or...%E2%80%99t
$10 日托是不是财政黑洞呢? 看看(右翼)菲沙研究所的文章.
文中提到的一个研究报告, 指出 QUEBEC 的投入是对经济有利的
www.oise.utoronto.ca/a...ny_eng.pdf
Conclusion
In September 1997, the Quebec government launched a universal low-fee childcare program that initially targeted the 4 year olds and was gradually expanded to cover all preschool-age children (birth to 4 years) by September 2000. Over the past 15 years, there has been a spectacular jump in the proportion of Quebec children in this age group who attend regulated daycare. The percentage has shot up to 53% in 2011 from 18% in 1998. This trend has been unique to Quebec among Canadianprovinces. Elsewhere in the country, the attendance rate in regulated daycare has not changed much. From 1998 to 2008, it hovered around 20% for children aged O to 5.
The labour force participation of Quebec women has also followed a different trend. In 1996, the labour force participation rate of mothers24 was 4 percentage points lower in Quebec than in other parts of Canada. In the last 15 years it has increased more rapidly than elsewhere and is now higher than the national average25• The increase in women employment in Quebec has been particularly marked among mothers of children under the age of 15 and among heads of single-parent families.
Based on our review of existing studies, we have calculated that the low-fee childcare program was responsible for about 70,000 additional Quebec mothers being at work in 2008. We have then estimated that this influx of women in Quebec's labour force led to a $5.1 billion increase in provincial domestic income (GDP) in that year.
More employed women and increased domestic income have had a significant positive impact on government fiscal balances, generating more income and other taxes and lower transfers. We have estimated that that the tax-transfer return to the federal and provincial administrations from the childcare program ranged from $500 million to $2.4 billion in 2008, depending on whether the particular impact considered was direct or global, and whether only the program's static effect was considered or its dynamic effect was taken into account as well.
Finally, we have compared the $2.4 billion overall budgetary return against the program's cost in 2008. We have taken into account that the lower use of the Quebec refundable tax credit for daycare expenses was subtracting some $150 million from the out-of-pocket cost of the childcare program for the Quebec government. Our resulting estimate has been that the net cost of the program was just over $1.6 billion in 2008. One implication is that the direct budgetary impact arising from the program's static effect and benefitting the two governments covered of 31% of its net cost. Adding the dynamic effect and extending estimation to the global budgetary impact, we have found that the program did much better than just pay for itself. Quebec's net expenditure of $1.6 billion generated a favourable budgetary impact of $2.4 billion for the federal and Quebec administrations taken together. The breakdown was $1.7 billion for Quebec and $0.7 billion for Ottawa. One way to sum it up is that in 2008 each $100 of daycare subsidy paid out by the Quebec government generated a return of $104 for itself and a windfall of $43 for the federal government.
Quebec's low-fee childcare program has been financially "profitable" for the two levels of government. This in itself is interesting and reassuring. However, this is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for it to qualify as a "good" program. There is no doubt that the program makes it easier for parents to better balance work and family. But it needs to be recognized that its rapid growth has given rise to various problems. Above all, the demand for subsidized spaces still considerably exceeds the supply. Moreover, the development of new facilities, place assignment rules, the flexibility of operating hours, the quality of educational services (particularly for children from low-income backgrounds), short- and long-term effects on child development, the rate of investment in staff training, and the universal nature of the program are regular topics of debate. Nevertheless, the program is extremely popular with young families, so that it is definitely there to stay. Consequently, these problems must be viewed as challenges to growth that must be met rather than as threats to the program's survival.
$10 日托是不是财政黑洞呢? 看看(右翼)菲沙研究所的文章.
| 分享: |
 分享到微信
|
文章评论
| 回音宝宝 | 无题 2017-04-22 00:59:12 | 引用 |
| 无题 2017-04-22 01:37:13 | 引用 |
回音宝宝 |
| 新茶年华 | 无题 However, the study also found that the program produced, across a range of indicators, substantive negative health and behavioural development effects for children
再说，哪怕免费，你觉得排队多久能进去(现在便宜点的都要排)？ 为了达到不需要排队数年，需要增加多少供应量，什么时候增加，预计开支多少？ 别说是第一次任期结束前增加哈。 是不是黑洞见仁见智，魁省自己都没觉得实行的特别好呢，不是正要按照父母收入给重新阶梯定价么。最后就变成实质是只给低收入托儿补助？ 2017-04-22 04:54:09 | 引用 |
无题
多谢你, 看看, 问问题是多好. 我不是NDP 的发言人, 不能代他们答覆. 要细心看唡党的政网及论据然後思考再决定. 不要只管NDP 提出的都是坏东西. BC 自由党提出的都是好. BC 自由党最失败就是医疗方面. 16 年了. 2017-04-22 05:13:02 | 引用 |
回音宝宝 |
| MyLuckIsBack | 无题
前阵看关于daycare的新闻。 温哥华一个daycare位置要排一年以上，无论价格是多少。 所以，大温的问题不是daycare价格问题，而是没有位置的问题吧？ 要释放劳动力，先要做的是增加位置。 自由党提出的增加daycare位置，才是最直接解决问题的方法吧？ ndp这种政府砸钱，单不解决问题的政策到底有什么用呢？无非就是排队时间增加，而不会释放劳动力。 2017-04-22 10:05:32 | 引用 |
无题
2017-04-22 10:09:11 | 引用 |
MyLuckIsBack |
| MyLuckIsBack | 无题 Ndp的提案都是无视现实状况，光知道画大饼。
daycare如此，房产税也是如此。 不从最基本的供需关系出发，就知道加税，砸钱，不解决根本问题。 2017-04-22 10:11:53 | 引用 |
| 无题 每年1.6 Billion这个数字不算多吗？
port mann 大桥，总造价也就2.5 billion，靠收过桥费也有2年了，到现在还没回本。 还好意思说不是财政黑洞，你以为1.6B的税收随便收收？多容易啊！ 2017-04-22 10:23:44 | 引用 |
cloud_zhou |
| seagirl | Re: $10 日托是不是财政黑洞呢? 看看(右翼)菲沙研究所的文章. 楼主这是和10刀日托杠上了 哈哈
 2017-04-22 10:26:41 | 引用 |
| 无题 要是我想看英文报道，为何来加西呢
2017-04-22 10:33:11 | 引用 |
the604kid |
Researchers have raised concerns about whether these results can be generalized. The initiative was a “hothouse” program with just 58 students, high per-student costs, and an extremely committed and experienced teaching team. It’s not clear whether it is feasible to “scale up” this type of program. Furthermore, the program targeted economically disadvantaged students, a group that experiences (on average) much greater developmental benefits from childcare interventions than other children. In fact, several studies suggest that cognitive benefits of childcare participation for middle-class children generally “fade out” almost entirely by entry into Fourth Grade.
With these caveats noted, the Perry Preschool Project was nonetheless an important research project. It provided compelling evidence that certain types of childcare interventions can bring substantial, long-lived advantages to children in specific circumstances.
However, new research suggests that the opposite can also be true—that certain types of childcare interventions can bring substantial, long-lived disadvantages to children. In 2008, a team of researchers from the University of Toronto, MIT and UBC published an influential study analyzing the impact of Quebec’s “universal” childcare program on maternal labour supply and child development outcomes. The researchers found that the program achieved one of its objectives—boosting maternal labour force participation. This aligns with the findings of other studies, which found subsidized childcare increases employment rates and government revenues.
Recently, the same team published a follow-up working paper (not yet peer-reviewed) that concluded these outcomes were long-lasting. Years later, the program has resulted in higher crime rates (among boys) and higher levels of hyperactivity and aggression. Girls exhibited lower tendencies towards prosocial behaviors including volunteer work and charitable giving. These findings cast doubt on the notion that large-scale, universal childcare programs such as Quebec’s are a panacea to economic and social problems.
Neither the research in Quebec nor the results of the Perry Preschool Project are the final word on childcare and development outcomes. They (and other research) should be considered together, and lead us to recognize that our understanding of these matters remains incomplete. Despite claims from activists that “the evidence shows” subsidized childcare will bring long-lasting benefits to children, the reality is that the evidence is mixed. Just as skeptics of childcare subsidies must accept the results of the Perry Preschool Project, proponents should not reflexively dismiss the research from Quebec simply because it does not advance their agenda. To state what should be obvious—the socialization of children is a complicated subject that we don’t understand with the type of scientific precision that some childcare activists suggest.
The research from Quebec raises valid questions about whether that province’s model is one that the rest of the country should emulate, and should at least give us pause before rushing into a “one-size-fits-all” solution. Instead, families and communities should be encouraged to experiment, and pursue arrangements that suit them best while researchers continue the important work of furthering our understanding of how different types of childcare programs can influence child development.