Jump to content

Pat Coghlan

Members
  • Posts

    316
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Pat Coghlan's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/17/germany.merkel.multiculturalism/index.html?hpt=T2
  2. Tip: If you like shows that aren't archived as podcasts (e.g. Lowell Green), pick up a copy of Replay A/V and record the stream on your PC for later download to your iPod etc.
  3. I agree almost 100% with this statement...although I disagree with the amount of tax incentive that would be needed. An extra $500/month of after-tax income would tip the balance for MANY families to keep a spouse at home. I'd be happy with ANY tax incentive to encourage more families to have a spouse stay home. Can you think of ONE tax advantage that has been given to families that use an at-home spouse to look after their kids in the past 25 years? ONE? Forget tax ADVANTAGES; the government doesn't even want to tax families with at at-home spouse THE SAME as their dual-income counterparts. No, in fact they pretty much always pay more...up to $5K-$9K more, depending on income. The government is hell bent on treating everyone as an individual in all aspects of the tax system...unless you try to apply for 50% of available child tax benefits as an INDIVIDUAL who happens to be married. In that case, you are forced to combine your income with your spouse's and apply as a FAMILY. Government policy is not about increasing the birthrate. It's about keeping both parents in the workforce and handing out childcare goodies to capture working women's vote. The remaining 30% of families with an at-home spouse can go to hell and be happy with their $100 "beer and popcorn" extravagance for each under-6 child.
  4. You're assuming that a family with 3+ kids has the time and energy to also keep 2 full-time jobs...even with flexible hours etc. It won't work. We have 5 kids, so I know what I'm talking about...and my wife is working part-time, after being at home for 12 years. If you want larger families, you need to help families have a spouse stay home...possibly for years. That means, for starters, stop taxing the wage earner essentially the same rates as a single person with zero dependents. Show me 1,000 families with both spouses in the workforce, and I will show you 973 families with 2 kids or less.
  5. Many European countries have great child care subsidies, but they also have lots of DIFs (dual-income families) and therefore low birth rates. It's very difficult to have 2 spouses in the workforce and also have more than 1-2 kids. If you ever want higher birthrates, you have to make it possible for more families to have a spouse at home...at least until all the kids are in school.
  6. Just saw this today: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1292044/ I wonder if benefits for stay-at-home parents of twins will be doubled also. Oh, I forgot. Double zero is still ZERO.
  7. It's very simple. Families with 2 spouses in the workforce will rarely produce more than 2 kids. If you want a higher birthrate, you have to make it easier for families to have a spouse at home. In Canada, we continue to tax individuals, yet we qualify families for benefit payments based on their FAMILY income. If you want to even attempt towards creating a more tax-friendly environment for families with children, you start by either creating a joint tax return - as they have in the US - or allow each spouse to claim 50% of available benefits based solely on his/her individual income...which for stay-at-home parents would be zero. Actually, I'd go a bit further and ask the government to at least take a position on whether they want larger families or not. That would make it much easier to judge whether tax policy is in line with stated objectives...which currently do not exist. If nothing changes, then please don't complain when you try to sell your home in 20-25 years and only get a fraction of what it is worth today.
  8. Surely though, not having asked for status at the consolate/embassy is surely going to work against you when you try to claim status AFTER arriving in Canada. We already turn claimants back at the US border and tell them to apply from outside Canada.
  9. Just curious. Does having a visa pretty much kill off one's case for claiming refugee status (i.e. is there a "I'm not a refugee" tick box on the visa)?
  10. I did my part (5 kids), but if more kids is the objective, Canada's tax policy needs to change so that more families can have a spouse at home. Unless that happens, nothing will change.
  11. What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years? http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/...html?id=1753221 Hint: Immigration isn't going to solve this problem.
  12. We have to artificially pump up yet another government number for political purposes only? http://www.ottawacitizen.com/StatsCan+agai...2259/story.html
  13. Well, she pretty much stayed at home her whole life and raised 3 sons (lawyer, neurologist and chemist PhD) on her husband's salary which I'm sure was always fairly low (accountant in a small firm). What I praise about the US system is the way they tax families, i.e., where total income and number of dependents is the same, tax liability is the same.
×
×
  • Create New...