Tax Single Mothers

WIP · July 4, 2015

What does this statement even mean?

Do you mean "passive aggressive" policies like the Child Tax Benefit? Or the Universal Child Care Benefit?

Let's look at a scenario:

In Canada we have a system where, in BC, a single parent who earns, say, $25,000, and has a 5 year old kid, will pay less than $100 in income tax, get about $3,750 of Child Tax Benefit, get the $1,200 UCCB amount, get the GST credit of $687 and the BC Climate credit of $231.

The responsible single person making $25,000 per year gets to pay tax of $2,177, does not get any CTB nor UCCB (of course not, no kid), gets about $415 for the GST credit and $116 for the BC Climate credit.

IOW - the single parent gets $5,768 (net) whereas the single person pays $1,646.

That's a swing of $7,414 for having the kid.

I think many liberals and conservatives agree that enough is enough.

Yes, to tax a single parent is dumb - leads to unhappy and unhealthy relationships.

But to continue to ask for handouts from us working stiffs who have to live and pay for our choices while paying for their choices too, is getting a bit long in the tooth in the age of birth control.

And, I haven't looked at what the numbers are here in Ontario, but I'll assume it's similar and totally moot! Because if you don't accept that a civil society carries shared burdens, and one of the big ones is providing the best possible outcomes for our children...ALL of our children, then we have no common ground to discuss it further.

I don't have kids in school anymore, but I still pay for public schools, and I hope we continue to have a decent public school system rather than the defunded mess that the U.S. has made of their education system. Because education is also part of ensuring that the next generation has a good start in life.

These are things that should be everyone's responcibility/ NOT just those who are raising children. Because when you retire, you're going to be depending on those children to fund your CPP and subsidize your nursing home if you make it to an advanced age where you are no longer able to look after yourself!

In the end, it boils down to what kind of world we want to live in. Personally, I don't want to live in Ayn Rand Universe! Our detour into the world of "selfish egoism" has gone on long enough, and it's time to reverse course before we join all those other species of animals heading for extinction right now.

Edited July 4, 2015 by WIP

WIP · July 4, 2015

President Bill Clinton, loved by American liberals and wannabes in Canada alike, stopped the federal welfare gravy train:

Not every American liberal...and certainly no real leftists either, because like Obama, Billie was a centrist sellout to the benefactors who've made him and Hillary rich (100 million since leaving office). Clinton carried out a few liberal social policies (just like Obama), but most of his agenda...the money issues...picked right up where Reagan and Bush 1 left off.

msj · July 4, 2015

And, I haven't looked at what the numbers are here in Ontario, but I'll assume it's similar and totally moot!

But they are not moot.

People are clueless as to how much they are paying ( hell, the people receiving are clueless as to how much they are receiving) and that kind of ignorance has to stop.

Sure, easy for me, a guy who does hundreds of taxes for a living, to know how much tax I pay (with no transfers received) versus other people but it is not hard for people to know how much one makes (including government transfers) and budget accordingly.

I think a net transfer of $7,400 is sufficient in the case I laid out above.

I also think that any kind of guilt trip put on me, a guy who works hard to pay for that parent's transfers, the kid going to school, and for the grandparents OAS pensions, is foolish.

We must be considered and while I agree we should not be taxing single parents we should not be giving them more than they already are being given.

It's a fine line between helping out and making people dependent and I think we are too close to the dependency line.

Which is not to say I wouldn't get rid of the UCCB and plug that money into the CTB system or other such reforms.

Hal 9000 · July 4, 2015

lots of ppl waiting for babies. We just take them from the mother right after birth and tell the pre screened parent to come pick up their child.

Just stop! That could never and would never happen. Even the topic of forced birth control is met with outrage.

What could help is giving the fathers a better chance at custody, these young single moms know that there is very very little chance of ever losing their children, in fact, sometimes the more pathetic the mother is, the more money and respite she gets.

Shady · July 4, 2015

Why should lefties be the only ones that get to tax things they deem undesirable?

PrimeNumber · July 4, 2015

Why should lefties be the only ones that get to tax things they deem undesirable?

Probably because the righties never want to tax anything?

cybercoma · July 4, 2015

Just stop! That could never and would never happen. Even the topic of forced birth control is met with outrage.

What could help is giving the fathers a better chance at custody, these young single moms know that there is very very little chance of ever losing their children, in fact, sometimes the more pathetic the mother is, the more money and respite she gets.

The fact is that fathers rarely apply for custody. A good many of them are content to just walk away from their kids, leaving the mother to care and pay for the child herself. MRAs are always going on about all these men who've lost custody of their children, but do nothing to address the far greater number of deadbeats who don't support their children.

cybercoma · July 4, 2015

Probably because the righties never want to tax anything?

And when they do, they come up with completely asinine ideas like a single-mother tax.

Shady · July 4, 2015

Probably because the righties never want to tax anything?

They don't wanna tax anything? Or they just don't want high taxes?

Shady · July 4, 2015

And when they do, they come up with completely asinine ideas like a single-mother tax.

Why do you get to propose taxes on things you deem undesirable, but others can't?

cybercoma · July 4, 2015

Why do you get to propose taxes on things you deem undesirable, but others can't?

Why do you think criticizing your proposal as exceedingly boneheaded means you don't get to propose it? Please. Propose away.

PrimeNumber · July 4, 2015

They don't wanna tax anything? Or they just don't want high taxes?

They don't want high taxes on themselves. They don't care about anyone else.

bush_cheney2004 · July 4, 2015

Pretty easy to care about someone else while spending someone else's money.

On Guard for Thee · July 4, 2015

Pretty easy to care about someone else while spending someone else's money.

Is that like when governments use other peoples tax money to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations...

cybercoma · July 4, 2015

Is that like when governments use other peoples tax money to give tax breaks to wealthy corporations...

Or when governments used other people's money to give him a paycheck when he was in the military?

Yeah. It's exactly like that.

Canada_First · July 4, 2015

Just stop! That could never and would never happen. Even the topic of forced birth control is met with outrage.

What could help is giving the fathers a better chance at custody, these young single moms know that there is very very little chance of ever losing their children, in fact, sometimes the more pathetic the mother is, the more money and respite she gets.

Of course it could happen. People said that Canada was for Britons only too at one point and now it's a utopia for coloured and black people.

Wilber · July 5, 2015

Shouldn't I be taxed less? Shouldn't I be rewarded for my ability to make good decisions?

Why should you be rewarded for doing something for yourself? Do you think bad decisions should be the norm? Methinks you are the one with the sense of entitlement.

The same way we shouldn't tax children to help out others.

Tax them 100%. See how much you get.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

Why should you be rewarded for doing something for yourself? Do you think bad decisions should be the norm? Methinks you are the one with the sense of entitlement.

I'm saying that bad decisions are the norm in our population, because we are sheltered by our government from the consequences.

Wilber · July 5, 2015

I'm saying that bad decisions are the norm in our population, because we are sheltered by our government from the consequences.

Oh, I guess that makes you special.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

Oh, I guess that makes you special.

Let me ask you the same question but from the other side of the coin.

Why does the government spend tax money "rewarding", sheltering Canadians from the consequences of their bad decisions they intentionally take???

Are we not, in the process, rewarding irresponsible behaviour???

If I want to help irresponsible people I'll donate time and money to a charity. Why is government using taxpayers money for charity without giving me a tax receipt???

Edited July 5, 2015 by Freddy

Wilber · July 5, 2015

Let me ask you the same question but from the other side of the coin.

Why does the government spend tax money "rewarding", sheltering Canadians from the consequences of their bad decisions they intentionally take???

Are we not, in the process, rewarding irresponsible behaviour???

If I want to help irresponsible people I'll donate time and money to a charity. Why is government using taxpayers money for charity without giving me a tax receipt???

The purpose of societies is to look after each other, to act for the common good, not just the wealthy and privileged. Perhaps you should study a little history and learn what the world was like before there was any kind of social safety net. People just cast aside when they could no longer work or fend for themselves, imprisoning people for debt. You can see versions of it in many third world countries today.

It seem to me that you couldn't give a crap about your fellow man and wouldn't voluntarily donate to anything unless someone gives you a tax receipt.

Bone headed ideas like taxing the parent who is actually raising the child, not the one that isn't.

bush_cheney2004 · July 5, 2015

The purpose of societies is to look after each other, to act for the common good, not just the wealthy and privileged. Perhaps you should study a little history and learn what the world was like before there was any kind of social safety net....

This seems to be contradictory, as "societies" most certainly did not act for the common good throughout history. Arguably, they still don't even with so called "safety nets". The "purpose of societies" is to leverage human capital and relationships for many things, not just the common good.

msj · July 5, 2015

Bone headed ideas like taxing the parent who is actually raising the child, not the one that isn't.

Exactly right.

I support how we garnish dead beat dads (and it is almost always the dads) wages.

Have a few single moms as clients and nothing is more satisfying than seeing those d-bags having to pay child support whether they want to or not. Just couldn't keep it in their pants I guess.

Better yet, child support is non taxable to the mother and non tax deductible to the father. Boo hoo hoo to them.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

The purpose of societies is to look after each other, to act for the common good, not just the wealthy and privileged. Perhaps you should study a little history and learn what the world was like before there was any kind of social safety net. People just cast aside when they could no longer work or fend for themselves, imprisoning people for debt. You can see versions of it in many third world countries today.

It seem to me that you couldn't give a crap about your fellow man and wouldn't voluntarily donate to anything unless someone gives you a tax receipt.

Bone headed ideas like taxing the parent who is actually raising the child, not the one that isn't.

If my burden as a responsible father of 3 children and a stay at home mother and paying taxes to care for all the irresponsible drunks and drug addicts wasn't so heavy.

Maybe I'd have a little time and money left to donate to my less fortunate fellow man. But as I've dedicated every ounce of my time an money to barely making ends meet with my own responsibility, I rather the government lessened my tax burden, so that the ones that count on me to feed them can have opportunities to enjoy their childhood with as many educational experience as they should have.

For you it's more important for government to take care of a homeless drunk drug addict then for a parent to have enough money to give their childrens the chance to develop musical/artistic/physical skills?