Tax Single Mothers

-1=e^ipi · July 5, 2015

Maybe more fathers would support their children if the burden wasn't so unrealistic.

Well many young males are simply opting out altogether. Thus MGTOW and soshoku danshi.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

Well many young males are simply opting out altogether. Thus MGTOW and soshoku danshi.

So why not give me a tax credit for doing the right thing? Or do I have to do the right thing and still pay 15 000$ in income taxes to support all the people who decided to do the wrong thing and now my children won't have the opportunity to develop skills.

-1=e^ipi · July 5, 2015

So why not give me a tax credit for doing the right thing?

Because you are a man and men have inherently less value in our society; so as a result you are supposed to work yourself to an early grave to support everyone around you for the sin of being born male. That's just the way of our society.

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

Yes. Men don't matter. Congrats for propagating traditionalist gender roles and the idea that men aren't allowed to complain about things or have feelings. I bet you feel super manly about yourself now from protecting the innocent women from the evil men online who want to have feelings.

WIP · July 5, 2015

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.

Well, you missed the point I am trying to make that the welfare of our children....all children, not just the ones we have produced ourselves....will have positive or negative impacts on the welfare of the whole society. If poverty increases...more children are raised in poverty....grow up in stressed out dysfunctional families without a proper diet, education, parental and social nurturing etc. etc..

Many of them will fall through the cracks, cost the system because they are prone to addiction, are more likely be chronically depressed or have other psychological issues that make them virtually unemployable....so by allowing social darwinism to take its course, we inevitably end up with greater financial and social burdens in the long run....not to mention the greater likelihood that many of the young men who are 'products of a broken home' will turn to crime as a career goal.

So, in the real world even Scrooge ends up paying for society's failings, because if Scrooge goes out without his bodyguard, he'll get cracked over the head or carjacked!

msj · July 5, 2015

Yes. Men don't matter. Congrats for propagating traditionalist gender roles and the idea that men aren't allowed to complain about things or have feelings. I bet you feel super manly about yourself now from protecting the innocent women from the evil men online who want to have feelings.

I didn't say any of that about men.

But for d-bag men who end up getting garnished? I have no sympathy.

msj · July 5, 2015

Well, you missed the point I am trying to make ...

So, in the real world even Scrooge ends up paying for society's failings, because if Scrooge goes out without his bodyguard, he'll get cracked over the head or carjacked!

And you are missing mine: as one who ends up paying for all of this I get a say as to how much handout is going to be in the form of CTB, UCCB, WITB, tax credits etc... and how much will be in the form of paying for police, health care and other services.

I think Canada gets the balance about right now and think both you tax and spenders (of other people's money) and austerians can take your ideas about spending my money or your ideas about providing for the poor of our society and shove them.

Yes a tax on single mothers is a stupid idea.

So is giving them thousands more in benefits when they already receive thousands in the first place.

WIP · 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.

I've gone back to my interest in paleo-anthropology recently, and once we wade through the social darwinist crap and blather from the likes of Stephen Pinker and others who curry favour of corporate sponsors, the consensus story in anthropology still tracks along the same lines as what I read 40 years ago...that our hunting and foraging ancestors were highly socially conscious (we're the only primates that share food), were generally peaceful even with dealing with other groups, did not develop hierarchies...even male hierarchies. And since most of our history as a species has developed during our ancestors' experience of hunting/gathering family bands, this would determine what is normal for us on a psychological basis/ not the majority of societies we have developed since civilization began...and certainly not the trends towards radical individualism and self absorption we have had since the TV - internet age began.

So, it seems most of what we have today is a sick society, and the levels of physical and mental illness would indicate that most of us are not coping very well with life in our brave new world, and a lot of the reason would be that we've got a lot of cranks who have decided what's bad is really good and we need more of it!

-1=e^ipi · July 5, 2015

.that our hunting and foraging ancestors were highly socially conscious (we're the only primates that share food), were generally peaceful even with dealing with other groups, did not develop hierarchies...even male hierarchies. And since most of our history as a species has developed during our ancestors' experience of hunting/gathering family bands, this would determine what is normal for us on a psychological basis/ not the majority of societies we have developed since civilization began.

Please tell this to the feminists that are convinced that men were oppressing women since the dawn of time.

bush_cheney2004 · July 5, 2015

...So is giving them thousands more in benefits when they already receive thousands in the first place.

Which is exactly why welfare reform in the U.S. cuts them off after 5 years on the gravy train. So cruel...so heartless...yet so effective.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

I've gone back to my interest in paleo-anthropology recently, and once we wade through the social darwinist crap and blather from the likes of Stephen Pinker and others who curry favour of corporate sponsors, the consensus story in anthropology still tracks along the same lines as what I read 40 years ago...that our hunting and foraging ancestors were highly socially conscious (we're the only primates that share food), were generally peaceful even with dealing with other groups, did not develop hierarchies...even male hierarchies. And since most of our history as a species has developed during our ancestors' experience of hunting/gathering family bands, this would determine what is normal for us on a psychological basis/ not the majority of societies we have developed since civilization began...and certainly not the trends towards radical individualism and self absorption we have had since the TV - internet age began.

So, it seems most of what we have today is a sick society, and the levels of physical and mental illness would indicate that most of us are not coping very well with life in our brave new world, and a lot of the reason would be that we've got a lot of cranks who have decided what's bad is really good and we need more of it!

Thats why Harpers plan to reward hardworking responsible families is brilliant.

The other parties all opposed it saying it helps the rich. Well it's true, but it's there reward for not drinking , not doing drugs, paying their bills, being responsible, and not blowing all their money at the casino, Going home every day and making supper, having a clean loving family environment.

I'm sure we would all love to be partying all the time still, but we don't, Because it's wrong.

It's like a action plan, But , to stimulate good behaviour with tax breaks. If we're going to borrow money to stimulate the economy. You might as well give it to people who behave responsibly and are raising their kids properly.

And it's accessible to everyone, all you have to do is stop making bad decisions.

If someone decides to be a burden on our society because of bad decisions he makes, They should pay more taxes. Not be rewarded with money to help them with their difficult situation they have made for themselves.

The same way that if you bare no burden on society because of your responsible behaviour, Government should give you a tax credit, For that.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Freddy

Wilber · July 5, 2015

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?

Cry me a freeking river. My wife was also able to stay at home until our kids got into their early teens. We would have been farther ahead financially if she haden't. I spend a couple of grand a year on music lessons for my grand kids and several thousand more for extra schooling for one who got left behind in reading and writing by the public system. None of it is tax deductible. I guess I should be saying poor me but in fact I am bloody grateful that I have been fortunate enough to do it. I don't think I deserve some sort of special consideration for doing things that have made my and my family's lives better.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

Cry me a freeking river. My wife was also able to stay at home until our kids got into their early teens. We would have been farther ahead financially if she haden't. I spend a couple of grand a year on music lessons for my grand kids and several thousand more for extra schooling for one who got left behind in reading and writing by the public system. None of it is tax deductible. I guess I should be saying poor me but in fact I am bloody grateful that I have been fortunate enough to do it. I don't think I deserve some sort of special consideration for doing things that have made my and my family's lives better.

Ok then , the hell with it. Screw the kids, let the government take care of them. . Why should I deprive myself of having as much fun in this lifetime as possible acting responsible . It's not like I'll be alive when the country is all screwed up.

That's what parents in Canada are saying everyday.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Freddy

cybercoma · July 5, 2015

As for me, why not reward me for my good behaviour for sticking to my responsibility and supporting my children by not being a dead beat father?

Maybe more fathers would support their children if the burden wasn't so unrealistic.

Because. This isn't a "reward." It's the government helping to give children the best opportunity possible when they're born into situations beyond their control. What makes you think this is some kind of "rewards" system?

Hal 9000 · July 5, 2015

As Dr. Phil would say; People tend to do what works for them...and that includes single mothers.

-1=e^ipi · July 5, 2015

I didn't say any of that about men.

But for d-bag men who end up getting garnished? I have no sympathy.

You implied that all people classified as 'dead-beat dads' are inherently 'd-bags' and went on to say that they deserve no sympathy.

You also propagated the traditionalist gender concept of 100% of agency being on males with your claim of 'not keeping it in their pants' when there are two parties that consent to sex, not 1. Not to mention men have no reproductive rights in our society, such as the right to opt out of parenthood if one did not consent to parenthood. Right now consent to sex = consent to parenthood for males in western society.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

Because. This isn't a "reward." It's the government helping to give children the best opportunity possible when they're born into situations beyond their control. What makes you think this is some kind of "rewards" system?

Why not make it into a reward system? It's accessible to every parent, Everyone's got the capacity to behave responsibly. And then the kids would get what they need . Parents that are responsible with money in their bank accounts

That's Harpers plan

Or we can continue to bailout bad parents so they can continue being irresponsible. Sinking money into a endless pit, without getting any positive results.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Freddy

msj · July 5, 2015

No, I have clearly called out only those dads who have their wages garnished.

Read what is written and drop your own bias if you want to discuss this matter further because I no longer bother trying to have discussions when this much intellectual dishonesty is on display.

msj · July 5, 2015

Why not make it into a reward system? It's accessible to every parent, Everyone's got the capacity to behave responsibly. And then the kids would get what they need . Parents that are responsible with money in their bank accounts

That's Harpers plan

You get lots of rewards: kids to look after you when you get older, tax subsidized schooling into University years (including the transfer of education and tuition tax credits), RESP's (with lots of tax subsidies thrown in), family tax split, UCCB for all.

Freddy · July 5, 2015

No, I have clearly called out only those dads who have their wages garnished.

Read what is written and drop your own bias if you want to discuss this matter further because I no longer bother trying to have discussions when this much intellectual dishonesty is on display.

why? Because stimulating the economy by subsidizing good responsible parents is way to intelligent for most Canadians?

Freddy · July 5, 2015

You get lots of rewards: kids to look after you when you get older, tax subsidized schooling into University years (including the transfer of education and tuition tax credits), RESP's (with lots of tax subsidies thrown in), family tax split, UCCB for all.

ive never voted conservative in my whole life , but I'm not afraid to speak up when a prime minister comes up with something brilliant

-1=e^ipi · July 5, 2015

No, I have clearly called out only those dads who have their wages garnished.

The circumstances that lead to someone's wages being garnished can be very complex. You generalize this group as d-bags that don't deserve sympathy. I'm not misrepresenting what your write.

Edited July 5, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

-1=e^ipi · July 5, 2015

Because. This isn't a "reward."

Cybercoma, do you not see how having low income people out breed the rest of the population is problematic? Not just to creating larger income inequality in a generation but in terms of the long run implications for the species?

From Idiocracy:

Edited July 5, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

msj · July 5, 2015

why? Because stimulating the economy by subsidizing good responsible parents is way to intelligent for most Canadians?

Sure, but single parents need help.

I'd rather give the $ to a single parent in need than a rich couple who don't need it. Which is what the CTB system does do

The UCCB and the family tax split gives the $ to everyone whether they need it or not.

msj · July 5, 2015

I spend a couple of grand a year on music lessons for my grand kids and several thousand more for extra schooling for one who got left behind in reading and writing by the public system. None of it is tax deductible.

But but but Harper has given the tax credit for arts and fitness!

You could save a whole $75 or even $150 for some of those lessons (assuming they qualify etc etc a whole bunch of stupid rules for a lousy tax credit so that some CRA agent sitting in Winnipeg who makes $65,000 per year can then look at the receipts to disqualify your tax credit).

Freddy · July 5, 2015

Sure, but single parents need help.

I'd rather give the $ to a single parent in need than a rich couple who don't need it. Which is what the CTB system does do

The UCCB and the family tax split gives the $ to everyone whether they need it or not.

Single parents need to:

1: work harder on keeping their relationship working.

2: be more careful in picking their partners so that the relationship is not impossible.

3: assume the responsibility of their failure to do so, and live with those consequences.

Edited July 6, 2015 by Freddy