UCCB payments - vote buying

[hitops]

Did you get the check for your vote today? I don't recall a more blatant vote buy in recent history.

The response from the Liberals and NDP: But we will pay you even more for your vote!

[TimG]

Did you get the check for your vote today? I don't recall a more blatant vote buy in recent history.

Why is it any different than a party that promises to expand daycare or raise the minimum wage? Isn't that vote buying or does that term only apply when conservatives do it?

[hitops]

Why is it any different than a party that promises to expand daycare or raise the minimum wage? Isn't that vote buying or does that term only apply when conservatives do it?

Try reading the entire post.

[TimG]

Try reading the entire post.

Sorry, the one sided media coverage on this topic has been grating....

[Argus]

Did you get the check for your vote today? I don't recall a more blatant vote buy in recent history.

I can. That would be Justin Trudeau's promise to tax anyone making over $150k a year more so he can give the money to those making only $89k a year.

These poor people need my government's help! They're trying to get by with four year old cars and only one southern vacation a year!

[Big Guy]

I do not understand why this payout should cause people to vote for Harper. He has already given you back a bunch of your own money through this UCCB so what would voting for him and his party in the coming election - because you owe him something?

The money has been sent. If he loses he can't get it back. You won't have to pay it back - so why vote for him?

[Topaz]

The way the Tories are doing this is a form of another scam. How?,,,, They are getting as many families to signup for this and depending on the income of the family, some are going to be pushed up to another rate of income taxes, bringing the feds more money in revenues and they are of course, hoping to buy more votes, using the voters money. This 3 Billion, part of it was taken out of the feds emergency fund, for national disasters etc. and the worse of it, Canada could be on the edge of another recession. I have no problem with families getting the money for the kids, but I do, for the income splitting for the upper crust. Why didn't the Tories make it "tax free" money if they really wanted to help families?

[Black Dog]

The way the Tories are doing this is a form of another scam. How?,,,, They are getting as many families to signup for this and depending on the income of the family, some are going to be pushed up to another rate of income taxes, bringing the feds more money in revenues and they are of course, hoping to buy more votes, using the voters money. This 3 Billion, part of it was taken out of the feds emergency fund, for national disasters etc. and the worse of it, Canada could be on the edge of another recession. I have no problem with families getting the money for the kids, but I do, for the income splitting for the upper crust. Why didn't the Tories make it "tax free" money if they really wanted to help families?

Uh: because they don't really care?

[Keepitsimple]

Why didn't the Tories make it "tax free" money if they really wanted to help families?

Don't think you'd want to do that - because lower income families pay little or no tax - making it virtually tax-free.....while better-off families pay tax according to their own incomes. Isn't this the result that others seem to want - take from the "rich" and give to the poor?

[On Guard for Thee]

Uh: because they don't really care?

Ad because robbing the rainy day fund obviates the chance any other party could figure it into any form of election promise.

[msj]

Don't think you'd want to do that - because lower income families pay little or no tax - making it virtually tax-free.....while better-off families pay tax according to their own incomes. Isn't this the result that others seem to want - take from the "rich" and give to the poor?

Um, no.

It would have been better, for lower income people, to simply plug more money into the Child Tax Benefit system.

Instead, the CPC came up with a system that started giving people $1,200 per year for a kid under 6.

Anyone with a kid gets that money regardless of income.

The poor people may get it tax free if they are not taxable.

The low income people may have to pay tax on it at 15% (federal) plus whatever the amount is for provincial (~5% in BC).

Rich people may pay tax on it at the high rates - 29% federal and ~16% in BC for ~45% for 2014.

So, the rich person gets $1,200 but pays tax of $540 so they are still getting $660.

Under the CTB system the rich person would not get anything because their income would be too high so all of the CTB would be clawed back thereby leaving more money in the pot and available for lower income families.

ETA - I should also mention that very few families would pay tax at 45% for a married couple.

Few married couple have both spouses at the top marginal tax rate. Usually you have a spouse making $150,000 and the other either not working, or making something like $30,000.

The UCCB is taxed in the hands of the spouse who has the lower income.

In this case, the couple with family income of $180,000 has received that $1,200 and are paying tax on it at the same rate as the couple where each spouse makes $30,000 each.

Edited July 21, 2015 by msj

[Keepitsimple]

Um, no.

It would have been better, for lower income people, to simply plug more money into the Child Tax Benefit system.

Perhaps there are better ways....... I was simply responding to Cyber's suggestion that it all be tax free........my point to that was poor people pay little or no tax - but "rich" people do. Your point of the lower-earning spouse in a "rich" family is valid - but that doesn't negate the fact that the poor pay little or no tax. Not perfect - but not unfair.

[msj]

Perhaps there are better ways....... I was simply responding to Cyber's suggestion that it all be tax free........my point to that was poor people pay little or no tax - but "rich" people do. Your point of the lower-earning spouse in a "rich" family is valid - but that doesn't negate the fact that the poor pay little or no tax. Not perfect - but not unfair.

I don't know what is fair or not.

But the CTB system is more "progressive" and the UCCB system is more "regressive."

Not to mention also more bureaucratic (with having to mail out those RC62 payment slips so that Canadians properly include the income on their tax return - how lame).

You and other CPC supporters try to poo-poo this but the facts are the facts: had Harper simply just plugged the cash into the CTB system and adjusted the threshold levels then lower income people would have more money and rich people would not be getting any.

[On Guard for Thee]

When you consider the elimination of the child tax credit and then claw back the income tax on th UCCB, it's not going to amount to much more than a hill of beans for a lot of folks. But it makes for a bit of good fodder for Mr. Polyester to stump around headig to an election, but only if you are fooled by smoke and mirrors.

[Remiel]

You should all see the disgusting way the Conservatives are trying to get people to personally contact Harper and Poilievre on Twitter to tell them they got their cheques. As if they gave a fuck if you got your cheque except insofar as they can use psychological tricks to sucker people into voting for them.

[August1991]

You should all see the disgusting way the Conservatives are trying to get people to personally contact Harper and Poilievre on Twitter to tell them they got their cheques. As if they gave a fuck if you got your cheque except insofar as they can use psychological tricks to sucker people into voting for them.

So, it's bad if ordinary, poor people receive money from the State.

Yet, that's what Leftists want: the State as Robin Hood.

=====

My conclusion: this has nothing to do with Robin Hood, rich or poor.

In Canada, Harper is a WASP, a boss, an anglo, a white guy, first born: Team A.

This is simply Team A vs Team B.

[msj]

My conclusion: this has nothing to do with Robin Hood, rich or poor.

In Canada, Harper is a WASP, a boss, an anglo, a white guy, first born: Team A.

This is simply Team A vs Team B.

No, Harper wants to get votes from anybody and everybody so he bribes anybody and everybody.

Whether it is good policy to give a family making, say, $180,000 per year $160 per month for a kid under 6 and $60 per month for kid over 5 is the question.

I would prefer that family not get the money (even net of tax).

This would leave more funds to be used for lower income families.

Even better, eliminate the UCCB altogether, just make it the CTB system and save millions each year in unnecessary bureaucracy costs since the UCCB adds inefficiencies (such as the already mentioned mailing out of millions of RC62 forms).

But no one knows how the system really works apart from some bureaucrats and tax accountants who get to see it.

Edited July 21, 2015 by msj

[August1991]

No, Harper wants to get votes from anybody and everybody so he bribes anybody and everybody.

And what does Trudeau Jnr want?

What, msj, is "democracy"?

[msj]

Democracy is opportunistic politicians squandering resources because stupid voters only understand basic terms like "tax cut," grunt grunt, "transfer for child," grunt grunt "transfer for being an old person," grunt grunt " "free" health care/education/services" etc...

[msj]

Oh, and one more thing on this: Harper is eliminating the Child Tax Credit while bringing in the "enhanced UCCB" for kids over age 5.

In other words, a family may see an extra $60 per month.

But pay tax on that at, say, 30% and now you are only really receiving $42 per month.

Then do up your tax return with the eliminated CTC.

On an annualized basis it looks like this:

Gross amount received $720.

Less tax ($216)

Less CTC - eliminated ($337.50)

Net amount received $166.50.

So, $13.88 per month, give or take depending on the marginal tax bracket, to buy votes.

Talk about cheap.

Edited July 21, 2015 by msj

[hitops]

I can. That would be Justin Trudeau's promise to tax anyone making over $150k a year more so he can give the money to those making only $89k a year.

These poor people need my government's help! They're trying to get by with four year old cars and only one southern vacation a year!

I'd say that one is numerically bigger, but this one is more blatant. Direct check in the mail, right before election.

The sad part is the other parties problem with it, is that it is not big enough.

[Smallc]

July is always when you start receiving any benefit changes from the federal government. It has nothing to do with the election.

[msj]

July is always when you start receiving any benefit changes from the federal government. It has nothing to do with the election.

Of course.

But Harper knows this.

And they know that no one will notice the Child Tax Credit going until they do up their taxes next Spring when all of a sudden people are getting smaller refunds or have to pay income tax for 2015.

And the people won't be able to put two and two together even though it is all right here for them.

[nerve]

I didn't even know they started letting children vote - its their money rights, its just the parents who have the bank accounts right.

What about giving the cheques to the kids directly, as I recall they are paying out right until normal kids graduate from highschool. That 10 dollars a month after taxes could go for buying a couple comic books or condoms, for the teens who want to fight the deficit for their children.

They should just provide direct benefits to kids, Gclothing, GFood redeem coupons- could be used for Northern Food Grant coupons too. Meanwhile the people with money could be given the old tax credit and stop moving money back and forth.

It is just a shell game.

The only way that the money can be put to the place it needs to be is to make sure the money is only spendable on the things that need to be provided, and that is by providing them.

Government should never be handing money out if there is an alternative, that is the only way it will stop extoring money from people.

I think calling this vote buying quite lame, but the UCCB wasn't around in the past to insure good nutrition for everyone so, you know, hell maybe it will buy some votes, but anyone who looks at this critically should see that a $10 a month benefit is only going to really buy votes in Bangledesh or Guyana or other third world country, regardless of where Canada is headed under Conservative Government, the same people who would be bought by this lumpsum will have forgotten about it buy the time October roles around, of course tax season will be months later when they realize that most of it has to be paid back at the end of the year oh and after Christmas debt season.

July is great though, maybe they can Vacation somewhere close by with the Canadian dollar depressed heavily?

Things will turn around but calling this vote buying to anyone who sees the whole program is pretty insulting. A 1% GST cut vote buying. $10 a month for your kid, while they take a few thousand that same month, not so much.

[msj]

The perceptions is that people are getting $60 more month more (so $160 per month) for their kids under 6 and are now getting $60 per month for their kids over 5 ( which is new).

The government is going all out talking about this while conveniently not mentioning the fact that they have removed the CTC which will raise a person's income tax by $337.

Of course, conveniently one will only notice this sleight of hand, if at all, come the spring time when doing up their tax return.

It is too convenient and it is perfectly acceptable for any one to criticize the stupidity of the UCCB system and how it is manipulated around elections.