Proposed Liberal child benefit calculator

[angrypenguin]

They make $95k. They don't need further tax breaks.

And it's up to you to decide? At what point does someone need a tax break then?

$95k and having to raise children? That's not a lot of money post tax.

[ToadBrother]

And it's up to you to decide? At what point does someone need a tax break then?

It's up to Parliament to decide.

$95k and having to raise children? That's not a lot of money post tax.

I raised two children on a lot less than that, even in adjusted dollars.

[Bonam]

It's up to Parliament to decide.

I raised two children on a lot less than that, even in adjusted dollars.

Yes and people get by on $30k without additional tax breaks, too.

I think everyone here is too focused on some kind of absurd pissing match about how frugal they think they are. People can get by on less than a dollar a day in some parts of the world, for that matter, so should we simply say "move there" to any Canadian who might not mind a tax break, as Squid suggests?

The point is that whether one is talking about $30k or $90k, neither of those comes anywhere close to falling into the category of rich/wealthy in Canada, and therefore some kind of holier-than-thou scoffing about why such people should get a tax break is just nonsensical.

[Bryan]

I in fact personally know people that use their children as a bank account. It's terrible and sad, but it is reality and not that uncommon.

Unfortunately, so do I. Talk people who work in social services in Manitoba, their case loads are filled with people who do this very thing.

[The_Squid]

And it's up to you to decide? At what point does someone need a tax break then?

$95k and having to raise children? That's not a lot of money post tax.

Not up to me to decide... but I'm allowed to have an opinion.

$95k is plenty of coin.... they should pay their fair share of taxes like other people.

[angrypenguin]

Not up to me to decide... but I'm allowed to have an opinion.

$95k is plenty of coin.... they should pay their fair share of taxes like other people.

And that means how much?

[socialist]

And that means how much?

I know I will benefit from this delicious little goody from the Liberals to the tune of about $600/month.

[cybercoma]

I had two kids

My condolences about your loss.

[angrypenguin]

What a waste of money.

If you can't afford kids, don't have them. And yes, in this case, I disagree with the Conservative plan on this topic as well.

[BC_chick]

It benefits any family where the spouses would be in different tax brackets if taxed individually.

The benefits received by the lower brackets is minimal, the lions share of the loss of revenue for CRA goes to wealthy Canadians. The richer you are, the bigger your advantage. By the time you get to the average and below average earners, the benefit is barely a blip.

[BC_chick]

$95k in a place like Vancouver is so so far from wealthy.

In west van, you need a combined family income of over $300k/year to buy a house. In most of the city it's well over 100k but that's if you want a detached house. Vancouver is a metropolitan city, having a detached house in any major city is becoming unattainable.

Truth is 95k is not bad. You can still live comfortably in a townhouse close to the city. And if you don't like the high cost of living in an urban city, then squid is right, you can always move. Lots and lots of families are doing that in order to buy their detached dream.

[dialamah]

Living in Surrey on $45,000 per year, working in Vancouver for a hour-long commute. I have a mortgage, a car (loan), a dog, eat pretty well, can afford the occasional luxury. $90,000 seems like a fortune to me. If you can't afford kids/house on $90,000 a year, you are doing something wrong.

[angrypenguin]

Living in Surrey on $45,000 per year, working in Vancouver for a hour-long commute. I have a mortgage, a car (loan), a dog, eat pretty well, can afford the occasional luxury. $90,000 seems like a fortune to me. If you can't afford kids/house on $90,000 a year, you are doing something wrong.

Like it was said, post your T4 or we don't believe you

[hitops]

Having kids is not a lazy person's best choice, imo. I had two kids, and that was more than enough for me .... not even the promise of "more money" would have made me more interested.

Sure, when you care about your kids like you and I, kids end up being a lot of work.

My volunteering experience in my city's roughest area has left me without a doubt that many parents simply do not. If you feed your kids pop and put them in front of the tv, and just don't do anything when they are upset, and let them wander outside whenever they want at any age, then actual energy output into parenting is incredibly little.

Women, even the irresponsible welfare bums that conservatives think are so rampant in our society, do not use a child-welfare calculator to determine if they should have 5 kids or 6....

Due largely to my firsthand experience as mentioned above, I can tell you without a doubt that they do. Ghetto native moms have told me directly (I volunteered at an inner city program in the core) They may not know how to do math, but they have long known that more kids gets you more of that sweet government gravy. All modes of accumulating quick income to hit the liquor store, are very well understood, I can assure you. People know a lot about their priorities.

I want them to have the means to feed and clothe their children because

They don't though, that's the sad truth. More pokey will not change that, it will just mean they will still not feed their kids good food or properly cloth them. They will just spend more on their own priorities, largely related to their own short-sighted self-indulgence. If you don't know these people or have never lived with/around them, that is why you may not believe that.

There is a reason the vast majority of lottery winners end up in exactly the financial position they started within a few years.

Let me rephrase. Someone in Vancouver making $95k needs a tax break just as much as someone living in rural areas making $30k.

What that person needs is luggage. It your choice where you live, other people should not pay for your choices.

Edited November 1, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

The benefits received by the lower brackets is minimal, the lions share of the loss of revenue for CRA goes to wealthy Canadians. The richer you are, the bigger your advantage. By the time you get to the average and below average earners, the benefit is barely a blip.

No wilber is right, it really doesn't benefit the wealthy as much as middle class people who want to have a spouse at home. Because the cap is $2000, that amount really makes a difference to the guy making a middle income + wife making low income (part time work typically) whereas it doesn't mean much to the wealthy.

[ToadBrother]

What a waste of money.

If you can't afford kids, don't have them. And yes, in this case, I disagree with the Conservative plan on this topic as well.

You have a choice. Lots more migrants, and even there a dwindling pool of skilled migrants, or handing out money, one way or the other, to Canadians to have more kids. The situation as it stands will lead to a demographic crisis within 25 years.

[BC_chick]

No wilber is right, it really doesn't benefit the wealthy as much as middle class people who want to have a spouse at home. Because the cap is $2000, that amount really makes a difference to the guy making a middle income + wife making low income (part time work typically) whereas it doesn't mean much to the wealthy.

CRA loses about 2.4 billion a year from income-splitting. 43% of that amount goes to the top 20% of the population (140K+/yr). For those with $45K or less, the piece of the pie is 0.3%.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/distribution-of-income-splitting/article21382406/?from=21382476

Edited November 1, 2015 by BC_chick

[G Huxley]

More stupidity the government should be promoting people having less children. Humans are a hideous species.

[BC_chick]

Well, Huxley, that's a whole other argument and while I do agree that humans are generally a hideous species, a society needs a rate of 2.1 kids per couple in order to maintain itself. Canada is set to have, for the first time ever, the same amount of senior citizens as children under the age of 14. That's not good for your future and one way or another, we need more Canadians.

Having said that, income-splitting goes mostly to those who need it least, and that's definitely nothing but more bribing for Harper's base.

[G Huxley]

I disagree that a society needs 2.1 kids per couple to maintain itself. Why can't a society exist while lowering the population even significantly?

"we need more Canadians."

I couldn't disagree more.

Edited November 1, 2015 by G Huxley

[Guest]

Humans are a hideous species.

Yeah, I'm with you on that.

[BC_chick]

I disagree that a society needs 2.1 kids per couple to maintain itself. Why can't a society exist while lowering the population even significantly?

"we need more Canadians."

I couldn't disagree more.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but the main consensus amongst economists who study these things is that you need a working population to support an aging population.

[G Huxley]

Ecology before unsustainable pyramid economics.

Economics think in terms of how much money can be made. Seldom do they think of the consequences of their models.

[hitops]

Ecology before unsustainable pyramid economics.

Economics think in terms of how much money can be made. Seldom do they think of the consequences of their models.

I take it you will stop consuming and lead by example?

[G Huxley]

Also regarding the childcare benefit. Why should people who are doing the right thing and lowering the population by not having children having to pay for others to have children?