New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Recommended reading, economic debates, predictions and opinions.
Flaccidsteele
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4523
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 12:52
Location: Retired Gen Xer somewhere on the planet earth

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by Flaccidsteele »

Spidey wrote: I've heard childless people on call-in radio shows complaining about paying for benefits of those with children since I was about 8 years-old and that was almost 50 years ago.
I had no idea the complaints around child benefits have been around for so long.

I never had any issue paying taxes to support this when I was childless.

It's natural that people who have more want more. It's human nature.
kombat wrote:
Spidey wrote:Just out of curiosity. What benefits would you like?
I would say, in my ideal world, it would be more about reducing/eliminating overly-generous and unfair benefits targeted at other demographics, than adding new ones specifically targeting my and my wife's situations.
This comment is odd because it suggests that it's more about reducing/eliminating benefits for other demographics and not so much about targeting your particular cohort, but you also said that there's nothing targeting your particular cohort?
kombat wrote:...when there is nothing at all targeted at hardworking, dual-income, child-free families like my wife and I...
Did you want something targeted at "hardworking, dual-income, child-free families" like you and your wife? Or no?
Last edited by Flaccidsteele on 20 Aug 2016 13:32, edited 2 times in total.
gobsmack
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 447
Joined: 04 Sep 2015 13:16

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by gobsmack »

Spidey wrote:Lets say after government breaks* given to families that comes to $200,000. (Just a rough guesstimate.) That means that you and your spouse/partner should be $400,000 better off than a couple with 2 children over 18 years. And if you consider university costs that many parents either pay or subsidize, the real difference is often somewhere around $600,000.
And eventually these kids will enter the workforce and start contributing back to our economy hence benefiting our Canadian portfolios (including kombat's). A low birth rate could be a future drag on our economy. The parents who are raising children today are helping ensure our future prosperity.
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

Koogie wrote:
And there are many others who quietly feel the same way as you but, as you can see here, it is pointless debating the issue either here or in general society anymore when so many feel so entitled to the fruits of their votes.

To trot out and amend an old truism: "“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his baby bonus/home reno credit/public transit credit salary depends on his not understanding it.”

A decade ago when Dingwall made his famous utterance many laughed because it was seen as an expression of the grasping greed that epitomized the worst of the elite political class in this country (or even just of his own party if you are partisan).
I for one think that a decade after his gaffe, his attitude is now, sadly, widely embraced in the attitudes of mainstream Canadian society. There are many snouts in many troughs and with each election cycle more are added. It is how votes are won and the ill-informed influenced.
It's pointless to debate here because the income level and demographics here don't lend themselves to understand what it's like to live in a situation where social benefits are not just a nice-to-have. As for snouts at the trough, there have been billions that have been handed out in corporate welfare.
Last edited by MarketLost on 20 Aug 2016 17:54, edited 1 time in total.
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

like_to_retire wrote:
Spidey wrote:Just out of curiosity. What benefits would you like?
I would like to see some form of equity for seniors who are single and can't take advantage of the unfair income splitting that married couples enjoy. There is no one for them to split income with, so some form of credit should be created.

ltr
LTR, take it from someone who was single for most of their adult life, there is little political will to help you out when you're struggling, but are they ever willing to take from you when you're doing well.
User avatar
adrian2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13333
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by adrian2 »

like_to_retire wrote:I would like to see some form of equity for seniors who are single and can't take advantage of the unfair income splitting that married couples enjoy. There is no one for them to split income with, so some form of credit should be created.
Sick people get a tax credit for medical expenses; in order to make it more fair, there should be a tax credit for healthy individuals. :twisted:
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
like_to_retire
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5923
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 07:14
Location: Canada

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by like_to_retire »

adrian2 wrote:Sick people get a tax credit for medical expenses; in order to make it more fair, there should be a tax credit for healthy individuals.
But the sick person has the medical expense and the healthy one does not. This is nothing like the splitting of pension expense. The married couple's house isn't any more expensive or more heavily taxed than the single senior who lives next door. Their heating bill and many other expenses are also identical. Yet if the single person has a pension of $80K, they will pay measurably more in tax, clawback, and loss of other credits than the person that lives next door who makes the same pension but happens to be married. It's completely unfair.

ltr
User avatar
adrian2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13333
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by adrian2 »

like_to_retire wrote:Yet if the single person has a pension of $80K, they will pay measurably more in tax, clawback, and loss of other credits than the person that lives next door who makes the same pension but happens to be married. It's completely unfair.
In France, they go much further than pension splitting, everything is automatically split:
The tax is calculated for each "fiscal household", i.e. the family unit composed of either a single person, or two partners and their children or other dependents. Whatever the nationality, a person who is a tax resident in France is taxable on their worldwide income. People not living in France are subject to limited tax on their income from French sources only.

The amount of taxable income, or "revenu fiscal de référence" (RFR), is not equal to the income received by the household in the year. Instead, the RFR is determined by dividing the income by the number of "parts" in the fiscal household (1 part for every adult, 0.5 parts for each of the first two child, and 1 part for each successive child), and then diminished further by a standard deduction and any other deductions the taxpayer may have claimed in the year.
Apply your example for a couple living next door with a single income earner and a few children...

Speaking of children, how about the tax benefit of having children in France! :roll:
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
User avatar
ghariton
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 15954
Joined: 18 Feb 2005 18:59
Location: Ottawa

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by ghariton »

MarketLost wrote:It's pointless to debate here because the income level and demographics here don't lend themselves to understand what it's like to live in a situation where social benefits are not just a nice-to-have. As for snouts at the trough, there have been billions that have been handed out in corporate welfare.
We may be comfortable now, but some of us grew up very poor. We remember very well what life was like when every dime counted, and when our parents stayed up late at night, worrying how to make ends meet.

George
The juice is worth the squeeze
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by kombat »

Flaccidsteele wrote:It's natural that people who have more want more. It's human nature.
Oh? And what do the people who have less want? They don't want more, too?
Spidey wrote:ISTM that you are unhappy with the benefits that couples with children receive and you are still unhappy when they pay for one of those biggest benefits (education) out of their own pocket because of some small break they might get for doing so.
The rationale for the benefit was that when parents take their kids out of public schools and put them into private schools, they get to deduct the tuition because they are no longer burdening the public system with educating their children. By not having kids at all, I'm also not burdening the public system with educating any of my kids, yet I'm not permitted to deduct a comparable amount of income. That seemed unfair to me.
kombat
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 929
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 09:23
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by kombat »

gobsmack wrote:And eventually these kids will enter the workforce and start contributing back to our economy hence benefiting our Canadian portfolios (including kombat's). A low birth rate could be a future drag on our economy. The parents who are raising children today are helping ensure our future prosperity.
Immigration is much more economically advantageous. We can skip large chunks of the expenses of adding new workers (birthing them, educating them), and skip right to the part where they start paying taxes. In addition, we can pick and choose who we let in, favouring intelligent, educated, healthy workers, and denying those more likely to be a burden on the system. Socially-engineering reproductive policy, on the other hand, is a roll of the dice. You could get a Kevin O'Leary, or you could a developmentally-disabled child with an expensive, permanent medical condition.
User avatar
adrian2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13333
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by adrian2 »

kombat wrote:The rationale for the benefit was that when parents take their kids out of public schools and put them into private schools, they get to deduct the tuition because they are no longer burdening the public system with educating their children.
Is it too much to ask of you not to persist in spreading falsehoods? Private school tuition is neither tax deductible, nor does it result in a tax credit. It's been like this for a very long time, if not forever.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
Just a Guy
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 592
Joined: 01 Dec 2014 19:28

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by Just a Guy »

kombat wrote:By not having kids at all, I'm also not burdening the public system with educating any of my kids, yet I'm not permitted to deduct a comparable amount of income. That seemed unfair to me.
Ahh yes, the classic reasoning behind more government spending, which I may add you're complaining against, I'm not getting my "fair" share...give us more!!!

I'll let you in on a little secret Kombat...

Life isn't fair. Never will be, in fact.

Impossible to be in reality, just ask the Russians, Chinese, Cubans, etc. "All animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others..."
SQRT
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5441
Joined: 01 Nov 2012 11:33
Location: Ontario/Arizona

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by SQRT »

adrian2 wrote:
kombat wrote:The rationale for the benefit was that when parents take their kids out of public schools and put them into private schools, they get to deduct the tuition because they are no longer burdening the public system with educating their children.
Is it too much to ask of you not to persist in spreading falsehoods? Private school tuition is neither tax deductible, nor does it result in a tax credit. It's been like this for a very long time, if not forever.
I was wondering about that too. Spent plenty of money on private schools over the years but don't remember getting any tax break?
User avatar
CROCKD
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3343
Joined: 15 Aug 2008 16:59
Location: GTA

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by CROCKD »

What bugs me about this thread is that a lot of it belongs in the Watercooler not a financial thread.

Did anyone look at the multiple ways Kombat claims private school tuition can result in a tax deduction.

From the Montessori school reference
Tax strategies and benefits for private school families


While there are no explicit private school tax deductions or tax credits, there are a number of ways that parents at private schools can indirectly reduce their taxes.
The Montessori article goes on to relate various tax deductible expenses which are open as applicable to the general public and are not exclusive to a private school.
e.g. if the child has a physical or mental disability requiring special care.
Child care expenses not related to tuition such as before and after school
Various federal and provincial tax credits.

Edit: I put 2 children in an American International school for 2 years while I was working abroad and filing a Canadian Income Tax return and did not get any tax deduction for it taking them out of the public system (French immersion) to which they returned and graduated high school.
Last edited by CROCKD on 22 Aug 2016 18:43, edited 2 times in total.
" A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is written on " Samuel Goldwyn
"The light at the end of the tunnel may be a freight train coming your way" Metallica - No Leaf Clover
Flaccidsteele
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4523
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 12:52
Location: Retired Gen Xer somewhere on the planet earth

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by Flaccidsteele »

kombat wrote:...when there is nothing at all targeted at hardworking, dual-income, child-free families like my wife and I...
Personally what I find most interesting was your complaint that there's nothing targeted for your cohort, but yet you don't really know what you want?

Somewhat puzzling.

From the link that AR originally provided it seems that the new CCB is an improvement on the old system. How about we discuss it's merits or how it can be improved further?
kombat wrote:Oh? And what do the people who have less want? They don't want more, too?
Of course. I better understand those who have less and want more. I'm just curious about those who have more and want more.
Flaccidsteele
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 4523
Joined: 06 Mar 2014 12:52
Location: Retired Gen Xer somewhere on the planet earth

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by Flaccidsteele »

Some good scenarios from the Financial Post, looking at median-income, low-income and high-income families.

Doing the Canada Child Benefit math for different income groups

The benefit appears to work well. If a family makes less, they get more. Vice versa. I like it. :thumbsup:
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33399
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by AltaRed »

As it should be, but do I ever detest the term 'effective marginal tax rate' in that article. Those numbers are meaningless in the overall scheme of things since things like CCB are benefits to start with. Don't do reverse math on something that didn't technically have to be provided in the first place.

The way around it would be to assume the base is zero and 'social support' is provided at increasingly lower income levels, i.e. a supplement rather than a clawback.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
adrian2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13333
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by adrian2 »

AltaRed wrote:As it should be, but do I ever detest the term 'effective marginal tax rate' in that article. Those numbers are meaningless in the overall scheme of things since things like CCB are benefits to start with. Don't do reverse math on something that didn't technically have to be provided in the first place.
I disagree.
It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so we might as well decide to call it a duck.

I would exclude CPP/EI from that calculation and use the test: "if a contribution of $100 to an RRSP is made, how much of a difference does it make to the tax due/refund, plus the impact on next year's benefits?"
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
Post Reply