New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Recommended reading, economic debates, predictions and opinions.
User avatar
StuBee
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2944
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 11:08
Location: SW Quebec

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by StuBee »

Exit a future generation and our economy would be considerably weakened. For this very reason those who for one reason or another do not have children ought to be thankful for those who do. It is not surprising and it is good that a nation will invest its revenues in this area. How they are doing it is another matter...

I have always been honest with the government. I have done my best to honestly declare my revenues and pay all of my tax owing. I stopped short of making voluntary national debt payments...

By choice, my income is sufficiently low to almost avoid paying income tax entirely and maximize CCB (at both federal and provincial levels). I have a 16 year old (the two others are over 18). I continue to abide by the rules and do not feel ashamed of my behavior. Change the rules and I will adapt.
"The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning."-C.S.Lewis, The Last Battle
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:P.S. Don't fall for further baiting. That game is too familiar.
:thumbsup:
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]
schmuck
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1706
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 20:06
Location: Vancouver area

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by schmuck »

adrian2 wrote:
AltaRed wrote:P.S. Don't fall for further baiting. That game is too familiar.
:thumbsup:
Wonder if a separate thread for all Flaccid posts might fix the problem.
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 »

Descartes wrote:Regarding cut-offs:

1. you, personally, fail immediately due to lack of inclination:
Actually, under your criteria, I can't fail immediately due to lack of inclination. Your original quote was:
Descartes wrote:For those who have the ability to help themselves and the knowledge and the opportunity ..but not the inclination: I believe I have no pity.
Your suggestion requires the system to evaluate the household's "ability", "knowledge", and "opportunity" before determining "inclination". So this is a 4 step system that must be evaluated regularly and for everyone. I'm not sure that this is a better system?
AltaRed wrote:Whiich backstops my earlier point on clawbacks. If Flaccid has sufficient income to 'not work', then he does not need any subsidy for his children.
As I re-stated, at my household income level the amount of clawback, from the government's perspective, is already working as intended.

It is also likely that my situation is in an extreme minority where there is little benefit to make a separate rule for similar households.
AltaRed wrote:More than 3 offspring is adding to our overpopulation on this planet.
My impression was that the purpose of the Canadian Child Benefit didn't concern itself with overpopulation on this planet?
AltaRed wrote:Don't fall for further baiting. That game is too familiar.
My apologies. My intent was not to bait. I ask questions when I don't understand. I don't understand many things so I tend to ask many questions.

Personally I feel that my questions help me to understand how well a poster has thought out their position. You never know when someone is on to a good idea.
slim wrote:Canada should support Canadians having children. So transferring money from those that don't have children to those who do would be fair.
As mentioned above, we all benefit from productive educated children. It also costs a LOT of money to properly raise children and it doesn't seem right that those who do all the work raising them, should pay the whole shot as well. Because of this we should be careful of rushing to increase the clawback.
I agree.
StuBee wrote:Exit a future generation and our economy would be considerably weakened. For this very reason those who for one reason or another do not have children ought to be thankful for those who do. It is not surprising and it is good that a nation will invest its revenues in this area.
I agree.
StuBee wrote:How they are doing it is another matter...
I would be interested to understand why the current system isn't ideal. In fact, the new Canadian Child Benefit seems better than the old system as a household with my income level would have received more funds under the old system.

And low income households will do significantly better under the new system.
Last edited by Flaccidsteele on 08 Aug 2016 23:32, edited 2 times in total.
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 »

Flaccidsteele wrote:My apologies. My intent was not to bait. I ask questions when I don't understand. I don't understand many things so I tend to ask many questions.
You also have this in your signature line:
Flaccidsteele wrote:I avoided a fragile retirement by avoiding conventional volatility management
Do you understand what a "fragile retirement" means, or are you making up phrases and neglecting to answer when asked?

Why should anyone answer your questions when you steadfastly refuse to engage in conversations, no matter how many point blank questions are posed at you?
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]
FI40
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 60
Joined: 05 Nov 2015 20:47

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by FI40 »

Flaccidsteele wrote:
StuBee wrote:How they are doing it is another matter...
I would be interested to understand why the current system isn't ideal. In fact, the new Canadian Child Benefit seems better than the old system as a household with my income level would have received more funds under the old system.

And low income households will do significantly better under the new system.
Just off the top of my head:

An ideal system should be location dependent...cost of living can vary greatly from city to city. The exact same amount of tax free cash no matter where you live? I'm not sure.

In my opinion, the increase in benefits for low income folks is approaching the point where it makes more financial sense to have both parents not working rather than to continue to work, or to hide income (work for cash). Or worse, to stop working and have more children full-time.

Another issue is those with corporations have amazing control over how much income to declare in a given year. I have a friend who makes close to 200k/yr, single income for his household, but claims less than 60k to live on and the rest stays in his corporation, to be retrieved once this benefit goes away or his children come of age, I guess. Perfectly legal for him to receive the benefits of a 60k/yr household. I don't think this can be considered ideal.

Finally, in the old system they had tax credits (federal and ontario) for children's activities and the arts, which will now be canceled in favour of this simpler system of just giving parents tax free cash. So in that respect I think the old system is better because it guarantees that money is spent on the children. Does it cost more to administer? Yes, but hopefully the govt is smart enough to run such a system cheap enough so that it maintains the net benefit it's intended to create.

Personally, I am receiving almost zero from this new system. That part is fine. I'd rather contribute (less) to a system where I receive nothing, and neither does anybody making more than, oh I don't know, the cost-of-living adjusted Canadian household average income, or whatever. And then the system would provide more to families that earn less, but never more than a minimum wage job, and never anything for more than (say) 3 kids. We have other social systems to take care of more difficult situations that aren't simply people making bad decisions to have kids when they're too young or financially unprepared.
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 »

FI40 wrote:An ideal system should be location dependent...cost of living can vary greatly from city to city. The exact same amount of tax free cash no matter where you live? I'm not sure.
This is an interesting idea. Like normalizing it for relative cost of living.
FI40 wrote:In my opinion, the increase in benefits for low income folks is approaching the point where it makes more financial sense to have both parents not working rather than to continue to work, or to hide income (work for cash). Or worse, to stop working and have more children full-time.
For a household that has a gross family income of $30,000 they would get $6,400 a year for a single child under 6 years old. This doesn't seem to dis-incentivize working.
FI40 wrote:Another issue is those with corporations have amazing control over how much income to declare in a given year. I have a friend who makes close to 200k/yr, single income for his household, but claims less than 60k to live on and the rest stays in his corporation, to be retrieved once this benefit goes away or his children come of age, I guess. Perfectly legal for him to receive the benefits of a 60k/yr household. I don't think this can be considered ideal.
This is interesting. Not sure how they would address this since this consideration would impact far more than just the new Canada Child Benefit. Probably a Pandora's Box left unopened for now.
FI40 wrote:Finally, in the old system they had tax credits (federal and ontario) for children's activities and the arts, which will now be canceled in favour of this simpler system of just giving parents tax free cash. So in that respect I think the old system is better because it guarantees that money is spent on the children.
Yes and no. It could be argued that the lower income households would prefer their children to have money for food, medicine and clothes before activities and the arts. Personally I think the tax free cash is better.
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 »

schmuck wrote: Wonder if a separate thread for all Flaccid posts might fix the problem.
The ignore function works in a similar way.
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by pmj »

Wonder if a separate thread for all Flaccid posts might fix the problem.
The ignore function works in a similar way.
Sad to see that personal comments on other members are intruding into one of the financial forums ....
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
pmj
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 3412
Joined: 27 Feb 2005 18:15
Location: Ottawa

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by pmj »

Flaccidsteele wrote:
FI40 wrote:Finally, in the old system they had tax credits (federal and ontario) for children's activities and the arts, which will now be canceled in favour of this simpler system of just giving parents tax free cash. So in that respect I think the old system is better because it guarantees that money is spent on the children.
Yes and no. It could be argued that the lower income households would prefer their children to have money for food, medicine and clothes before activities and the arts. Personally I think the tax free cash is better.
Agreed. It's lower-income families that need help, which they don't get from those "boutique" credits.
Peter

Patrick Hutber: Improvement means deterioration
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 »

To quote Mae West, "I've been rich and I've been poor...I like being rich better."

Being self employed has a lot of benefits, it also has a lot of potential drawbacks...like the lack of a social safety net. When I got injured and couldn't work, there were no benefits to draw upon. Made life very difficult and uncomfortable. Personally, I didn't like it one bit and that inspired me to find a way to change it.

Being injured, with a family to provide for, I couldn't just go an "get a job", I didn't have any family able to help either, I had to find an alternative. That's when I turned to investing. I didn't start out with a lot of money, and I had no background in it or education. I had to learn, and learn quickly, I also couldn't afford to make mistakes. It wasn't a "quick fix" either; there were plenty of sleepless nights where I questioned selling everything just to "get back to even" haven fallen deeply into debt. The problem was, there was no other solution I could see if I cashed out.

During this time I also suffered from depression and all the other things that come from the stress of being dead broke as well as in constant pain. I had to force myself to continue doing things to change as the alternative was more uncomfortable than not giving into it.

Eventually things turned the corner and my income from investing started to outpace my debt which I essentially paid off (aside from mortgages). I learned to use the tools available to me to turn my life around because the alternative wasn't very good.

I now do a lot of volunteer work with low income people and I see how, while not wealthy by any means, their lives are not really "uncomfortable" enough in my opinion to inspire them to seek change.

Being poor doesn't mean you are stupid. I've met plenty of people who "do the math" and know the system backwards and forwards. They don't just sit around all day, they figure out ways to maximize their benefits, they've done the calculations and know that "getting a job" after taxes, puts them in a worse situation, not to mention that it's way more work.

Some people have mastered this, they are living in nice places, have all their food provided, have cable, cell phones, utilities, insurance, have a caseworker drive them to the doctor, counselling, get schooling provided, etc. All provided for them at no cost. They aren't the norm, but they also aren't uncommon.

People don't value things as much when it's given to them either. They blow free money, they trash places and things that are paid for by society. Sometimes I think it's because the stuff was free and it hurts their pride so they strike out against it.

"Free" education would probably be the same. It will, of course, work for some but many would just waste their opportunities. Not to mention the fact that post secondary places already have waiting lists, so we couldn't actually provide the service if we wanted to. Oh, and does everyone remember all the promises of post secondary? "Take this course and you'll get a starting wage of $Xxx,000/year." So how many graduates come out with a feeling of entitlement, waiting for their promised paycheques?

Of course, the next question becomes, what do we do if it did work? I know plenty of well educated people who didn't get jobs out of school. I was a product of the less than boom times. Only a small percentage of people complete post secondary, what happens when that number doubles? Where are all the jobs? It's not a case of "if you build it, it will come", that's wishful thinking.

Personally, I don't think we should abolish the social safety net, what I went through was very bad and I think society can afford to help out those in need. However, I don't believe in a "living wage" standard either. Life has to be uncomfortable enough to make people want to seek an alternative.
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 »

pmj wrote:
Wonder if a separate thread for all Flaccid posts might fix the problem.
The ignore function works in a similar way.
Sad to see that personal comments on other members are intruding into one of the financial forums ....
He fakes (or maybe not) ignorance on some financial topics and asks for help:
Flaccidsteele wrote:My apologies. My intent was not to bait. I ask questions when I don't understand. I don't understand many things so I tend to ask many questions.
While at the same time completely ignoring when other posters ask him:
- here is one from longinvest
- here is one from ThinkingCapital
- here is one from myself (this one asked again in this very thread).
Lewis Carroll wrote:“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
If one wants to get respect, show some respect to others!
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]
ModeratorW
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: 12 Jul 2009 05:44

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by ModeratorW »

Time to cool it folks and get back to Subject content.
ModeratorW
FI40
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 60
Joined: 05 Nov 2015 20:47

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by FI40 »

Flaccidsteele wrote:
FI40 wrote:In my opinion, the increase in benefits for low income folks is approaching the point where it makes more financial sense to have both parents not working rather than to continue to work, or to hide income (work for cash). Or worse, to stop working and have more children full-time.
For a household that has a gross family income of $30,000 they would get $6,400 a year for a single child under 6 years old. This doesn't seem to dis-incentivize working.
That's per child though. You can have multiple. I disagree with you here. If you're working minimum wage, that's a lot of tax free cash. It doesn't need to completely replace the income lost to work out to be a good financial decision, because of the other hidden costs of working (mostly day care, but also commuting, where one must live, costs associated with having less time for cost saving activities like making dinner rather than buying it, etc.).
Flaccidsteele wrote:
FI40 wrote:Another issue is those with corporations have amazing control over how much income to declare in a given year. I have a friend who makes close to 200k/yr, single income for his household, but claims less than 60k to live on and the rest stays in his corporation, to be retrieved once this benefit goes away or his children come of age, I guess. Perfectly legal for him to receive the benefits of a 60k/yr household. I don't think this can be considered ideal.
This is interesting. Not sure how they would address this since this consideration would impact far more than just the new Canada Child Benefit. Probably a Pandora's Box left unopened for now.
Yeah I'm not arguing right now that we need to change the way corporate/personal taxes work, but it's just an example of how this benefit is compounding this kind of problem, where wealth is not being redistributed in the way society actually wants. Lower the benefit, reduce the impact of this problem.
Flaccidsteele wrote:
FI40 wrote:Finally, in the old system they had tax credits (federal and ontario) for children's activities and the arts, which will now be canceled in favour of this simpler system of just giving parents tax free cash. So in that respect I think the old system is better because it guarantees that money is spent on the children.
Yes and no. It could be argued that the lower income households would prefer their children to have money for food, medicine and clothes before activities and the arts. Personally I think the tax free cash is better.
Food, yes, I agree, give them food stamps in lieu of actual food maybe? Medicine, sure, I mean OHIP covers most things but keep your receipts and the govt could cover a portion, although I'm sure there are already systems in place for that kind of thing. Clothes are dirt cheap at second hand stores (my son almost exclusively wears second hand), and small kids really don't need much else.
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 »

JaG, some very good thoughts. And I always like reading about your rise from adversity. Inspiring! :thumbsup:
Just a Guy wrote:Being poor doesn't mean you are stupid. I've met plenty of people who "do the math" and know the system backwards and forwards. They don't just sit around all day, they figure out ways to maximize their benefits, they've done the calculations and know that "getting a job" after taxes, puts them in a worse situation, not to mention that it's way more work.

Some people have mastered this, they are living in nice places, have all their food provided, have cable, cell phones, utilities, insurance, have a caseworker drive them to the doctor, counselling, get schooling provided, etc. All provided for them at no cost. They aren't the norm, but they also aren't uncommon.
I agree.

However, similar to entrepreneurs who are paying themselves a minimal salary while holding the majority of their cash in a corporation, the poor who are gaming the system may be just uncommon enough in the eyes of the government to avoid making a special rule for them.
Just a Guy wrote:People don't value things as much when it's given to them either.
I agree.
Just a Guy wrote:Oh, and does everyone remember all the promises of post secondary? "Take this course and you'll get a starting wage of $Xxx,000/year." So how many graduates come out with a feeling of entitlement, waiting for their promised paycheques?
Hopefully not too many. Students in this day and age should (hopefully) recognize that a post secondary degree doesn't mean much of anything. If not... well, I guess life will force them to figure that out by themselves. Life is a good teacher.

Anyway, apologies for going OT! But I enjoyed the post nonetheless!
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 »

Flaccidsteele wrote:For a household that has a gross family income of $30,000 they would get $6,400 a year for a single child under 6 years old. This doesn't seem to dis-incentivize working.
FI40 wrote:That's per child though. You can have multiple. I disagree with you here. If you're working minimum wage, that's a lot of tax free cash. It doesn't need to completely replace the income lost to work out to be a good financial decision, because of the other hidden costs of working (mostly day care, but also commuting, where one must live, costs associated with having less time for cost saving activities like making dinner rather than buying it, etc.).
In my example I'm assuming that 1 adult works (grossing $30k/yr) and 1 adult looks after the child so there would be no daycare cost.

In this particular example I don't see how receiving $6,400/yr for a child would dis-incentivize one adult from the household from working.

I appreciate the other responses. Good thoughts!
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 »

The difference between a self employed person keeping their income low and a low income person is completely different.

One is tax deferred, the other is never paying taxes.

When I was audited as a self employed/corporation the auditor found nothing wrong. Their comment was

"What you are doing is perfectly fine, we'll get our money eventually"

Same thing with RRSPs, sure they earn money on pretax dollars, but the government still usually get's its share in the end, probably more since people die with large holdings which get cashed out when they die and fully taxed.
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

Descartes wrote:
Canada’s labour market will strengthen in the second half of 2016 as the first round of Ottawa’s new Canada Child Benefit cheques boosts consumer spending and improves the pace of hiring among service sector employers
This is under the theory that the more successful people would simply have saved that money, the miserly bastards, but the less successful will blow it all on crap from Toys R Us or Tim Horton's or beer?

Clearly, the more "less successful" people we have in Canada the more "successful" Canada will be.
Well that's definitely a unique way of looking at it. :wink:

It all comes down to savings rates, more specifically it's about the ability that people have to save anything at all. It's certainly a fact that people with lower income have far less discretionary income, many don't even have enough to cover the basics. This group saves little if anything because they simply don't have the ability. Giving money to people in this situation will result in them spending a far higher percentage of it. For the recipients at the lowest end, you can be certain they will spend 100% of their CCB as they are going to spend money on items they want, but can't currently afford - this is known as pent-up demand.

OTHO those who are already saving a decent amount of their income, giving them more will not result in much, if any new spending. If you're already saving thousands of dollars, or more a month then it's pretty certain that little, if any of this is going to be spent. There's a good chance this money will actually be tucked away for years in an account for the child. So in a way, yes they are miserly bastards. :)
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

Spidey wrote:It appears that the average payout for a child in a family of average income is about $230.00 a month which invested over 17 years should be well in excess of the amount required to pay university tuition. Although it goes against my usual belief of letting individuals decide how to spend their money (assuming that not taking this amount from our taxes to begin with is off the table), I wonder if we would receive better bang for our buck by offering free post-secondary education.
Have you seen the cost of tuition these days, and how fast it's been rising? You won't even come close to covering the cost of a four year degree. I was just looking into taking some courses at uOttawa and it's ~$9K for one year of engineering! That's just the tuition and ancillary fees, then you need textbooks, and if you're going away for university, you're talking almost $25K once you include your living fees. That's between $36-$100K for a four-year degree in current dollars, so I'm not sure what investment you can get to cover the costs.
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

Descartes wrote:
DavidR wrote:
Descartes wrote: Of course there is nothing to stop people from investing this ill-gotten gain wisely to fund a post-secondary education ..save lack of wisdom.
How about the need for food and shelter and school supplies, etc ? There is no need to sneer at the poor. These payments can make a big difference to those living on the edge.
Me, sneering at the poor?

Why are we providing an enhanced CPP?
Because the government does not think the average Canadian is competent to look after his or her own retirement.

Why are we providing a child care benefit (paid through increasing the taxing of those who do not need such a benefit)?
Because the government does not think the average Canadian who has children can adequately look after those children.

It is the government that considers its people, on the average, incompetent.
..I am merely following its lead.
What does competence have to do with financial need? I've met a lot of hard working competent people who are struggling, and I've met a lot of people who didn't know their azz from their elbow who were rich just because of their relatives. Moreover, there are also a lot of successful professionals who couldn't balance a cheque book with a gun to their head.
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

kombat wrote:A friend of mine posted a Facebook message on his wall praising this handout and thanking Trudeau, saying it will help reduce the number of children living in poverty.

I commented, saying don't thank Trudeau - thank those of us without kids who won't see a penny of this benefit, but will pay for it in the form of higher taxes down the road when this whopper of a bill comes due, with interest. It's not Trudeau's money he's giving away - it's mine. And if you want to reduce the number of children born into poverty, spread the word that OHIP covers vasectomies.

He deleted my comment.
You could also complain about how seniors use most of the health care funding, and they also receive OAS. Do you suggest we have suicide centers a la Soylent Green so they don't burden those of us that haven't needed either?
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

Descartes wrote:..that the government believes you can only look after your children adequately by being subsidized with money taken out of other people's pockets.
Do you agree with the government?
Do you have children? Either you don't, or you are making enough money that you don't notice the expenses such as day care, which can easily reach $9K in Ontario. You don't even seem to know how much it costs for basics such as food, clothing, or diapers. Don't forget, the kids will be subsidizing you when you're in diapers once again.
User avatar
Insomniac
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2802
Joined: 29 Oct 2011 19:01
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by Insomniac »

MarketLost wrote:
kombat wrote:A friend of mine posted a Facebook message on his wall praising this handout and thanking Trudeau, saying it will help reduce the number of children living in poverty.

I commented, saying don't thank Trudeau - thank those of us without kids who won't see a penny of this benefit, but will pay for it in the form of higher taxes down the road when this whopper of a bill comes due, with interest. It's not Trudeau's money he's giving away - it's mine. And if you want to reduce the number of children born into poverty, spread the word that OHIP covers vasectomies.

He deleted my comment.
You could also complain about how seniors use most of the health care funding, and they also receive OAS. Do you suggest we have suicide centers a la Soylent Green so they don't burden those of us that haven't needed either?
kombat may have bent the rules making a political comment in a financial thread, but I find your comment more offensive.
User avatar
Insomniac
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2802
Joined: 29 Oct 2011 19:01
Location: Vancouver Island

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by Insomniac »

MarketLost wrote:
Descartes wrote:..that the government believes you can only look after your children adequately by being subsidized with money taken out of other people's pockets.
Do you agree with the government?
Do you have children? Either you don't, or you are making enough money that you don't notice the expenses such as day care, which can easily reach $9K in Ontario. You don't even seem to know how much it costs for basics such as food, clothing, or diapers. Don't forget, the kids will be subsidizing you when you're in diapers once again.
Again. :x
MarketLost
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 62
Joined: 16 Jul 2016 12:30

Re: New 2016 Canada Child Benefit cheques

Post by MarketLost »

Just a Guy wrote:To quote Mae West, "I've been rich and I've been poor...I like being rich better."

Being self employed has a lot of benefits, it also has a lot of potential drawbacks...like the lack of a social safety net. When I got injured and couldn't work, there were no benefits to draw upon. Made life very difficult and uncomfortable. Personally, I didn't like it one bit and that inspired me to find a way to change it.

Being injured, with a family to provide for, I couldn't just go an "get a job", I didn't have any family able to help either, I had to find an alternative. That's when I turned to investing. I didn't start out with a lot of money, and I had no background in it or education. I had to learn, and learn quickly, I also couldn't afford to make mistakes. It wasn't a "quick fix" either; there were plenty of sleepless nights where I questioned selling everything just to "get back to even" haven fallen deeply into debt. The problem was, there was no other solution I could see if I cashed out.

During this time I also suffered from depression and all the other things that come from the stress of being dead broke as well as in constant pain. I had to force myself to continue doing things to change as the alternative was more uncomfortable than not giving into it.

Eventually things turned the corner and my income from investing started to outpace my debt which I essentially paid off (aside from mortgages). I learned to use the tools available to me to turn my life around because the alternative wasn't very good.

I now do a lot of volunteer work with low income people and I see how, while not wealthy by any means, their lives are not really "uncomfortable" enough in my opinion to inspire them to seek change.

Being poor doesn't mean you are stupid. I've met plenty of people who "do the math" and know the system backwards and forwards. They don't just sit around all day, they figure out ways to maximize their benefits, they've done the calculations and know that "getting a job" after taxes, puts them in a worse situation, not to mention that it's way more work.

Some people have mastered this, they are living in nice places, have all their food provided, have cable, cell phones, utilities, insurance, have a caseworker drive them to the doctor, counselling, get schooling provided, etc. All provided for them at no cost. They aren't the norm, but they also aren't uncommon.

People don't value things as much when it's given to them either. They blow free money, they trash places and things that are paid for by society. Sometimes I think it's because the stuff was free and it hurts their pride so they strike out against it.

"Free" education would probably be the same. It will, of course, work for some but many would just waste their opportunities. Not to mention the fact that post secondary places already have waiting lists, so we couldn't actually provide the service if we wanted to. Oh, and does everyone remember all the promises of post secondary? "Take this course and you'll get a starting wage of $Xxx,000/year." So how many graduates come out with a feeling of entitlement, waiting for their promised paycheques?

Of course, the next question becomes, what do we do if it did work? I know plenty of well educated people who didn't get jobs out of school. I was a product of the less than boom times. Only a small percentage of people complete post secondary, what happens when that number doubles? Where are all the jobs? It's not a case of "if you build it, it will come", that's wishful thinking.

Personally, I don't think we should abolish the social safety net, what I went through was very bad and I think society can afford to help out those in need. However, I don't believe in a "living wage" standard either. Life has to be uncomfortable enough to make people want to seek an alternative.
JAG, what you are pointing out is important, many people have times of transitional poverty in their lives, and it has nothing to do with their personal character. I wonder how many people would have turned their noses up to you when you were struggling?
Post Reply