关于RESP年供款最大额度，看来还是一笔糊涂账

[就是爱喝开水]

春长看看这两个帖子是否靠谱

呀，有不靠蹼的地方，你直说，干嘛要借春长的口。

 

[abcd2013]

富人可能都懒得加入这个计划。

蚊子再小也是肉，富人是任何计划都不会放过滴。

 

[ccc]

对呀，就是追加以前没有买的，所以说算好孩子的年龄，８岁买也是可以拿全额的。

拿到全额不要太容易了，还要算计？

 

[ccc]

蚊子再小也是肉，富人是任何计划都不会放过滴。

呵，我就是那么一说。

 

[bettyshimalayanhandicraft]

我觉得挺明确的呀。你现在每年存一点压力不大，不管你怎么个存法，最后政府给的7200它都在，你可以慢慢存，也可以后期加速存。反正到孩子上大学能拿到那7200，加上你的本金，投资利息就好了。

 

[RareEarth]

如果小孩收入就很高，买ＲＥＳＰ税务上没有好处，傻瓜才买
很富人的人家当然不用自己算，有会计师去算。有政策不去算的，不管那国人，都只能呵呵了。

富人买RESP是这么算的？

 

[ccc]

这7200政府补助是补给你为孩子买RESP上的一部份税。
我们家是从孩子8岁开始每年买$2500*2（原来是每年2000），孩子8岁前紧着还房贷了

Smart.

 

[9981]

富人可能都懒得加入这个计划。

let me tell you something

https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/updates/resp-bill-just-another-gift-canadas-affluent

RESP Bill is just another gift to Canada's affluent Our federal Parliament is considering a Bill that should be tossed right out the window. The private member's Bill, by Liberal Dan McTeague, would help the most affluent of Canadians take even better advantage of the deeply flawed RESP program. The RESP program is supposed to help Canadians save for their children's post-secondary education but, like the RRSP, it is yet another tax policy that widens the gap between the rich and the rest of us. Savings through RESPs have grown from $4 billion in 1998 to $22 billion in 2006. But only a third of Canadian children have an RESP account in their name. At last count it supported 190,000 students currently engaged in post-secondary studies. Put this in context: There are about 1.3 million full-time students currently studying at the post-secondary level. The RESP is a tightly targeted incentive for those who can afford to tuck money away -- the most affluent among us. The McTeague Bill would make RESP contributions tax deductible and raise the amount that can be contributed annually to $5K. The bill would mean those contributing to RESPs won't pay taxes on money going in or coming out of these accounts. On top of that, the bill doesn't reference existing tax deductions for tuition. That leads to double-dipping tax breaks - deduct taxes as you save for education, deduct taxes when you pay the tuition. Of course it's the parents that are getting the tax break, not the kids. And most of those parents are getting the tax break on the highest tax bracket. On an annual tuition of $5,000 that means up to $2,300 tax savings. Here's the injustice of it: Say a high income earner contributed to an RESP only four years at $5,000, and then claimed the tax deduction on a $5,000 annual tuition for a four-year program. On the $20,000 that is put aside for post-secondary studies, that high income earner could get as much as $18,400 back in taxes by sending one kid to post-secondary for an undergraduate degree ($2,300 for four years going in, and $2,300 for four years for tuition expense deductions). Somebody who couldn't put aside money in an RESP but came up with the $5,000 a year for tuition for four years and was in the lowest tax bracket would also get money back from the government for the $20,000 they spent for their degree, but they would receive no more than $5,000 over the course of their program, and as little as $3,750, depending on what province they lived in. In this system, the richest Canadian families could have tax breaks offset 92% of their child's education, while the poorest students could get as little as 19% in tax-subsidized assistance. As Canadians committed to making sure everyone has a fair shot at an education in life, this raises some serious questions: Why does the child of a high-income earner deserve more help from the public purse to get post-secondary education than the child of a low-income earner, or a student struggling to put themselves through? If you're going to give money back to people for sending their kids to college or university or trade school, shouldn't it be at least the same amount for everyone? Some estimate the McTeague program could cost between $600 million to $2 billion every year. Most of these vast amounts of money will go to those who least need the financial help. And that is why this Bill should be stopped in its tracks. - See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/n...er-gift-canadas-affluent#sthash.VanzFux8.dpuf

 

[uglyducking]

呀，有不靠蹼的地方，你直说，干嘛要借春长的口。

春长说你靠谱，更有说服力啊。

 

[ccc]

如果小孩收入就很高，买ＲＥＳＰ税务上没有好处，傻瓜才买
很富人的人家当然不用自己算，有会计师去算。有政策不去算的，不管那国人，都只能呵呵了。

不要怕。报税的时候还有education amount可以claim。就怕没钱。

 

[b4w]

关于供款最大额度看来还是一笔糊涂账，俺抓三个一知半解的典型出来！

现 在的规定，是每个小孩每年最多只可供$2500（可得政府20+%补助，$500+）；外加补供以前漏掉的一年。即每年都可双倍供款，拿$1000“以 上”的补助。对收入较低的家庭，政府每年还再多给前$500供款的20%（即$100），全部满上(双倍）就可拿$1200。

这样，政府每学生一生总额$7200的学费补贴，实际上6-8年就可全拿齐。
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/resp-reee/cesp-pcee/csg-eng.html

还是糊涂吧？以前年份没有没有漏掉的话，怎么补供不存在的“漏掉的一年”？从出生0岁开始，一年不落，踏踏实实的，每年500，7200/500=14.4，第15年即孩子14岁生日那年，满。如果中间有漏掉的一年，15年内及时补上，还是14岁那年买满，如果没有及时补上，14-17岁那些年都可以补上，18-31岁还可以买，政府就不给钱了。这样可以了吗？

比较低收入的可以加快收到政府补贴，也只是低收入那一年多收点，人生有低谷也得有高潮，如果10几年都低收入，都不到中等收入线，也是奇葩了。
超级低收入的有 CLB，不用自己供款，政府就给钱，第一年500，以后100，但也是，一旦收入高过那个杠杠，就没有了，这部分是7200额度以外的，但能的到的人不多。

 

[就是爱喝开水]

因为富人有钱设计各种避税shell。

那也是人家有本事挣到的钱，在一定范围内避一些税算啥。那些吃福利的，身体或能力有问题的咱不说，那些身强体壮的。。。。。。

 

[9981]

如果小孩收入就很高，买ＲＥＳＰ税务上没有好处，傻瓜才买
很富人的人家当然不用自己算，有会计师去算。有政策不去算的，不管那国人，都只能呵呵了。

从中国到西方您最先学到的东西是什么？
我们看到的有遵守规则的一面， 也有追求利润最大化的一面。怎么区分？

在商场上， 是一个竞争的社会， 对于利润的追求不仅是公司能力的体现， 也是对股东的回报， 那么对于税务的各种利益最大化政策利用确实存在。
但是， 在社会里， 大家用到的所有政策都是税务交上来的， 都是取之于民用之于民的。 您多拿一元钱就是预算少了一元钱， 也就影响别人少拿一元钱。所以在社会共享资源方面， 我们应该尊重和遵守规则。
但是， 如果有朋友一时手紧， 我觉得这也是完全可以理解的。 更何况， 象楼主这样， 晚七八年开始投资， 那收到的政府补助也晚了七八年， 我重新想了想， 他的利益最大化只是从他个人角度来说的， 这种做法除了会影响预算精度， 不见得对公共资源有伤害。

 

[RareEarth]

本来就是一个小小的计算题，没有违反规则。所以没有必要上纲上线，更不要扯到中国外国。你想明白就好。

从中国到西方您最先学到的东西是什么？
我们看到的有遵守规则的一面， 也有追求利润最大化的一面。怎么区分？
在商场上， 是一个竞争的社会， 对于利润的追求不仅是公司能力的体现， 也是对股东的回报， 那么对于税务的各种利益最大化政策利用确实存在。
但是， 在社会里， 大家用到的所有政策都是税务交上来的， 都是取之于民用之于民的。 您多拿一元钱就是预算少了一元钱， 也就影响别人少拿一元钱。所以在社会共享资源方面， 我们应该尊重和遵守规则。
但是， 如果有朋友一时手紧， 我觉得这也是完全可以理解的。 更何况， 象楼主这样， 晚七八年开始投资， 那收到的政府补助也晚了七八年， 我重新想了想， 他的利益最大化只是从他个人角度来说的， 这种做法除了会影响预算精度， 不见得对公共资源有伤害。

 

[9981]

一个小小的计算问题，不要上纲上线。更不要扯到中国外国。本来就不存在违反规则的问题，你想明白就好。

不要去沾私人便宜， 拿公家的东西白拿， 不是中国公有制文化的产物？

不要认为不违反规则别人就不能说话