十五万税后家庭收入三口人或者四口人足够了当然不能有贷款啊。这里税太高了，什么都要花钱买，七扣八扣可不就紧了。村长，如果这个线划到400000万还差不多，赚到这个数可能就比普通人多一些了，但是190000就是一般人的生活，还不让在养孩子的天堂拿福利，幸福感就得挤一挤才能出来了
最后编辑:
今天开始发钱了：加拿大“牛奶金” 大涨
- 主题发起人 ecomore
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2009-02-24
- 消息
- 7,099
- 荣誉分数
- 1,703
- 声望点数
- 323
除了中国人，我还没发现身边本地人买房子不贷款的，所以说，190000算算想要过得舒服，也是不够的，孩子得去幼儿园，去兴趣课，没事儿还得旅游，添置衣服啥的，但到了这个数就没福利了，就说明政府认为这样的收入算高收入了，但实际上这样的收入真的高吗
要是一个上大学花的更多，这个税前收入基本就是月光族了。这个应该算典型的中产了吧，要是更低收入的怎么过呀！看来真的跟村长说的一月140伙食费了
- 注册
- 2009-02-24
- 消息
- 7,099
- 荣誉分数
- 1,703
- 声望点数
- 323
所以说，做人要诚实，说要帮助中产阶级，谎言也太低级了，非要劫富济贫是可以的，但不能说一套做一套，劫了以后还说不客气，能帮助到你们是我们的荣幸
金陵
资深人士
- 注册
- 2015-08-26
- 消息
- 7,044
- 荣誉分数
- 2,342
- 声望点数
- 223
说明你的家庭收入过20万了，有钱人！
金陵
资深人士
- 注册
- 2015-08-26
- 消息
- 7,044
- 荣誉分数
- 2,342
- 声望点数
- 223
低收入家庭的孩子上大学可以申请学生贷款，有相当一部分不用还。
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
190000养孩子再旅旅游，没事儿吃个饭店。。。也没剩下多少了，我感觉这个线划得太低了
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
村长，如果这个线划到400000万还差不多，赚到这个数可能就比普通人多一些了，但是190000就是一般人的生活，还不让在养孩子的天堂拿福利，幸福感就得挤一挤才能出来了
- 注册
- 2004-02-10
- 消息
- 12,690
- 荣誉分数
- 2,966
- 声望点数
- 373
- 注册
- 2003-04-13
- 消息
- 238,942
- 荣誉分数
- 37,372
- 声望点数
- 1,393
看看《环球邮报》读者评论:
69 Comments
RSS|Subscribe
Common Dollars 2 days ago
What a joke! Let's give a few people an extra few hundred dollars a year (while once again punishing hard working people) with money we don't have! What a waste and another ploy to trick clueless voters to get junior into power.
Reply
7 replies
+34 -5
+29
Report Comment
OakvilleCA 2 days ago
I hope they were happy voting for Trudeau after he bought there votes with such giveaways. When he gets through with you after implementing his carbon tax, you will be wishing for someone else to be in power, someone who appreciates that it is you who should be able to keep your income, not government.
Reply
4 replies
+15 -2
+13
Report Comment
Whiner1tis 1 day ago
I seem to recall a certain Harper Government buying votes with a big ol' bribe, not all that long ago.
+2 -14
-12
Report Comment
DB-TA 1 day ago
Harper "bribes" consisted of letting you keep more of the money you earned.
It takes a confiscatory mindset to fail to distinguish between these types of largesse.
+14 -1
+13
Report Comment
in-my-view 1 day ago
Someone like Harper, he had it correct...... and the Liberals have to do the opposite, no matter how good the plan and idea were.
+6 -1
+5
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
Hey Oakville, I am happy!! Thanks!!
+0 -4
-4
Report Comment
The_Real_G 1 day ago
Not unlike dropping the HST 2% points, right? I bet that was a WAY bigger chunk of change versus this benefit. I'm not a fan of either, but let's not pretend that this is some new tactic.
I would prefer we brought the HST back up 2% and lowered my income tax instead.
Reply
+4 -4
0
Report Comment
maximrw 1 day ago
The assumption is that the cheques will actually go out and this government cant even pay their own staff. Over eighty thousand have been without pay for months.
Reply
+4 -2
+2
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
$0. Thanks Justin. Massive tax hike on my family.
Reply
5 replies
+30 -4
+26
Report Comment
Informed Albertan 1 day ago
His personal marketing and the name of this program are creative marketing for what it really is - a progressive tax.
He isn't "giving" anything, he's just taking less by handing it back, and grandstanding for it. And hosing the top income earners for the ability to do so (and non parents).
Would be better just lowering everyone's tax rate a smidge so you keep your own dollars in your jeans.
Reply
+6 -0
+6
Report Comment
warbirds 1 day ago
That is ok, your one vote was replaced by how many thousands of Syrian migrants he let in with how many kids per family?
I can see them doing the happy dance!
Reply
2 replies
+4 -2
+2
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
We should be letting in more refugees. They will work a heck of a lot harder than you will and will be there to pay for your retirement! Never in any western country has immigration or refugees been a long term economic drain. It has always been an economic gain in western, reasonably progressive countries, like Canada! Go JT!!!
+0 -6
-6
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
except when they attack you with an axe on the train, right? Or mow down hundreds on a beach boardwalk? Then it's kinda an economic drain yakno.
+3 -0
+3
Report Comment
scubby15 10 hours ago
It's the governments job to slap your wrist and take more of your money if you work too hard and earn too much. It's just not fair to people who cut class in high school and dropped out of college. The deserve your pay cheque!
On a more serious note, this is why there is no innovation in this country, no start ups, no new billionaires. It doesn't pay to risk everything and succeed.
Reply
+0 -0
0
Report Comment
scubby15 2 days ago
It amazes me how some people don't understand the basics of taxes. Everyone seems to be happy that they are getting this money without wondering how much of their income taxes are going towards it. Where is the article showing how to calculate how much you pay vs. how much you receive? I'm guessing this program has a net negative benefit for most people. In other words, let's say you get $300 a month from it. That's great but you have no idea how much of your taxes are going to the program. For all you know you are paying $320 a month into the program. So your net benefit is actually -$20 a month. People need to remember this isn't a benefit, that's just the marketing. In reality it is a redistribution of your taxes to someone else.
Reply
5 replies
+26 -4
+22
Report Comment
richmond anon 1 day ago
And depending on the Province you live in - they may very well curtail any family oriented allowances, programs, or tax concessions accordingly.
Reply
+6 -0
+6
Report Comment
Greggore 1 day ago
There is no discussion of reality in Canadian MSM
Reply
+6 -1
+5
Report Comment
Informed Albertan 1 day ago
Exactly. Although don't forget this - the program is $2bn richer than the prior. So we're also deficit spending on it.
Hence you're actually spending your children's future tax contributions.
Enjoy your liberal marketing for the day... handouts handouts we take credit for handouts of YOUR dollars.
Reply
1 reply
+4 -1
+3
Report Comment
scubby15 10 hours ago
That's a good point. And let's remember that the federal government borrows most of it's money from Canadians by issuing bonds. So they tax us for a portion of it and then borrow from us for the rest while paying us interest on the loan. Ten years time when they have to pay back the principle of what they borrowed they will raise taxes to cover the expense. In the end it's a disaster. If you want people to have more money don't take if from those who do and give it away. Help lower income earners gain new skills and trades or go back to school. That's how you get kids out of poverty long-term.
+2 -0
+2
Report Comment
SteveVickRepoBoy 5 hours ago
Very little of this new largess is tax $. It is money that the Libs are taking from your children and their children. So don't sweat it.
Reply
+1 -0
+1
Report Comment
Greggore 1 day ago
I'm quitting my job and staying home to get my wife pregnant every 10 months.
Reply
1 reply
+18 -1
+17
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
So, you think the CCB will replace your salary and provide for your family? What school did you go to? Really people!
Reply
+0 -6
-6
Report Comment
Lousy Investor 2 days ago
I won't be getting anything. I'm looking forward to retirement so that our Robin Hood Government can find someone else to redistribute income from.
Reply
3 replies
+20 -4
+16
Report Comment
OakvilleCA 2 days ago
Fat chance. Trudeau's carbon tax will increase the cost of everything so get used to more of your money leaving your pocket. They seemed to have re-defined revenue neutral as being any extra revenue will be spent on new programs rather than being spent on a tax cut to taxpayers. These greedy governments will pocket all of their newfound revenues. Big surprise!
Reply
+13 -1
+12
Report Comment
Greggore 1 day ago
hahaha good luck with that. While you'll be getting a moderate 15% increase in CPP, they'll just increase taxes so what you are taking out of your pension will be less and less.
And don't think for a second that the Lib's will not revoke the TFSA and start taxing income in this account. They'll do it. Who else is going to take us out of debt? YOU and your retired friends. and if you complain....well they just passed a law giving them powers to have you put down
Reply
+8 -0
+8
Report Comment
warbirds 1 day ago
Hopefully, not in this country....retire somewhere where there isn't a red Lieberal hand looking for your last dime...
Reply
+4 -0
+4
Report Comment
watchlist for Ian 1 day ago
Families with 4 young children making 30k a year just got their income more than doubled! Lets have more kids folks - they are great income producers. With Liberals in power, only fools work hard.
Reply
4 replies
+19 -4
+15
Report Comment
bonnieboo 1 day ago
This is the problem and the reason why the UK moved to cap the number of children (at 2) for which you can receive benefits. They had regular news stories of families of 10-12 kids so their parents could stay home and never work.
Reply
2 replies
+14 -1
+13
Report Comment
in-my-view 1 day ago
Now that is a great idea.
+5 -0
+5
Report Comment
richmond anon 1 day ago
Excellent idea capping the benefit.
If you are the parent of a large family, having the payments scaled back because you are working is an incentive not to work, or to work under the table.
+5 -0
+5
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
Could you possibly live on $30,000 a year even as a single person let alone a family of 4 young children? Give your head a shake Ian!
Reply
+1 -5
-4
Report Comment
in-my-view 1 day ago
Just trying to figure out how much those 'refugees' with 8 and more kids are now going to rake in with this.......after paying not a cent into our system for it. Seems to me like an incentive to not work, or not work hard and breed more children.
Reply
3 replies
+15 -1
+14
Report Comment
richmond anon 1 day ago
Or perhaps take a look at the Mormon polygamous breakaway sects in Bountiful, in southeastern BC.
Winston Blackmore alone has 25 wives and 130 children.
The sound you hear? Cash registers in the Creston Valley.
Reply
1 reply
+8 -1
+7
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
You're telling me Blackmore is going to be rolling in hundreds of thousands of dollars of child payments?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
They should get a lot of benefit to help them get ahead, improve their lives and the lives of their children so that they can in turn help those around them. This will help a lot until the family can get on their feet and find good paying jobs or create good paying jobs.
Report Comment
T_Ball 1 day ago
I know many very well off divorced women who do not work therefore will receive the maximum benefit. Child support is not included on tax return therefore is not income and used in calculation of benefit. I don't think taxpayers should be supporting people who already receive $10-15k a month (tax free).
I sent a letter to morneau and was told that the "reporting of child support is not in the spirit of the benefit"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
gtm 1 day ago
That's an interesting point actually. I didn't consider that, but it does seem extremely unfair.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Common Dollars 1 day ago
It seems extremely "Liberal"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Pls Think Before Speaking 1 day ago
@ Common Dollars - The Harper Income splitting was going to let Divorced parents receiving child support receive the exact same benefit... But you have such a hate on against one party that you refuse to see when your party of choice does the same thing.
bartonb 1 day ago
"Many very well off divorced women"? Really? With the wealth in this country concentrated in the hands of so few, how is this possible? How many people earn more than $240,000 a year (that is what would be required to see 50% of their pay going to spousal and child support)? Do you have any idea? According to Stats Can, 219,900 in 2014. That is less than 1% of the working population. and how many of these do you personally know?
T_Ball 1 day ago
Barton: Do you actually think that statscan has accurate income numbers?
An individuals personal tax return does not reflect what income they have actually generated. If i
make $300000 in my corporation but only take out $80k or i split income with my spouse neither of us will be reported in the top 1pct.
Easy solution: have all child support pymnts reported on personal tax returns. Adjust benefit based on disclosure.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
seastrov 1 day ago
Meanwhile, single people with no kids continue to get reamed in the behind as we qualify for nothing. I work multiple jobs and pull in very good income only to see an astronomical tax bill come April. There is 0 incentive to work hard and get ahead.
The_Real_G 1 day ago
Because only Muslims have children?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
DB-TA 1 day ago
The fertility rate for Muslims in Canada is higher than the rate for other Canadians (an average of 2.4 children per woman for Muslims, compared with 1.6 children per woman for other populations in Canada), at least according to Wikipedia, which may be insufficient for he vast authority of Globe censors this afternoon.
richmond anon 1 day ago
Generally what happens is when the Feds give the Province (or your City) takes.
Here in BC the Province lowered the basic tax exemption level two years ago to counter Federal largesse, and will no doubt do the same again. And then there are a whole raft of larger-than-inflation premium and fee increases on the horizon for next year, everything from medical services to hydro, to car insurance, to property tax. And the spectre of an increase to the carbon tax.
Meanwhile it's bidding wars for rental accommodation in a .6% vacancy market, and heh, who's got a million or two to buy.
Put the extra money in an RESP?
At the end of the day - what extra money?
sandia2007 1 day ago
The mere fact that the discussions around the benefit (and prior variations) are often focused on "what to do with the money" shows how absurd the "benefit" actually is. Particularly when you consider that administering the program costs money on top of the benefit. So we are paying the government additional tax so that they can turn around and return some of our taxes in the form of monthly cheques or deposits.
Seems to me the obvious solution is to do one of two things: lower the basic tax rate or use a refundable tax credit for taxpayers with dependents under 18.
It keeps the money in the pocket of the taxpayer through lower payroll deductions and eliminates the need for administration.
But of course it also eliminates the ability of the government to provide a reminder 12x a year of how much they "give" you.
Adam J. 1 day ago
Modifying the basic rate doesn't work for social programs where the recipients can potentially have little or no income, although the refundable tax credit is not a terrible idea, provided we can get recipients to file returns even if they have no income.
sandia2007 1 day ago
You are correct that for a small group of people a lower basic rate will not solve the problem.
However, in order to be eligible for the benefit as it stands one has to file a tax return. So that really doesn't make the refund tax credit a more challenging solution.
in-my-view 1 day ago
Harper had it right. The Liberals just hate anyone who works hard and are responsible parents and citizens.
Nanakanda 1 day ago
Feminism is cancer!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7SZaCHg2gI
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Howard-Hare 1 day ago
My Son and His Wife,both employed,both University Grads,have delayed or possibly decided against having children because of the associated costs,their employment require they live in G.T.A
My Wife's lazy niece,never has worked, twenty three She lives in assisted housing.
Pregnant from a one night stand with some one met on Facebook,now has a one year old son, now lives with Mother in a three bedroom unit,still not working,my guess is She will stir and repeat.
Subsidise stupid lazy people to have kids and you will get more stupid lazy kids.
Many small towns have baby brigades,Teenagers pushing their kids through the streets,in many cases a few young men are the Fathers to a multiple of children, and one day,inadvertently, First Cousins marrying First Cousins and children born with shocking deformities.
gtm 1 day ago
This is the craziest thing I think I've read in Globe comment history.
gtm 1 day ago
-4 score on a post where I question the sanity of someone that implies that this policy will create inbred deformed children across small town Canada?
Oh dear...
+1 -4
Report Comment
T_Ball 1 day ago
Tsk tsk it's not PC to say such things. You'llloffend a liberal. Lol
Reply
+7 -2
Report Comment
warbirds 1 day ago
Keep the calculator, available on the gov webpage, away from here...She will keep adding kids until she will be making more than someone working full time at min wage.
Wealth re-distribution from Lieberal social engineering.
Reply
+4 -1
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
So you think $4 or $5,000 a year will do it? You are cheap! You must live real cheap if you think that is a lot of money to help raise a child. Unbelievable!
Reply
+0 -3
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
...and that's how the Liberals get their majority!
Reply
+4 -0
Report Comment
ClashingTitans 21 hours ago
So I just finished paying the bills while my own kids grew up and now I have to pay for someone else's. How is that fair?
Reply
+3 -0
+3
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
Sure, but we all know that parents are stupid and lazy and just spend their extra money on "beer and popcorn"...
... Or is that just money they get from Conservatives?
Reply
+3 -0
+3
Report Comment
Jag1410 1 day ago
I know for a fact that many people in trades under report their incomes to get maximum social benefits. Most of them don't put their money in RESP because they did their education using student loans that they didn't pay back and they plan to do the same for their children. All this at the expense of honest hard working tax payers. Cheers to Trudeau government for encouraging Canadians to choose having more children over earning an honest living!
Reply
1 reply
+7 -4
+3
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
You know this for a fact? Wow. Talk about outdated thinking.
Reply
+1 -5
Report Comment
The_Real_G 1 day ago
I know I'm getting $0. I make too much money, and I'm ok with that.
Reply
1 reply
+5 -3
+2
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
There should never be a concept as "making too much money". If you are worth what you earn, then earn it. The government is not there to punish you for being successful, but that's exactly what Liberals do.
Reply
+3 -0
Report Comment
Canadian Tax Girl 1 day ago
Even though it benefitted me, I thought Harper's boutique tax credits like the child fitness and arts credit were a ridiculous, bureaucratic vote-buying scheme. Now we're in for more of the same under Trudeau, just targeting a different income bracket.
Reply
+0 -0
0
Report Comment
Freshycat 1 day ago
I'm not a JT fan on most things, and I'm trading my previous benefits for $0 under the new system. But I'm still happy. Why?
1. Frankly, someone trying to raise 3 kids on $30K needs the money a lot more than I do. My kids need more ski holidays or fancy hockey sticks less than some kids need healthy food or warm winter coats.
2. Canada has a redistributive tax system. Deal with it. It's called social democracy and done in the name of equity and social mobility. Some must pay more and receive less.
3. Although I liked Harper, the Tories' fragmented child tax benefits were rather silly. Consolidating multiple programs into one makes more sense administratively speaking.
Reply
4 replies
+3 -12
-9
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
1. There are a lot of people that could use your money. Does that give them a right to it? Perhaps people should invest in skills that get them more money, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
2. Canada is increasingly becoming a society of class warfare, the rich pay, the poor benefit. This doesn't really exist elsewhere in the world. The social welfare states of Europe are premised upon the concept of everyone pays, everyone benefits, more or less. In Canada its now, "that man pays, I benefit." It's horribly unsustainable and completely immoral.
3. I agree with consolidation. The best, most simply approach? The French pay taxes on a family basis (again, over simplifying a bit here), where children are 0.5 people for the general exemption. Easy peasy, and way more fair then the Canadian set up.
While the Tories had all sorts of boutique nonsense, they were attempting to address a terribly unfair portion of the Canadian tax system: two families with the same income could pay dramatically different amounts of tax depending on who earns the cash. Think of a surgeon earning $300k a year, with a stay a home parent. Why should that family pay 50% more tax than two $150k a year accountants? They have the same income! The Tories attempted to address this in a somewhat politically palatable way... and the Liberals reversed it. Though at the same time, Liberals acknowledge that family income is a better measure for child benefit (but not tax). Why? It's completely incoherent.
Reply
3 replies
+8 -2
Report Comment
Freshycat 1 day ago
#1 - This is a benefit paid out of general tax revenues, not a direct transfer from me. I don't consider general tax revenues to be "my" money. Sure, I contribute a big whack into it every year, but once it's there, it's Canada's money, and the elected government has to decide what to do with it. That's democracy. Nobody is going to agree with every line item in the government's budget except the people who did the budgeting.
#2 - Opinions will differ. Under the old system, some of my family members making millions a year received monthly child tax benefits. You could say this is "fair" because they made the money in the first place, but (as those family members recognized), a society with too much of this type of "fairness" is going to be plagued with other social ills. Luckily, they probably just added it to some foundation or other. But basically, tax money went to rich people so they could make bigger donations and get a pat on the back for it from society. Really not necessary and wasteful.
#3 Well, I agree with you that there might be more tax-efficient ways to redistribute. But this one is preferable to the Tories' boutique system.
+2 -5
Report Comment
Freshycat 1 day ago
FWIW, I supported the income-splitting for families too. The framework set up by the Tories, and the limits on the income splitting, were reasonable and would have been beneficial. And I am saying this even though I received zilch under that system as well, since my husband and I both make similar incomes.
What I dislike is when people criticize tax policy based entirely on how much it benefits them personally. That's unprincipled.
+4 -2
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
@Freshy: I didn't benefit much from the income splitting either as my wife and I are both in a similar marginal bracket. But it was a very principled concept. And it seems like the Liberals agree family income matters, when it comes to benefits being paid, but not when it comes to taxes collected. Why the difference? Because one block votes conservative and one block votes liberal. It's all rather sad.
69 Comments
RSS|Subscribe
Common Dollars 2 days ago
What a joke! Let's give a few people an extra few hundred dollars a year (while once again punishing hard working people) with money we don't have! What a waste and another ploy to trick clueless voters to get junior into power.
Reply
7 replies
+34 -5
+29
Report Comment
OakvilleCA 2 days ago
I hope they were happy voting for Trudeau after he bought there votes with such giveaways. When he gets through with you after implementing his carbon tax, you will be wishing for someone else to be in power, someone who appreciates that it is you who should be able to keep your income, not government.
Reply
4 replies
+15 -2
+13
Report Comment
Whiner1tis 1 day ago
I seem to recall a certain Harper Government buying votes with a big ol' bribe, not all that long ago.
+2 -14
-12
Report Comment
DB-TA 1 day ago
Harper "bribes" consisted of letting you keep more of the money you earned.
It takes a confiscatory mindset to fail to distinguish between these types of largesse.
+14 -1
+13
Report Comment
in-my-view 1 day ago
Someone like Harper, he had it correct...... and the Liberals have to do the opposite, no matter how good the plan and idea were.
+6 -1
+5
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
Hey Oakville, I am happy!! Thanks!!
+0 -4
-4
Report Comment
The_Real_G 1 day ago
Not unlike dropping the HST 2% points, right? I bet that was a WAY bigger chunk of change versus this benefit. I'm not a fan of either, but let's not pretend that this is some new tactic.
I would prefer we brought the HST back up 2% and lowered my income tax instead.
Reply
+4 -4
0
Report Comment
maximrw 1 day ago
The assumption is that the cheques will actually go out and this government cant even pay their own staff. Over eighty thousand have been without pay for months.
Reply
+4 -2
+2
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
$0. Thanks Justin. Massive tax hike on my family.
Reply
5 replies
+30 -4
+26
Report Comment
Informed Albertan 1 day ago
His personal marketing and the name of this program are creative marketing for what it really is - a progressive tax.
He isn't "giving" anything, he's just taking less by handing it back, and grandstanding for it. And hosing the top income earners for the ability to do so (and non parents).
Would be better just lowering everyone's tax rate a smidge so you keep your own dollars in your jeans.
Reply
+6 -0
+6
Report Comment
warbirds 1 day ago
That is ok, your one vote was replaced by how many thousands of Syrian migrants he let in with how many kids per family?
I can see them doing the happy dance!
Reply
2 replies
+4 -2
+2
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
We should be letting in more refugees. They will work a heck of a lot harder than you will and will be there to pay for your retirement! Never in any western country has immigration or refugees been a long term economic drain. It has always been an economic gain in western, reasonably progressive countries, like Canada! Go JT!!!
+0 -6
-6
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
except when they attack you with an axe on the train, right? Or mow down hundreds on a beach boardwalk? Then it's kinda an economic drain yakno.
+3 -0
+3
Report Comment
scubby15 10 hours ago
It's the governments job to slap your wrist and take more of your money if you work too hard and earn too much. It's just not fair to people who cut class in high school and dropped out of college. The deserve your pay cheque!
On a more serious note, this is why there is no innovation in this country, no start ups, no new billionaires. It doesn't pay to risk everything and succeed.
Reply
+0 -0
0
Report Comment
scubby15 2 days ago
It amazes me how some people don't understand the basics of taxes. Everyone seems to be happy that they are getting this money without wondering how much of their income taxes are going towards it. Where is the article showing how to calculate how much you pay vs. how much you receive? I'm guessing this program has a net negative benefit for most people. In other words, let's say you get $300 a month from it. That's great but you have no idea how much of your taxes are going to the program. For all you know you are paying $320 a month into the program. So your net benefit is actually -$20 a month. People need to remember this isn't a benefit, that's just the marketing. In reality it is a redistribution of your taxes to someone else.
Reply
5 replies
+26 -4
+22
Report Comment
richmond anon 1 day ago
And depending on the Province you live in - they may very well curtail any family oriented allowances, programs, or tax concessions accordingly.
Reply
+6 -0
+6
Report Comment
Greggore 1 day ago
There is no discussion of reality in Canadian MSM
Reply
+6 -1
+5
Report Comment
Informed Albertan 1 day ago
Exactly. Although don't forget this - the program is $2bn richer than the prior. So we're also deficit spending on it.
Hence you're actually spending your children's future tax contributions.
Enjoy your liberal marketing for the day... handouts handouts we take credit for handouts of YOUR dollars.
Reply
1 reply
+4 -1
+3
Report Comment
scubby15 10 hours ago
That's a good point. And let's remember that the federal government borrows most of it's money from Canadians by issuing bonds. So they tax us for a portion of it and then borrow from us for the rest while paying us interest on the loan. Ten years time when they have to pay back the principle of what they borrowed they will raise taxes to cover the expense. In the end it's a disaster. If you want people to have more money don't take if from those who do and give it away. Help lower income earners gain new skills and trades or go back to school. That's how you get kids out of poverty long-term.
+2 -0
+2
Report Comment
SteveVickRepoBoy 5 hours ago
Very little of this new largess is tax $. It is money that the Libs are taking from your children and their children. So don't sweat it.
Reply
+1 -0
+1
Report Comment
Greggore 1 day ago
I'm quitting my job and staying home to get my wife pregnant every 10 months.
Reply
1 reply
+18 -1
+17
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
So, you think the CCB will replace your salary and provide for your family? What school did you go to? Really people!
Reply
+0 -6
-6
Report Comment
Lousy Investor 2 days ago
I won't be getting anything. I'm looking forward to retirement so that our Robin Hood Government can find someone else to redistribute income from.
Reply
3 replies
+20 -4
+16
Report Comment
OakvilleCA 2 days ago
Fat chance. Trudeau's carbon tax will increase the cost of everything so get used to more of your money leaving your pocket. They seemed to have re-defined revenue neutral as being any extra revenue will be spent on new programs rather than being spent on a tax cut to taxpayers. These greedy governments will pocket all of their newfound revenues. Big surprise!
Reply
+13 -1
+12
Report Comment
Greggore 1 day ago
hahaha good luck with that. While you'll be getting a moderate 15% increase in CPP, they'll just increase taxes so what you are taking out of your pension will be less and less.
And don't think for a second that the Lib's will not revoke the TFSA and start taxing income in this account. They'll do it. Who else is going to take us out of debt? YOU and your retired friends. and if you complain....well they just passed a law giving them powers to have you put down
Reply
+8 -0
+8
Report Comment
warbirds 1 day ago
Hopefully, not in this country....retire somewhere where there isn't a red Lieberal hand looking for your last dime...
Reply
+4 -0
+4
Report Comment
watchlist for Ian 1 day ago
Families with 4 young children making 30k a year just got their income more than doubled! Lets have more kids folks - they are great income producers. With Liberals in power, only fools work hard.
Reply
4 replies
+19 -4
+15
Report Comment
bonnieboo 1 day ago
This is the problem and the reason why the UK moved to cap the number of children (at 2) for which you can receive benefits. They had regular news stories of families of 10-12 kids so their parents could stay home and never work.
Reply
2 replies
+14 -1
+13
Report Comment
in-my-view 1 day ago
Now that is a great idea.
+5 -0
+5
Report Comment
richmond anon 1 day ago
Excellent idea capping the benefit.
If you are the parent of a large family, having the payments scaled back because you are working is an incentive not to work, or to work under the table.
+5 -0
+5
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
Could you possibly live on $30,000 a year even as a single person let alone a family of 4 young children? Give your head a shake Ian!
Reply
+1 -5
-4
Report Comment
in-my-view 1 day ago
Just trying to figure out how much those 'refugees' with 8 and more kids are now going to rake in with this.......after paying not a cent into our system for it. Seems to me like an incentive to not work, or not work hard and breed more children.
Reply
3 replies
+15 -1
+14
Report Comment
richmond anon 1 day ago
Or perhaps take a look at the Mormon polygamous breakaway sects in Bountiful, in southeastern BC.
Winston Blackmore alone has 25 wives and 130 children.
The sound you hear? Cash registers in the Creston Valley.
Reply
1 reply
+8 -1
+7
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
You're telling me Blackmore is going to be rolling in hundreds of thousands of dollars of child payments?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
They should get a lot of benefit to help them get ahead, improve their lives and the lives of their children so that they can in turn help those around them. This will help a lot until the family can get on their feet and find good paying jobs or create good paying jobs.
Report Comment
T_Ball 1 day ago
I know many very well off divorced women who do not work therefore will receive the maximum benefit. Child support is not included on tax return therefore is not income and used in calculation of benefit. I don't think taxpayers should be supporting people who already receive $10-15k a month (tax free).
I sent a letter to morneau and was told that the "reporting of child support is not in the spirit of the benefit"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
gtm 1 day ago
That's an interesting point actually. I didn't consider that, but it does seem extremely unfair.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Common Dollars 1 day ago
It seems extremely "Liberal"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Pls Think Before Speaking 1 day ago
@ Common Dollars - The Harper Income splitting was going to let Divorced parents receiving child support receive the exact same benefit... But you have such a hate on against one party that you refuse to see when your party of choice does the same thing.
bartonb 1 day ago
"Many very well off divorced women"? Really? With the wealth in this country concentrated in the hands of so few, how is this possible? How many people earn more than $240,000 a year (that is what would be required to see 50% of their pay going to spousal and child support)? Do you have any idea? According to Stats Can, 219,900 in 2014. That is less than 1% of the working population. and how many of these do you personally know?
T_Ball 1 day ago
Barton: Do you actually think that statscan has accurate income numbers?
An individuals personal tax return does not reflect what income they have actually generated. If i
make $300000 in my corporation but only take out $80k or i split income with my spouse neither of us will be reported in the top 1pct.
Easy solution: have all child support pymnts reported on personal tax returns. Adjust benefit based on disclosure.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
seastrov 1 day ago
Meanwhile, single people with no kids continue to get reamed in the behind as we qualify for nothing. I work multiple jobs and pull in very good income only to see an astronomical tax bill come April. There is 0 incentive to work hard and get ahead.
The_Real_G 1 day ago
Because only Muslims have children?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
DB-TA 1 day ago
The fertility rate for Muslims in Canada is higher than the rate for other Canadians (an average of 2.4 children per woman for Muslims, compared with 1.6 children per woman for other populations in Canada), at least according to Wikipedia, which may be insufficient for he vast authority of Globe censors this afternoon.
richmond anon 1 day ago
Generally what happens is when the Feds give the Province (or your City) takes.
Here in BC the Province lowered the basic tax exemption level two years ago to counter Federal largesse, and will no doubt do the same again. And then there are a whole raft of larger-than-inflation premium and fee increases on the horizon for next year, everything from medical services to hydro, to car insurance, to property tax. And the spectre of an increase to the carbon tax.
Meanwhile it's bidding wars for rental accommodation in a .6% vacancy market, and heh, who's got a million or two to buy.
Put the extra money in an RESP?
At the end of the day - what extra money?
sandia2007 1 day ago
The mere fact that the discussions around the benefit (and prior variations) are often focused on "what to do with the money" shows how absurd the "benefit" actually is. Particularly when you consider that administering the program costs money on top of the benefit. So we are paying the government additional tax so that they can turn around and return some of our taxes in the form of monthly cheques or deposits.
Seems to me the obvious solution is to do one of two things: lower the basic tax rate or use a refundable tax credit for taxpayers with dependents under 18.
It keeps the money in the pocket of the taxpayer through lower payroll deductions and eliminates the need for administration.
But of course it also eliminates the ability of the government to provide a reminder 12x a year of how much they "give" you.
Adam J. 1 day ago
Modifying the basic rate doesn't work for social programs where the recipients can potentially have little or no income, although the refundable tax credit is not a terrible idea, provided we can get recipients to file returns even if they have no income.
sandia2007 1 day ago
You are correct that for a small group of people a lower basic rate will not solve the problem.
However, in order to be eligible for the benefit as it stands one has to file a tax return. So that really doesn't make the refund tax credit a more challenging solution.
in-my-view 1 day ago
Harper had it right. The Liberals just hate anyone who works hard and are responsible parents and citizens.
Nanakanda 1 day ago
Feminism is cancer!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7SZaCHg2gI
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...nada-child-benefit/article30976860/comments/#
Howard-Hare 1 day ago
My Son and His Wife,both employed,both University Grads,have delayed or possibly decided against having children because of the associated costs,their employment require they live in G.T.A
My Wife's lazy niece,never has worked, twenty three She lives in assisted housing.
Pregnant from a one night stand with some one met on Facebook,now has a one year old son, now lives with Mother in a three bedroom unit,still not working,my guess is She will stir and repeat.
Subsidise stupid lazy people to have kids and you will get more stupid lazy kids.
Many small towns have baby brigades,Teenagers pushing their kids through the streets,in many cases a few young men are the Fathers to a multiple of children, and one day,inadvertently, First Cousins marrying First Cousins and children born with shocking deformities.
gtm 1 day ago
This is the craziest thing I think I've read in Globe comment history.
gtm 1 day ago
-4 score on a post where I question the sanity of someone that implies that this policy will create inbred deformed children across small town Canada?
Oh dear...
+1 -4
Report Comment
T_Ball 1 day ago
Tsk tsk it's not PC to say such things. You'llloffend a liberal. Lol
Reply
+7 -2
Report Comment
warbirds 1 day ago
Keep the calculator, available on the gov webpage, away from here...She will keep adding kids until she will be making more than someone working full time at min wage.
Wealth re-distribution from Lieberal social engineering.
Reply
+4 -1
Report Comment
bartonb 1 day ago
So you think $4 or $5,000 a year will do it? You are cheap! You must live real cheap if you think that is a lot of money to help raise a child. Unbelievable!
Reply
+0 -3
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
...and that's how the Liberals get their majority!
Reply
+4 -0
Report Comment
ClashingTitans 21 hours ago
So I just finished paying the bills while my own kids grew up and now I have to pay for someone else's. How is that fair?
Reply
+3 -0
+3
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
Sure, but we all know that parents are stupid and lazy and just spend their extra money on "beer and popcorn"...
... Or is that just money they get from Conservatives?
Reply
+3 -0
+3
Report Comment
Jag1410 1 day ago
I know for a fact that many people in trades under report their incomes to get maximum social benefits. Most of them don't put their money in RESP because they did their education using student loans that they didn't pay back and they plan to do the same for their children. All this at the expense of honest hard working tax payers. Cheers to Trudeau government for encouraging Canadians to choose having more children over earning an honest living!
Reply
1 reply
+7 -4
+3
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
You know this for a fact? Wow. Talk about outdated thinking.
Reply
+1 -5
Report Comment
The_Real_G 1 day ago
I know I'm getting $0. I make too much money, and I'm ok with that.
Reply
1 reply
+5 -3
+2
Report Comment
DenFMoral 1 day ago
There should never be a concept as "making too much money". If you are worth what you earn, then earn it. The government is not there to punish you for being successful, but that's exactly what Liberals do.
Reply
+3 -0
Report Comment
Canadian Tax Girl 1 day ago
Even though it benefitted me, I thought Harper's boutique tax credits like the child fitness and arts credit were a ridiculous, bureaucratic vote-buying scheme. Now we're in for more of the same under Trudeau, just targeting a different income bracket.
Reply
+0 -0
0
Report Comment
Freshycat 1 day ago
I'm not a JT fan on most things, and I'm trading my previous benefits for $0 under the new system. But I'm still happy. Why?
1. Frankly, someone trying to raise 3 kids on $30K needs the money a lot more than I do. My kids need more ski holidays or fancy hockey sticks less than some kids need healthy food or warm winter coats.
2. Canada has a redistributive tax system. Deal with it. It's called social democracy and done in the name of equity and social mobility. Some must pay more and receive less.
3. Although I liked Harper, the Tories' fragmented child tax benefits were rather silly. Consolidating multiple programs into one makes more sense administratively speaking.
Reply
4 replies
+3 -12
-9
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
1. There are a lot of people that could use your money. Does that give them a right to it? Perhaps people should invest in skills that get them more money, rather than relying on others to do it for them.
2. Canada is increasingly becoming a society of class warfare, the rich pay, the poor benefit. This doesn't really exist elsewhere in the world. The social welfare states of Europe are premised upon the concept of everyone pays, everyone benefits, more or less. In Canada its now, "that man pays, I benefit." It's horribly unsustainable and completely immoral.
3. I agree with consolidation. The best, most simply approach? The French pay taxes on a family basis (again, over simplifying a bit here), where children are 0.5 people for the general exemption. Easy peasy, and way more fair then the Canadian set up.
While the Tories had all sorts of boutique nonsense, they were attempting to address a terribly unfair portion of the Canadian tax system: two families with the same income could pay dramatically different amounts of tax depending on who earns the cash. Think of a surgeon earning $300k a year, with a stay a home parent. Why should that family pay 50% more tax than two $150k a year accountants? They have the same income! The Tories attempted to address this in a somewhat politically palatable way... and the Liberals reversed it. Though at the same time, Liberals acknowledge that family income is a better measure for child benefit (but not tax). Why? It's completely incoherent.
Reply
3 replies
+8 -2
Report Comment
Freshycat 1 day ago
#1 - This is a benefit paid out of general tax revenues, not a direct transfer from me. I don't consider general tax revenues to be "my" money. Sure, I contribute a big whack into it every year, but once it's there, it's Canada's money, and the elected government has to decide what to do with it. That's democracy. Nobody is going to agree with every line item in the government's budget except the people who did the budgeting.
#2 - Opinions will differ. Under the old system, some of my family members making millions a year received monthly child tax benefits. You could say this is "fair" because they made the money in the first place, but (as those family members recognized), a society with too much of this type of "fairness" is going to be plagued with other social ills. Luckily, they probably just added it to some foundation or other. But basically, tax money went to rich people so they could make bigger donations and get a pat on the back for it from society. Really not necessary and wasteful.
#3 Well, I agree with you that there might be more tax-efficient ways to redistribute. But this one is preferable to the Tories' boutique system.
+2 -5
Report Comment
Freshycat 1 day ago
FWIW, I supported the income-splitting for families too. The framework set up by the Tories, and the limits on the income splitting, were reasonable and would have been beneficial. And I am saying this even though I received zilch under that system as well, since my husband and I both make similar incomes.
What I dislike is when people criticize tax policy based entirely on how much it benefits them personally. That's unprincipled.
+4 -2
Report Comment
gtm 1 day ago
@Freshy: I didn't benefit much from the income splitting either as my wife and I are both in a similar marginal bracket. But it was a very principled concept. And it seems like the Liberals agree family income matters, when it comes to benefits being paid, but not when it comes to taxes collected. Why the difference? Because one block votes conservative and one block votes liberal. It's all rather sad.
