Are any beyonders actually benefitting from Trudeau's new child benefit?

[nzwasp]

Before we were getting $320 a month for our 2 x kids under 6. Now we are getting $0.

I imagine most beyonders are getting nothing?

However looking at the calculator if you have 4+ kids and make more than 200k you get money as well. Infact if you somehow had 7 kids and made 250k per year you would be receiving around $1500 a month.

Not sure if there calculator is just broken at this point though, now that the phoenix pay system is out in the news I find it hard to believe govt IT can make anything work.

[Seth1968]

I would say the benefit is for those that no longer have to pay for other peoples kids.

[OU812]

pretty sure were still paying its just distributed "fairly" ie to those who are so broke they have no business having kids to begin with and the uber rich who dont need the money.

Typical government in screwing over the majority aka middle class.

[phreezee]

Yeah man, aim low and quit making so much. :banghead:

[rage2]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I would say the benefit is for those that no longer have to pay for other peoples kids.

Originally posted by OU812
pretty sure were still paying its just distributed "fairly"
haha yea, like we'd get a tax break at all. :rofl:

[guessboi]

Lost 55% for my 2 kids. :nut:

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by rage2


haha yea, like we'd get a tax break at all. :rofl:

Touche.

In new "hidden" taxes, we're paying even more.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[timdog]

I went from $160 for the one kid to $120. we have another kid on the way so we will see how that changes things.

[gretz]

Down to zero here too

[HiTempguy1]

Well, considering Beyond is full of baller's, why would they need (or get) the child benefit?

;)

But seriously, the point of the program isn't to give a family earning $150k+ per year help. I know that might be what Beyonders need to barely survive in their $800k McMansion, but seriously? :rofl:

[suntan]

$0.

[phreezee]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
I know that might be what Beyonders need to barely survive in their $800k McMansion, but seriously? :rofl:


pfft, that's a move-up home. :rofl:

[rage2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Well, considering Beyond is full of baller's, why would they need (or get) the child benefit?

;)

But seriously, the point of the program isn't to give a family earning $150k+ per year help. I know that might be what Beyonders need to barely survive in their $800k McMansion, but seriously? :rofl:
Child care before grade 1 is expensive, for families making $150k plus, it's typically both parents working, which means they need child care more. It's like a mortgage payment per kid. It's almost advantageous for dual income families at that income level to drop to single income and have a stay at home mom/dad with 2+ kids.

[Dave P]

Down 60% I believe

[ExtraSlow]

Beyonder = 1%er. Fact.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by rage2

Child care before grade 1 is expensive, for families making $150k plus, it's typically both parents working, which means they need child care more. It's like a mortgage payment per kid. It's almost advantageous for dual income families at that income level to drop to single income and have a stay at home mom/dad with 2+ kids.

I was thinking a part time stay at home parent. That is, the one parent works part time at a paying job, and also works part time at taking care of the brood. The money from the part time job, can be used for the part time day care. That's not only beneficial financially, but best for the kid as the thing will get some social conditioning in a day care environment ;)

[suntan]

Child care is fucking expensive as hell. A part-time woman would essentially make zero after paying for child care.

Don't worry Seth1968, no woman's ever gonna let your semen settle in her vagina.

[Aleks]

380 to 122.92

http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2015/11/malta-summit-commonwealth-chogm1.jpeg

[killramos]

Originally posted by rage2

Child care before grade 1 is expensive, for families making $150k plus, it's typically both parents working, which means they need child care more. It's like a mortgage payment per kid. It's almost advantageous for dual income families at that income level to drop to single income and have a stay at home mom/dad with 2+ kids.

:werd:

I couldn't even imagine having kids with today's cost of living and childcare with $150k per year coming in. The numbers just straight up don't add up. I don't live all that expensive of a lifestyle and there is no way I could make raising a kid on my and my wife's (well over 150) combined income work. Let alone setting them up to go to post-secondary etc.

:dunno:

But all the people my age I know with kids? They are nowhere near that income level which I just find mind boggling. It's as if the pre requisite for having kids young is not being able to do math.

I realize that isn't the case for everyone and there are always extenuating circumstances. But I do believe that is the case for most.

[rage2]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I was thinking a part time stay at home parent. That is, the one parent works part time at a paying job, and also works part time at taking care of the brood. The money from the part time job, can be used for the part time day care. That's not only beneficial financially, but best for the kid as the thing will get some social conditioning in a day care environment ;)
Good luck trying to do part time day care. No day care or day home would give up 1/2 a spot for you haha. Then there's trying to find a job that allows you to work 1/2 hours that's not unpredictable shift work.


Originally posted by killramos
I couldn't even imagine having kids with today's cost of living and childcare with $150k per year coming in. The numbers just straight up don't add up. I don't live all that expensive of a lifestyle and there is no way I could make raising a kid on my and my wife's (well over 150) combined income work. Let alone setting them up to go to post-secondary etc.
The criteria for the benefit surely doesn't work well for high cost of living centers. But that's a problem for every social program in existence.

[Zero102]

It sounds like I must make way less money than everybody posting here but for us the total benefit went up by about 25% for our 3 kids even though one of them just turned 6 and is now in the lower benefit bracket.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by suntan
Child care is fucking expensive as hell. A part-time woman would essentially make zero after paying for child care.

Don't worry Seth1968, no woman's ever gonna let your semen settle in her vagina.

Lol, not even if I pay for it?

So now we're FINALLY down to the crux of the matter. That is, for those that can't see through the Polka Dot Door and how to prevent the uneducated and poor from breeding leaches that you're working and paying for.

BTW- It's "Seth". The numerical value at the end, well, fuck, never mind.

[Zero102]

Originally posted by killramos


:werd:

I couldn't even imagine having kids with today's cost of living and childcare with $150k per year coming in. The numbers just straight up don't add up. I don't live all that expensive of a lifestyle and there is no way I could make raising a kid on my and my wife's (well over 150) combined income work. Let alone setting them up to go to post-secondary etc.

:dunno:

But all the people my age I know with kids? They are nowhere near that income level which I just find mind boggling. It's as if the pre requisite for having kids young is not being able to do math.

I realize that isn't the case for everyone and there are always extenuating circumstances. But I do believe that is the case for most.

My wife and I are raising 3 kids on WAY less than $150k/year. We have no problems paying our mortgage, feeding and clothing everybody, putting away a decent chunk for both RESP and RRSP and also having some money left over for hobbies and entertainment.

I work while she stays home with the kids so we aren't paying for daycare but in my opinion why would you have kids if you are just going to pay somebody else to raise them for you?

[Rarasaurus]

Originally posted by Zero102


My wife and I are raising 3 kids on WAY less than $150k/year. We have no problems paying our mortgage, feeding and clothing everybody, putting away a decent chunk for both RESP and RRSP and also having some money left over for hobbies and entertainment.

I work while she stays home with the kids so we aren't paying for daycare but in my opinion why would you have kids if you are just going to pay somebody else to raise them for you?

Totally Agree. If families needed to make over 150k a year to raise kids only 10 - 20% of Canada would do it based on 2 incomes. Just cant have a 600k+ house and drive new luxury cars every 3 years.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by rage2

Good luck trying to do part time day care. No day care or day home would give up 1/2 a spot for you haha. Then there's trying to find a job that allows you to work 1/2 hours that's not unpredictable shift work.


The criteria for the benefit surely doesn't work well for high cost of living centers. But that's a problem for every social program in existence.

I'm aware of those issues.

My whole point on the matter is hyperbole, and I felt that my questioning was self evident.

My fundamental thought is duality (the Yin Yang).

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2

Child care before grade 1 is expensive, for families making $150k plus, it's typically both parents working, which means they need child care more. It's like a mortgage payment per kid. It's almost advantageous for dual income families at that income level to drop to single income and have a stay at home mom/dad with 2+ kids.

Rage, no offense, but I think this is a case of you not being able to recognize there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between families earning $150k+ in income and then the families below that. Having a family is a choice, and with that choice comes sacrifices. Even in Calgary, it is hardly a "burden" on $150k+ to raise a family. Having to live within a person's means isn't always the most fun, but it doesn't mean they require government assistance.


In 2014, 69% of couple families with at least one child under 16 were dual-earner families, up from 36% in 1976. Among dual-earner families, almost three-quarters had two parents working full time in 2014.

Regionally, Alberta had the lowest proportion of dual-earner families in 2014 (65% of couple families with children)

Dual income households are the norm, not the exception and have been for quite some time. Only those earning over $150k per year family income could DREAM of having a stay-at-home wife and still lead a comfortable life. Also, another thing that shows some people's age posting, chicks do NOT want to stay at home with the kids if they have an education. Those kind of gals are very rare nowadays if they are educated.


Originally posted by rage2

The criteria for the benefit surely doesn't work well for high cost of living centers. But that's a problem for every social program in existence.

Calgary is hardly a high cost of living center compared to Vancouver or Toronto. Honestly, I still don't see why families should be subsidized that earn that kind of cash? I'm open to an explanation though.


Originally posted by killramos

I don't live all that expensive of a lifestyle and there is no way I could make raising a kid on my and my wife's (well over 150) combined income work. Let alone setting them up to go to post-secondary etc.

But all the people my age I know with kids? They are nowhere near that income level which I just find mind boggling.

Your lifestyle isn't normal ;) Mine isn't either, I bitch and moan about being poor, but I literally spent 5 figures worth of money in the past two months racing :nut: You have a nice place and drive a car that is expensive no matter which way you slice it, among other things you probably do (expensive hobbies). If I had kids, something would have to give. The people you see with kids eat out MAYBE once a month, and have activities that are confined to their residence or involves taking care of the kids. :dunno:

The thing about having kids and being poor is nothing changes, you still are poor but now you have kids. Having a very "indulgent" lifestyle and earning decent money, then having kids? That is a change that sucks, it's hard to wrap a guy's head around (not that that is in the works for me anytime soon lol!)

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Zero102


My wife and I are raising 3 kids on WAY less than $150k/year. We have no problems paying our mortgage, feeding and clothing everybody, putting away a decent chunk for both RESP and RRSP and also having some money left over for hobbies and entertainment.

I work while she stays home with the kids so we aren't paying for daycare but in my opinion why would you have kids if you are just going to pay somebody else to raise them for you?



Originally posted by Rarasaurus


Totally Agree. If families needed to make over 150k a year to raise kids only 10 - 20% of Canada would do it based on 2 incomes. Just cant have a 600k+ house and drive new luxury cars every 3 years.
:werd:

lol @ not being able to raise kids with a 150k household income :nut: :rofl:

My parents were broke as hell (mom never worked, dad barely made enough to get by) and they raised 4 kids. Sure we didn't have the nicest cars and get nice allowances / all the coolest toys, but we all turned out just as fine.

[msommers]

Of course it's possible, just look around. All Beyond members were raised by two hard working parents who didn't make much money and their kids are now self-made millionaires.

[benyl]

Down $800 from last year. :cry:

[Aleks]

Everyone's circumstances are different. People raise kids in Calgary just fine at all sorts of different income levels. My question is how Liberals decided what income level deserves to have assistance and what level shouldn't. IMO, it was designed to try and get the most votes in the election. IIRC, anything over $100k doesn't qualify for assistance or maybe reduced assistance.

Why not truly help out the low earners and say anything above 60k gets nothing and people making less than that get way more?

[InRich]

Originally posted by suntan
Child care is fucking expensive as hell. A part-time woman would essentially make zero after paying for child care.

Don't worry Seth1968, no woman's ever gonna let your semen settle in her vagina.

BaHahahaha! funny but rude dude.

[vengie]

Originally posted by killramos


:werd:

I couldn't even imagine having kids with today's cost of living and childcare with $150k per year coming in. The numbers just straight up don't add up. I don't live all that expensive of a lifestyle and there is no way I could make raising a kid on my and my wife's (well over 150) combined income work. Let alone setting them up to go to post-secondary etc.

:dunno:

But all the people my age I know with kids? They are nowhere near that income level which I just find mind boggling. It's as if the pre requisite for having kids young is not being able to do math.

I realize that isn't the case for everyone and there are always extenuating circumstances. But I do believe that is the case for most.

Those families raising kids with <$150k household income aren't driving brand new vehicles and living in an inner city home like you are.

You should have a MASSIVE asterisk on your post saying "I could not have kids on our current salary while maintaining my current lifestyle".

I personally know people who make less than the $150k household raising families of 2-3 kids just fine here in Calgary. Its called a budget and delayed gratification.

The shit you say sometimes...

[BrknFngrs]

Originally posted by vengie


Those families raising kids with &lt;$150k household income aren't driving brand new vehicles and living in an inner city home like you are.

You should have a MASSIVE asterisk on your post saying &quot;I could not have kids on our current salary while maintaining my current lifestyle&quot;.

I personally know people who make less than the $150k household raising families of 2-3 kids just fine here in Calgary. Its called a budget and delayed gratification.

The shit you say sometimes...

:werd: One of the funniest posts I've seen on Beyond in quite a while.

[killramos]

Originally posted by vengie


Those families raising kids with &lt;$150k household income aren't driving brand new vehicles and living in an inner city home like you are.

You should have a MASSIVE asterisk on your post saying &quot;I could not have kids on our current salary while maintaining my current lifestyle&quot;.

I personally know people who make less than the $150k household raising families of 2-3 kids just fine here in Calgary. Its called a budget and delayed gratification.

The shit you say sometimes...

It's not just a lifestyle thing. I just personally can't see it.

Childcare alone? 1,200 (conservative) per child, I know people paying near double that. 30k a year right there for 2 kids. Comes pretty close to my wife's net take home. Let alone if you have more two. So basically take her income and savings right off the table for a minimum of 6 years, probably closer to 7-8. And all the reduced future salary potential that comes with that. If she ever decides to work again.

So now I'm putting the mortgage, food, bills, utilities; all fixed costs on my salary. When I add it up that's damn close to my net take home (before dipping into fixed savings contributions).

So that literally leaves nothing for additional costs for kids needs, education savings, family trips. Even on an advanced earner. Sure I could just not save anything for my retirement and just rely on my kids for that, but that doesn't seem particularly smart to me.

Your solution? Sell my home and basically stop building equity for the foreseeable future to live 45 minutes from work and triple my gas costs every month? Eat ramen and potatoes and sit at home watching tv 7 days a week. Pretty major lifestyle change. Personally I don't even see that cost cutting adding up to enough to reasonably raise a family.

So make fun of me all you want. I personally don't know anyone who actually makes any changes to their lifestyle when kids come around. New toys and dinners out all around. Bigger houses because that's what the bored wives want. They just finance it all with debt and a mortgaged future. Again maybe you know people in different situations than I do, that's great to hear. I just don't :dunno:.

Fuck me for responsibly considering these aspects before popping out some spawn.:whocares:

And as to the topic of the thread? Let's just get the government to make up for those shortfalls because by and large people don't think these kinds of decisions through and find themselves unable to make ends meet because of poor decision making.:zzz:

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Aleks
Everyone's circumstances are different. People raise kids in Calgary just fine at all sorts of different income levels. My question is how Liberals decided what income level deserves to have assistance and what level shouldn't. IMO, it was designed to try and get the most votes in the election. IIRC, anything over $100k doesn't qualify for assistance or maybe reduced assistance.

Why not truly help out the low earners and say anything above 60k gets nothing and people making less than that get way more?
that's exactly what they did.........

before, everyone (including people with 1mm annual income) got it and it was more or less the same amount for everyone. Now if you make 200k combined you get nothing, where as the people on the lower end (20k-70k) get more than before.

it's too bad they took down the comparison calculator that they had before (i guess it makes sense since the election is done) but here is the calculator showing the new program:
http://www.budget.gc.ca/2016/tool-outil/ccb-ace-en.html

plug in some numbers with different incomes and see how much it benefits the people that actually need it.

[Zero102]

Originally posted by killramos


It's not just a lifestyle thing. I just personally can't see it.

Childcare alone? 1,200 (conservative) per child, I know people paying near double that. 30k a year right there for 2 kids. Comes pretty close to my wife's net take home. Let alone if you have more two. So basically take her income and savings right off the table for a minimum of 6 years, probably closer to 7-8. And all the reduced future salary potential that comes with that. If she ever decides to work again.

So now I'm putting the mortgage, food, bills, utilities; all fixed costs on my salary. When I add it up that's damn close to my net take home (before dipping into fixed savings contributions).

So that literally leaves nothing for additional costs for kids needs, education savings, family trips. Even on an advanced earner. Sure I could just not save anything for my retirement and just rely on my kids for that, but that doesn't seem particularly smart to me.

Your solution? Sell my home and basically stop building equity for the foreseeable future to live 45 minutes from work and triple my gas costs every month? Eat ramen and potatoes and sit at home watching tv 7 days a week. Pretty major lifestyle change. Personally I don't even see that cost cutting adding up to enough to reasonably raise a family.

So make fun of me all you want. I personally don't know anyone who actually makes any changes to their lifestyle when kids come around. New toys and dinners out all around. Bigger houses because that's what the bored wives want. They just finance it all with debt and a mortgaged future. Again maybe you know people in different situations than I do, that's great to hear. I just don't :dunno:.

Fuck me for responsibly considering these aspects before popping out some spawn.:whocares:

And as to the topic of the thread? Let's just get the government to make up for those shortfalls because by and large people don't think these kinds of decisions through and find themselves unable to make ends meet because of poor decision making.:zzz:

You're being too closed-minded.
Childcare is about 1000-1500/month per child, so yes, once you pass 1 kid it typically makes more sense for one parent to stay home than to pay for child care for 2+ kids.
Yes, if your wife stops working now it might affect her future earnings potential.
Yes, it would put all of the costs on your salary.

Now that those details are out of the way, let's see how this CAN work:
My wife and I have 3 kids, we live in a ~$500k house in the suburbs. That house is on a mortgage with a touch over 25 years remaining, it's about $1900/month.
We have no car payments since we paid off all of our consumer debt before having kids, my car is ~6 years old, hers is ~10, both are in good mechanical shape and I do all of the repairs and maintenance work myself. That's probably about $100/month averaged over the last 5 years. I also have a ford focus that I use for solo 2 and a motorcycle.
We put away $2500 per kid per year into an RESP to maximize government matching, this is put into zero risk investments so while the interest rate isn't high it gives us about $65k per kid by the time they turn 18 (~$210/month)
We put away about $9000-$12000 per year into RRSPs by using our tax refund each year to fund the RSP contributions plus small contributions each month (~$200/month). Between the deductions for dependants and the RSP contributions this works out.
It costs us about $600 per month to feed everybody, we could make that less if money got tight but while things are good it's alright to enjoy life a little
We spend about $500/month on clothes and household stuff
Insurance averages about $250/month (house, 3 cars plus motorcycle)
Fuel averages about $180/month
Utilities are averaging $290/month

This means an average month for us costs about $4230.

I'm not specifying my exact income on here but I make WELL under $100k/year and I can afford all of this. On top of what I make the government gives us a little over $800/month for the kids. This means we have in excess of $1000/month left over to do whatever we want with, usually we will put some of this money back into the house for repairs or improvements (we've built a new deck, added central air and renovated a bathroom in the last 3 years) and also use some of the money to do things we like to do, go out for supper, take the kids somewhere interesting, etc. I'm sure I'm forgetting some expenses and things are actually a bit tighter so don't take this as a literal budget you can use to have kids, but this has been working out just fine for us for the past few years, our savings have grown and we have not accumulated any debt.

[rage2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Rage, no offense, but I think this is a case of you not being able to recognize there is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between families earning $150k+ in income and then the families below that. Having a family is a choice, and with that choice comes sacrifices. Even in Calgary, it is hardly a &quot;burden&quot; on $150k+ to raise a family. Having to live within a person's means isn't always the most fun, but it doesn't mean they require government assistance.
Like you said, having a family is a choice, why should we even subsidize people earning less money to have a family? Having a family when you can't afford it is a poor choice, just like having a family and needing a handout because of unwillingness to make sacrifices with a family income over $150k.

If they're going to make a social program to encourage people to raise a family, it should be offered to everyone, not just people making less than a certain amount of money. At the end of the day, people making $150k+ or whatever was relying on this social program for their families, and it's been taken away from them, changing the dynamics of their family budget (or lack thereof).


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Calgary is hardly a high cost of living center compared to Vancouver or Toronto. Honestly, I still don't see why families should be subsidized that earn that kind of cash? I'm open to an explanation though.
Because everyone wants what's best for their family, and being the optimistic here believing that middle income families are pushing their budget to ensure that their kids have the best upbringing that they can afford, taking it away due to a policy change really hurts these families, even at $150k+. It means less camps for the kids, moving away from their friends, things that are disruptive to the children.

And you're right, Calgary isn't as expensive as GVA or GTA, but it's still not a cheap place to live compared to Rural Alberta, so it still affects Calgarians.

[vengie]

Originally posted by killramos


It's not just a lifestyle thing. I just personally can't see it.

Childcare alone? 1,200 (conservative) per child, I know people paying near double that. 30k a year right there for 2 kids. Comes pretty close to my wife's net take home. Let alone if you have more two. So basically take her income and savings right off the table for a minimum of 6 years, probably closer to 7-8. And all the reduced future salary potential that comes with that. If she ever decides to work again.

So now I'm putting the mortgage, food, bills, utilities; all fixed costs on my salary. When I add it up that's damn close to my net take home (before dipping into fixed savings contributions).

So that literally leaves nothing for additional costs for kids needs, education savings, family trips. Even on an advanced earner. Sure I could just not save anything for my retirement and just rely on my kids for that, but that doesn't seem particularly smart to me.

Your solution? Sell my home and basically stop building equity for the foreseeable future to live 45 minutes from work and triple my gas costs every month? Eat ramen and potatoes and sit at home watching tv 7 days a week. Pretty major lifestyle change. Personally I don't even see that cost cutting adding up to enough to reasonably raise a family.

So make fun of me all you want. I personally don't know anyone who actually makes any changes to their lifestyle when kids come around. New toys and dinners out all around. Bigger houses because that's what the bored wives want. They just finance it all with debt and a mortgaged future. Again maybe you know people in different situations than I do, that's great to hear. I just don't :dunno:.

Fuck me for responsibly considering these aspects before popping out some spawn.:whocares:

And as to the topic of the thread? Let's just get the government to make up for those shortfalls because by and large people don't think these kinds of decisions through and find themselves unable to make ends meet because of poor decision making.:zzz:

I am going to do a little bit of math for you based on some assumptions I will make as outlined below.

So for the sake of numbers I am going to assume your wife makes ~$50k/ year if she is netting $30k/ year as you say.

Since your net household income is WELL over $150k/ year, that means you as a 24 year old engineer are being paid ~$110,000 or more?

But lets assume you are only making $100k/ year to put you and your wife at the $150k mark.

You would likely take home ~$60k/ year on your salary alone (not including tax return claiming your wife as a stay at home dependent and your child, so this number is likely low).

You now have to budget a household based on $5000/ month.

Your current lifestyle:
Mortgage: $1750/ month
Brand new vehicle payments: ~$1200/month
Insurance: ~$600/month
Utilities: ~$350/ month
Groceries: ~$500/ month
Miscellaneous: ~$1000/ month

= -$400/ month on current lifestyle, you're right the numbers don't work!

NOW lets budget for a family on the same numbers

Mortgage: $1250/ month (Clearly won't be AS extravagent of a home, aka lifestyle adjustment)
Brand new vehicle payments: ~$400/month, why? because you can buy a very solid vehicle for $5-$10k and drive it reliably for years. again a lifestyle change

Insurance: ~$300/month
Utilities: ~$250/ month (Smaller house)
Groceries: ~$500/ month
Miscellaneous: ~$1000/ month

= $3700/ month, allowing you to put $1300/ month into savings.


What is the common theme here? A LIFESTYLE CHANGE! your life won't be as extravagant, but to some people a family is worth more than material possessions.

How else can you reduce costs? Take transit to work, be thrifty (look for sales, buy the no name brand of food etc...). The point is, its very possible to raise a family on that household income and still save for the future, you just have to adjust your way of thinking/ living.

[sabad66]

Originally posted by rage2


If they're going to make a social program to encourage people to raise a family, it should be offered to everyone, not just people making less than a certain amount of money. At the end of the day, people making $150k+ or whatever was relying on this social program for their families, and it's been taken away from them, changing the dynamics of their family budget (or lack thereof).

"relying" on this for a 150k+ family maybe means eating out less or a slightly shittier car or less toys/allowance.

For a 50k/yr family this could be the difference between having more clothes, nutritious food, etc.

I will never be convinced that a family making 150k-200k needs this as much as a poorer family.

[lint]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/carrick-on-money/new-canada-child-benefit-is-a-win-for-most-families/article31017291/


Mr. Golombek said the key to understanding the new child benefit, which applies to familes with children under 18, is to look at how much you have on an after-tax basis. The CCB is non-taxable, which means every cent you receive is yours to keep and does not have to be reported as income on your tax return.

It’s possible that previous programs may have delivered a higher total pre-tax amount of money to some families, he said. But these programs included the Universal Child Care Benefit, which was taxable. “You could end up paying 53 per cent of the UCCB back in Ontario if you were a high-income person,” Mr. Golombek said. “So you never really knew exactly what you had at any point. That’s why the new system is much simpler.”

[Neil4Speed]

Originally posted by Zero102


You're being too closed-minded.

Thanks for taking the time break this down, appreciate it.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2


If they're going to make a social program to encourage people to raise a family

I don't think that is the purpose of the program. I think the purpose of the program is to allow families who are in a poor financial position to still provide for their kids.

You are right in your remarks on the program itself, but my disagreement stems from higher incoming families "deserving" it. I would love to see the tax system in Canada completely abolished and re-written, clean slate with no credits or reimbursements, but good luck with that.



that middle income families

$150k+ is not middle income. The top 20% of families in Canada earn a gross combined income of $125k or more, ie they are middle-upper to upper class. Again, I don't want to accuse you of being out of touch, but you sort of are :dunno:

Credit where credit is due, this Money Sense article does highlight how (absurdly) prosperous Calgary has been in the past decade, and I can understand how the waters can be muddied surrounding by all of that wealth:

http://www.moneysense.ca/save/financial-planning/the-all-canadian-wealth-test-2015-charts/

[sr20s14zenki]

We just started getting the new amount. Used to be like 330, now its 530. It definitely helps. My wife is a stay at home mom, and i am the breadwinner. I dont make over 80k, so i guess im hardly even middle class...lol

[gretz]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
We just started getting the new amount. Used to be like 330, now its 530. It definitely helps. My wife is a stay at home mom, and i am the breadwinner. I dont make over 80k, so i guess im hardly even middle class...lol

You are irresponsible for not considering your income before starting a family, not making 150k a year? how dare you have children lol

[timdog]

serious lol at killramos
that is what is wrong with our western society. I seriously work with a guy who is expecting a big bonus to come in November, meanwhile he said to me the other day "that bonus better come in because I've already got a vacation booked and its already spent". meanwhile he has 2 brand new vehicles, both being financed on 7 year terms. then constantly complains that he can't make ends meet. makes me lol that people do this shit to themselves and then bitch about how expensive life is these days.

[rage2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
I don't think that is the purpose of the program. I think the purpose of the program is to allow families who are in a poor financial position to still provide for their kids.
Well it was called the Universal Child Care Benefit, so it was geared towards everyone.


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
$150k+ is not middle income. The top 20% of families in Canada earn a gross combined income of $125k or more, ie they are middle-upper to upper class. Again, I don't want to accuse you of being out of touch, but you sort of are :dunno:
Semantics. You're by no means rich at $150k. Upper middle, middle, it's all the same definition of middle income in this context. FWIW, the median family income in Calgary is around $108k.

[Strider]

Originally posted by rage2
why should we even subsidize people earning less money to have a family?

I just went down to $0 with the new CCB, but I really struggle with this one because I think the same thing - why should I subsidize poor people who choose to procreate? In fact, it's usually the families in the lower socioeconomic class that have more children.

But at the same time, I come from a family of 4 that was supported on a single blue collar income in times of double digit interest rates. If only high income earners (>$150k/year per killramos :nut: ) are able to have kids, I wouldn't even exist. Yes, my parents made a conscious decision to have kids and would've made even more sacrifices if they needed to, but every dollar helped them immensely. In contrast, I don't even notice when the cheques come in the mail and go for months without opening them.

So while I'll bitch about Trudeau and the Liberals, I think it was probably the right way to go.

[OU812]

Maybe a better question would be this,

What do you do every month with your child care benefit?

[ZeroGravity]

Originally posted by gretz


You are irresponsible for not considering your income before starting a family, not making 150k a year? how dare you have children lol

I'm guilty as well. Wife gave up her position (which paid better than mine) and stayed home after we have the second kid. We have below average household income (not sure how reliable, but read that the average was around 120k). I feel that we're doing alright.

Not sure if we're getting more or less from government since that goes into my wife's account which I know nothing about. But of course she has full access to mine :P

I'm not driving nice expensive cars and dining out all the time. McD's maybe. But any other restaurants, I would have to worry about my kids causing disturbance to other people or making a mess.

In short, I don't feel that I'm that poor or depriving my kids of things. Maybe as they get older, I might not be able to afford to put them in lots of extracurricular activities. Depends on your perspective I suppose.

[Zero102]

Originally posted by OU812
Maybe a better question would be this,

What do you do every month with your child care benefit?

We take the first ~$212 per month per kid and put that straight into their RESPs, which of course gets them an extra 20% on that investment because of the contribution matching. The rest of it goes into a savings account for the kids that we use to pay for summer camps or courses. The way I see it is since the government is giving us money to help raise our kids, it should benefit them in both the short and long term.

[gretz]

Originally posted by ZeroGravity


I'm guilty as well. Wife gave up her position (which paid better than mine) and stayed home after we have the second kid. We have below average household income (not sure how reliable, but read that the average was around 120k). I feel that we're doing alright.

Not sure if we're getting more or less from government since that goes into my wife's account which I know nothing about. But of course she has full access to mine :P

I'm not driving nice expensive cars and dining out all the time. McD's maybe. But any other restaurants, I would have to worry about my kids causing disturbance to other people or making a mess.

In short, I don't feel that I'm that poor or depriving my kids of things. Maybe as they get older, I might not be able to afford to put them in lots of extracurricular activities. Depends on your perspective I suppose.

I'm with you on this one...

We were on one income for 4 years, she went back full time in the spring and things got tight from time to time, but living within your means is all it takes for the most part.

I also started my own company in the time she wasn't working, while working full time... she now has a full time and part time job. I also grind 2 jobs. It's not because we have too, but because there are things in life (not the Killramos lifestyle) that we want our little monster to experience and be able to provide... I guess when we had him and weren't making 150k a year we were a burden on society, sorry boys / girls lol

[rage2]

Originally posted by OU812
What do you do every month with your child care benefit?
Hookers and Blow. We all need a little break from the little monsters. :rofl:

Seriously tho, it wasn't a lot for us to begin with because of taxes, but it all contributed to part of their savings and investment plans. We've adjusted to the changes in taxation and UCCB changes by not donating money anymore, so it's made zero difference in our family.

[blitz]

Originally posted by sabad66

&quot;relying&quot; on this for a 150k+ family maybe means eating out less or a slightly shittier car or less toys/allowance.

For a 50k/yr family this could be the difference between having more clothes, nutritious food, etc.

I will never be convinced that a family making 150k-200k needs this as much as a poorer family.

This is exactly it.

This money going towards people who actually need it for necessities is way more important than a few extra camps for well off kids or luxuries for their parents.

A lot of people in this thread have no idea what life is actually like for a lot of low income families and how much this could help.

[01RedDX]

.

[JRSC00LUDE]

Originally posted by OU812
What do you do every month with your child care benefit?

Nothing. It's on direct deposit, occasionally that account will top 1000 bucks and then I sweep it over into a TFSA that's ear-marked for him eventually as a bonus to the monthly pac assigned to it.
:dunno:

[Masked Bandit]

Ours went to $0. As for the ideology of the program, it's vote buying plain & simple. I was never going to vote for those assholes and the Liberals knew it.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2

Semantics.

Hardly. A family making over $100k gross income is not poor and should not need government assistance, regardless of where they live in this country. Definitely not semantics :dunno:

Also, the old one was UCCB. The new one is just Child Care Benefit.

As mentioned, I think the concept is to provide a minimum wellness to kids. I doubt it will work that way, but that is the intent. I to strongly disagree with it, but I disagree even more with MY taxes not only subsidizing poor decision making on the bottom of the economic scale, but subsidizing people that are essentially millionaires :nut:

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by sr20s14zenki
We just started getting the new amount. Used to be like 330, now its 530. It definitely helps. My wife is a stay at home mom, and i am the breadwinner. I dont make over 80k, so i guess im hardly even middle class...lol

Sign that it is how this supposed to work. Helping ones who need it.

[speedog]

Only 3 months of it left and then the youngest turns 18, a moot point for us.

[rage2]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Hardly. A family making over $100k gross income is not poor and should not need government assistance, regardless of where they live in this country. Definitely not semantics :dunno:
I was talking about middle income, I never said anything about $150k+ being poor. Fact is, middle income families were relying on this, and it's being reduced/taken away from them and the children.


Originally posted by HiTempguy1
but I disagree even more with MY taxes not only subsidizing poor decision making on the bottom of the economic scale, but subsidizing people that are essentially millionaires :nut:
Well then we should decrease/remove health care, EI, CPP programs too for anyone making $150k+ while we're at it.

And for the record, it's not YOUR tax dollars paying for them. These families with $150k+ income are paying way more taxes and is just clawing a small portion of it back for their kids. It's basically a small tax refund for them. People always seem to forget in these discussions that these families contribute to the majority of tax revenue.

Oh yea, and this new program is costing Canadians an additional $22b over 5 years. Yay. I sincerely hope that the ones that benefit the most out of this new program is actually spending the money on the children and not on themselves.

[ExtraSlow]

I'm borderline for getting one of my kids classified as disabled. Combine that with my unemployment and I should eb fucking raking in the cash. Supersystem! Me and sr20zenki know where it's at.

[nickyh]

$0 here.

On another forum I'm on, a women posted she was laid off after her mat leave ended so she doesn't qualify for EI now, the amount she's getting under the new plan is equal to what she made each month.
She was ,/ is low income often needing the food bank where she lives. Her and her husband, with 3 kids live in a trailer meant for two people. I'm not getting into the debate of if people can't afford to have kids then why do they, on here. I'm just loosely restating her circumstances.
For her, this means her family can keep a roof over their head, the lights on, and food with any extra.

Do I miss the $160 I was getting each month, not really, it went into my daughters RESP. I never included it in my monthly budgeting so it was always an extra. If I'm having a hard time finding $100 per month I have bigger picture issues.

[btimbit]

We get an extra $100 a month, but who knows how much of that is due to Trudeau's change or the fact they I've personally had a shitty two years.

[Chandler_Racing]

When you have an economy that works for the middle class; you have an economy that works for everyone!" :banghead:

I've got boned:

- personal tax (14% marginal tax on earnings)
- child benefits (goose egg)
- property taxes (+$600)

So tired of pulling other peoples' weight. I hope it's not any surprise to the people who elected this shit that capital is fleeing at an alarming rate. Other people's money is a great thing until it runs out.

[CompletelyNumb]

If it makes you feel better, I have no kids, no dependants, my previous oil income was too high to qualify for any government hand outs, and my new income is too but since my previous income was high, and i was a contractor, I still qualify for nothing.

tl:dr Ive never recieved government benefits. Fk all yall :bigpimp:

[nzwasp]

So is there calculator supposed to be gross income or net income?

Looking at the CCTB on the myaccount page for my wife it says:

You do not qualify for the Canada child benefit for July 2016 to June 2017 based on your family net income.

However our family net income for 2015 was less than 200k it was 160k

Looks like in Canada Net income is still before tax dollars.

Line 150 of wifes t1 says Total income 127,000
Line 236 net income is 126,600
Line 260 taxable income 126,500

and then she paid 34k tax on that taxable income.

I always thought "Net" income was after tax income.

[The_Rural_Juror]

Originally posted by nzwasp
So is there calculator supposed to be gross income or net income?

Looking at the CCTB on the myaccount page for my wife it says:

You do not qualify for the Canada child benefit for July 2016 to June 2017 based on your family net income.

However our family net income for 2015 was less than 200k it was 160k

Looks like in Canada Net income is still before tax dollars.

Line 150 of wifes t1 says Total income 127,000
Line 236 net income is 126,600
Line 260 taxable income 126,500

and then she paid 34k tax on that taxable income.

I always thought &quot;Net&quot; income was after tax income.

So you make $33,500 and your wife makes $126,500?

Well done! Certainly married above your level. :)

[nzwasp]

No i was making 80k so 50k after tax, there fore under the 200k in order to qualify for this benefit.

Pretty hard to compete with oil and gas engineers in Calgary on salary.

Our net income according to CRA last year was 210k

[90_Shelby]

Originally posted by rage2

Like you said, having a family is a choice, why should we even subsidize people earning less money to have a family? Having a family when you can't afford it is a poor choice, just like having a family and needing a handout because of unwillingness to make sacrifices with a family income over $150k.

If they're going to make a social program to encourage people to raise a family, it should be offered to everyone, not just people making less than a certain amount of money. At the end of the day, people making $150k+ or whatever was relying on this social program for their families, and it's been taken away from them, changing the dynamics of their family budget (or lack thereof).


Because everyone wants what's best for their family, and being the optimistic here believing that middle income families are pushing their budget to ensure that their kids have the best upbringing that they can afford, taking it away due to a policy change really hurts these families, even at $150k+. It means less camps for the kids, moving away from their friends, things that are disruptive to the children.

And you're right, Calgary isn't as expensive as GVA or GTA, but it's still not a cheap place to live compared to Rural Alberta, so it still affects Calgarians.

I agree with all of the above.

Taxes that we all pay contribute to the subsidy of any CCB program. The new changes mean that higher income earners with children have to pay for their own children as well as low income earners children. How does that make sense? The UCCB made much more sense.


edit...

I just saw Rage's post which mirrors my thoughts exactly:


Originally posted by rage2


And for the record, it's not YOUR tax dollars paying for them. These families with $150k+ income are paying way more taxes and is just clawing a small portion of it back for their kids. It's basically a small tax refund for them. People always seem to forget in these discussions that these families contribute to the majority of tax revenue.







Originally posted by Zero102

............ why would you have kids if you are just going to pay somebody else to raise them for you?

Statements like that piss me off. How dare a female have drive to be successful in her career and attempt to balance that with family life.:rolleyes:

[nzwasp]

Originally posted by 90_Shelby



Statements like that piss me off. How dare a female have drive to be successful in her career and attempt to balance that with family life.:rolleyes:

It also doesn't make sense because as soon as they are 4 or 5 they go to school anyway, unless the people making these claims are also home schooling.

[Masked Bandit]

It seems like this topic is drifting off to general tax ideas, so I thought I would drop a reminder to the people who think the "fat cats" don't pay their fair share. The truth is that people on the top end of the income scale pay exponentially more than their fair share. Chew on this little nugget:

From the National Post:

"This progressivity can help us understand why the top 1% of income earners paid a staggering 21.2% of the total federal and provincial taxes in 2010. The top 10% paid 54.8% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill."

Let's restate that just to make sure you got that:

"while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill"


Wow!

If that isn't a clear and thunderous example of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, I don't know what is. FWIW, the same article defines the top 1% as:

"To join this elite club of nearly 255,000 taxpayers, your income would have to have exceeded $201,400."

Elite??? Ya, making $200K is high but I wouldn't exactly say Elite! I know it's a bit of a running joke that Beyond is full of ballers and while I think the demographic here is skewed somewhat from the general population I don't think it's all that far off. I'm sure there are no shortage of people on here that don't see $200K as elite.

[phreezee]

Originally posted by Chandler_Racing

So tired of pulling other peoples' weight. I hope it's not any surprise to the people who elected this shit that capital is fleeing at an alarming rate. Other people's money is a great thing until it runs out.

Yep, more people left Calgary than moved here, and we lead the country in increased crime.

Wife told me she saw a facebook post from a single mother of 3 with one on the way getting $1400/month.
:banghead:

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by rage2

Fact is, middle income families were relying on this, and it's being reduced/taken away from them and the children.

And again, I will reiterate that "middle income families" should not have "relied" on this. Kind of like relying on overtime to make your mortgage payments. Wordplay, sure, but the words you use are fairly strong and well defined in their meaning.



Well then we should decrease/remove health care, EI, CPP programs too for anyone making $150k+ while we're at it.

Different programs designed for different things, with different methods of taxation. I am a fairly big proponent of things like healthcare being universal.



These families with $150k+ income are paying way more taxes

Probably not, what with the tax breaks, income splitting, dependent refunds, etc etc. I can assure you at six figures as a young, single male I am paying a sizable amount of taxes relative to a family of four at $150k. I'd actually like to see a comparison broken down, but I haven't been able to find any tax calculators that automatically fill in things like CPP contributions and all that jazz.



Oh yea, and this new program is costing Canadians an additional $22b over 5 years. Yay. I sincerely hope that the ones that benefit the most out of this new program is actually spending the money on the children and not on themselves.

You and me both. I never said I liked it, I'm just saying that if they had to draw a line, they drew one that is fairly reasonable. Nobody likes having money taken away from them :dunno:

[Zero102]

Originally posted by 90_Shelby

Statements like that piss me off. How dare a female have drive to be successful in her career and attempt to balance that with family life.:rolleyes:

I never said anything about females, don't make this about gender. The decision to start a family is generally something that is made by both parties involved. My argument was based around the importance of strong family bonding and early age development of children.

[blownz]

My 2 kids are over 6 so I was only receiving $120/month which is now down to zero.

This in the end isn't a big deal, but my issue is that over the last year I have had to deal with losing this, losing the income splitting on my tax return, losing the tax credit for sports, and seeing both provincial and federal taxes increase. And soon the AB carbon tax of which I won't see any rebate.

Any one of those is no big deal, but add them up and it is a significant impact. And everyone one of these items is one more form of "take from the 'rich' and give to the 'poor'".


That said, I know one guy who clearly doesn't qualify because he made over $4M last year. But because he took extra money out of his company last year to take advantage of lower tax rates he dropped himself to $40K salary this year just to see how many government handouts he can collect in 2017. He will likely then make a couple mil again in 2017, he is just doing this for shits and giggles. lol

[suntan]

Originally posted by HiTempguy1
Probably not, what with the tax breaks, income splitting, dependent refunds, etc etc. I can assure you at six figures as a young, single male I am paying a sizable amount of taxes relative to a family of four at $150k. I'd actually like to see a comparison broken down, but I haven't been able to find any tax calculators that automatically fill in things like CPP contributions and all that jazz. CPP/EI top out at around $52K.

The only tax deduction left for having kids at an appreciable income is the child care deduction. And it's not a lot - it saves me < $2K with it maxed out.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by nzwasp
Our net income according to CRA last year was 210k

I think you just answered your own question.





Correct me if I'm wrong, here's what I can summarize:

Under Harper:
Everyone get (say $100, for easy math), but taxable, so everyone collects $60-70.


Under Trudeau:
Since everyone are ballers here, they get nothing but a few do get some money but it's not as much as before like $50 but it's not taxable.


Is this the consensus? Who is actually ahead under the new plan? Or is it something you don't want to advertise? From the poll, seems like only 15% are still getting money but no way to tell how much those 15% are getting.

[Maxt]

If the calculator is right, we are going to get 658.00 a month or 7896 a year.

[Zero102]

Originally posted by Xtrema


I think you just answered your own question.





Correct me if I'm wrong, here's what I can summarize:

Under Harper:
Everyone get (say $100, for easy math), but taxable, so everyone collects $60-70.


Under Trudeau:
Since everyone are ballers here, they get nothing but a few do get some money but it's not as much as before like $50 but it's not taxable.


Is this the consensus? Who is actually ahead under the new plan? Or is it something you don't want to advertise? From the poll, seems like only 15% are still getting money but no way to tell how much those 15% are getting.

I posted on the first page that my monthly payments are up, just under 25%.

[90_Shelby]

Originally posted by Zero102


I never said anything about females, don't make this about gender. The decision to start a family is generally something that is made by both parties involved. My argument was based around the importance of strong family bonding and early age development of children.

Gender is irrelevant, your statement was targeted at families that choose to have dual income and implied that they shouldn't have kids if they require daycare or a nanny. I don't know how else to take the statement below. If you have a better explanation and I'm misinterpreting, feel free to correct me.



Originally posted by Zero102

............ why would you have kids if you are just going to pay somebody else to raise them for you?

[danno]

I think the wife said we get 320 a month. I dont really pay attention or plan on getting that money so i dont keep track.

[SilverRex]

My benefit went up 50%

Single income two kids under 100k wife has MS so cant really work. I guess the new plan helps my situation

[codetrap]

.

[googe]

lol @ all of the people who bitch about socialism in every other thread, crying because the taxpayer isn't being robbed to subsidize their babies and poor budgeting skills :devil:

[googe]

Originally posted by Masked Bandit
It seems like this topic is drifting off to general tax ideas, so I thought I would drop a reminder to the people who think the &quot;fat cats&quot; don't pay their fair share. The truth is that people on the top end of the income scale pay exponentially more than their fair share. Chew on this little nugget:

From the National Post:

&quot;This progressivity can help us understand why the top 1% of income earners paid a staggering 21.2% of the total federal and provincial taxes in 2010. The top 10% paid 54.8% of all taxes while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill.&quot;

Let's restate that just to make sure you got that:

&quot;while the bottom 50% of Canadian income earners contributed 4% towards the collective personal tax bill&quot;


Wow!

If that isn't a clear and thunderous example of robbing from the rich to give to the poor, I don't know what is. FWIW, the same article defines the top 1% as:

&quot;To join this elite club of nearly 255,000 taxpayers, your income would have to have exceeded $201,400.&quot;

Elite??? Ya, making $200K is high but I wouldn't exactly say Elite! I know it's a bit of a running joke that Beyond is full of ballers and while I think the demographic here is skewed somewhat from the general population I don't think it's all that far off. I'm sure there are no shortage of people on here that don't see $200K as elite.

This argument fails because it assumes that level of income is positively correlated with amount of work, when in fact it is usually negatively correlated. As such, it makes sense for the rich to pay more.

In your rebuttal, be careful not to equate "amount of time spent on activities related to your occupation" with "work".

Most people on beyond don't even know what working to feed a family is. I wouldn't either if I had stayed in Alberta. This is even more difficult to internalize when you've seen just one or two people who are lazy leeches taking from the system. Those are the examples that people remember first, and it pisses people off. The truth is that they are a tiny fraction of those who are actually busting their ass and who you don't see.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[suntan]

So many poor people on Beyond. How embarrassing.


;)

[BigMass]

I am in favor of replacing all of these misdirected antiquated programs and ideas with a guaranteed minimum income. Canada needs to be more proactive and progressive instead of waiting for others to do things first and reacting only when in a crisis.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by BigMass
I am in favor of replacing all of these misdirected antiquated programs and ideas with a guaranteed minimum income.

Can you elaborate somewhat ?

The concept may be interesting, but I wonder how it would correlate to the, "No one should be forced to pay for someone else" argument.

[rage2]

Originally posted by googe
lol @ all of the people who bitch about socialism in every other thread, crying because the taxpayer isn't being robbed to subsidize their babies and poor budgeting skills :devil:
Let's be clear, I don't think anyone in this thread is bitching about getting less, and it seems like most people are getting more. It's the idea of this program changing from a child care benefit to lower income people with kids benefit.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I wonder how it would correlate to the, &quot;No one should be forced to pay for someone else&quot; argument.

That is the definition of modern society, so not sure what is meant by that since the role of government is to allocate resources, which in a large part is accomplished through taxation. That statement is already happening. We have already established that certain programs are beneficial for us to maintain a functioning, happy and productive society. Police, fire, healthcare, military, science and technology, education, food, shelter, clothing, etc.

As resource collection becomes continually more centralized and automated, government's roll to redistribute these resources is increased out of necessity. Guaranteed minimum income would be an efficient mechanism to which something like this could be achieved instead of stressing old ideas such as welfare, EI, CPP, disability, child tax benefits, low income programs, etc. We need to evolve programs and ideas just like we evolve everything else.

As time goes on, current programs will be stressed more and more, be found to be lacking, huge gaps will appear and new programs will have to be created to fill those gaps. I would rather that be avoided. Guaranteed minimum income would be a replacement to most of our current programs, not an add-on. So the criticism is already invalid as we already have pseudo guaranteed income in the form of hundreds of other programs that I see as completely inefficient and inadequate.

[suntan]

I read that it was the Liberals' radar but no mention of it on trudeaumetre.ca

I think it's a great idea but very little chance of it happening because it would result in the loss of gov't jobs. Also way less ability to embezzle funds.

[Seth1968]

.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by BigMass


That is the definition of modern society, so not sure what is meant by that since the role of government is to allocate resources, which in a large part is accomplished through taxation. That statement is already happening. We have already established that certain programs are beneficial for us to maintain a functioning, happy and productive society. Police, fire, healthcare, military, science and technology, education, food, shelter, clothing, etc.

As resource collection becomes continually more centralized and automated, government's roll to redistribute these resources is increased out of necessity. Guaranteed minimum income would be an efficient mechanism to which something like this could be achieved instead of stressing old ideas such as welfare, EI, CPP, disability, child tax benefits, low income programs, etc. We need to evolve programs and ideas just like we evolve everything else.

As time goes on, current programs will be stressed more and more, be found to be lacking, huge gaps will appear and new programs will have to be created to fill those gaps. I would rather that be avoided. Guaranteed minimum income would be a replacement to most of our current programs, not an add-on. So the criticism is already invalid as we already have pseudo guaranteed income in the form of hundreds of other programs that I see as completely inefficient and inadequate.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Alterac]

Went from $160/month to $0.

It sucks because its based on last years income tax, and this year my wife isn't working since she is home with the kid.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

I plan to just quit my job and collect free paycheques from the government when this day comes

Well, you are moving to BC. Just have to pick up on their "other" favourite past-time out there and you'll be set :rofl:

[max_boost]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Ahhh screw it... I am in favour of it

I plan to just quit my job and collect free paycheques from the government when this day comes Oh yes. I am with you on this haha

[KappaSigma]

Went to 0. Tired of supprting the less motivated in life.