el_richo

And there's the difference between tax free savings and child benefits.

Everybody has the option to save, tax free.

Those without children do not have the option to receive benefits within this context, therefore it's discriminatory

But ultimately, the main issue i have is the "entitlement" way of thinking that some parents have.

In my opinion, if you require benefits of some kind to help raise your children, own property, etc, then you need to have a re-think.

el_richo

In this context, nobody should get a hand out, in my opinion.

If you struggle to, or can't afford to move, support your family, pay your bills, etc, then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. And if you do do it, then you accept the lifestyle change if applicable.

robert_masters

WELL SAID!!

Nothing wrong with that.

I think this is going too far, you'll never change what people do with their lives. It's been going on through centuries. You cannot change peoples habits or lifestyles. Rich people smoke and poor people smoke etc,etc. People have children from poor socio-eco societies, people have children in wealthier societies and third world countries; been like this for decades.

Currently it's down to what our Prime Ministers put in place, perhaps have a moan to them. On the other hand why would you want to claim benefits if you earn a substantial amount. Those who bother to claim, maybe because they need it for whatever reasons.

Foster parents do an amazing job and a lot we don't know about what goes on behind the scenes. It's a courageous job and I think we under estimate their duties. OK you may say it's their choice and their chosen profession, but it comes at a huge cost (not financially speaking) for the fosters parents and their families. If an entitlement is due to them and in place then they should claim for that.

Our children are our future, we can nurture and educate them what is expected. Encourage good values and respect. Unfortunately some families don't have these life skills!! Maybe if you other guys are soooo perfect, perhaps use your skills and help others' rather than moan, moan and moan.

Going by the original question all that was asked 'what was in place'. We don't need to question their position or why.

Angela

fledermaus

Only people with enough income to save benefit from tax free savings. The more money you are able to save the more tax you can save. Those on low incomes do not have this option.

Only people with children can receive benefits. Those without children do not have this option.

Same difference innit?

I agree with you about entitlement, many rich people think they are entitled to all the tax perks their money can buy,

dbd33

I don't see that. Tax breaks on savings are a benefit to all, it may be that those who can save more benefit more but it's a universal benefit in the same way as healthcare; those with more illnesses benefit more from (state funded) healthcare but everyone can benefit.

Tax breaks, or allowances, for breeding are a targetted benefit aimed at people who do something society thinks worthy of reward. I think the logic is rather flawed, the central idea is that children born in Canada will work in Canada, which I don't think holds, especially not for the children of immigrants, but it's clearly not a universal benefit.

And they are. A tax system of allowances is regressive, the more one spends on accounting and tax planning the less one pays in tax. I doubt that that's accidental.

el_richo

Well tax free savings accounts are capped, per year, so in this respect it's a level playing field.

You could argue that everybody is able to save money, just on differing scales.

And, if people cannot afford their chosen lifestyle then why should i subsidise them?

iaink

I'll just send them back then shall I

iaink

Tell me then, which of the following choices is more beneficial to canadian society:

Stuffing 10k in various tax free savings accounts, increasing my personal wealth and saving myself maybe 40% income tax on that money (4k that wont be available for government spending)

Spending 10k on home reno stuff because I can claim the max home reno tax credit back ($1350) ,but helping to keep people at home depot in a job, not to mention their supporting employment in their supply chain to, plus giving the roofers I hired 2 days work, and marginally improving the resale value of a home I have no intention of selling...

It really makes no sense to me to keep wailing on about the HRTC as unfair.

dbd33

I'm unexcited about the HRTC, I don't pay income tax and so cannot benefit, but I suggest that if home ownership is to be encouraged then the way to do that is to provide a tax break on mortgage interest (as in the US and previously in the UK). I think this approach attractive as the benefit declines as the wealth of the recipient increases. People who have houses will spend at the Home Depot without needing a direct carrot.

iaink

People with money perhaps, but I can tell you my roof would not have been done for a few years without the HRTC carrot, and my basement would not have been insulated without the carrot of the Eco program.

The reality is the money I spent and got a modest rebate on as a homewner would have cost the government a lot more had I been a renter and just stuffed it into an RRSP or Tax Free savings account, so the argument that home owners have an unfair tax advantage is either worthless, or at best only applies to those wealthy enough to max out ALL the other available options first.

I dont have a spare $20k a year to max out my RRSP

el_richo

If you wouldn't mind. Either the kids of the benefits

But surely having kids is no different to buying a house or a car in that if you cannot afford them, why should I help pay for peoples choices?

el_richo

But surely the money stashed in a tax free savings account with, one day, make its way into the economy?

iaink

Not really, If I cant afford a car then Ill find a cheap beater , or ask friends for a lift or whatever, it wont influence you in any way.

But if my kids struggle to get established in society as a result of parental hardship then you will end up paying a lot more over their life time in all kinds of ways, both economic and social. Reduced taxation income from their lower earning, welfare handouts to them if they cant get a job, higher healthcare costs due to poor nutrition in childhood etc. You dont seem to be looking at the overall picture. Its arguably far more cost effective to give small handouts from 0-18 years (especially to promote early pre school development) than handouts from 18-80 I think.

el_richo

But surely many parents who take the handout are decent parents who can offer their child a good standing in life. I wonder how many parents who take the handout continue, after they've had children, to spend their money on cigs, booze, cable TV, takeaways, skiing, skating, etc.

I just hope the benefits are still available when i have kids

Edited to add: If you cannot afford a car, you cannot afford a car. A beater is still a car. I shouldn't subsidise you. If your friends want to help out by either lending you money or their car, then great. As a stranger, i wouldn't.

robert_masters

VERY,VERY WELL SAID!!

I think he needs to get off his 'High Horse' and step down to 'Pony'.



Angela