dbd33

Plainly, society as a whole considers it to be desirable that people breed.

el_richo

But surely most parents in the UK and Canada don't have kids for the money. They just take it cos it's there, i'd assume.

ninaDGBCA

Well let's just stop all child benefits and not get anymore kids. Just wonder who will pay our pension in 20 or 30 years time, repair our cars, pick up the bins, care for us and bury us when we are dead.....whoops guess nobody Child benefits are not there to finance a child (children are far more expensive then $60 a month) but to acknowledge that one gets kids and contributes to society and the survival of the human race. I don't like people that take advantage of the system by giving false info etc. but if you are entitelt to get something then you should do.

el_richo

Stopping child benefits for those who really don't need it will have no impact on the number of births.

I've highlighted the last sentence, of which really gets my goat.

BristolUK

$60?
We were getting around $300 for each of two and more than that in Quebec.

iaink

Its dependent in income, and I think Quebec has its own sweetener deal as a province too. My assessment arrived recently and the max we can get before they start to reduce it due to income is $224 for both kids, but we actually get about 1/2 of that.. On top of that we get $100 for the one kid who is still under 6, but of course the Feds grab half that back at tax time.

I would like to think child benefits have no impact on birth rates!. Having kids in order to get government funding sets my moral compass all ajitter

On the other hand, if you are going to offer a tax exempt allowance before income tax applies, and extend that to spouses, then its only logical to extend it to the minors living under your roof too. Canada doesnt cover that as a tax allowance, you get some money back after the fact to cover some of the basic necessities that get taxed at source. The tax benefits get no where near covering the expenses anyway.

Alan2005

Your kids won't be funding anybodies pensions - they can't afford it. They'll be too busy working their arses off to pay the debts of this generation. If you are under 50 and are expecting to rely on the state to provide you an income when you retire you are probably going to be living in poverty.

(I've no particular problem with taxes being spent on children - in theory they grow up and pay more tax than has been spent on them. Means testing this is the only fair way though - a family on $200k should not be getting this kind of benefit. I also do kind of agree with el_richo, people talking as if they are *entitled* to my money is particularly galling and makes me want to punch them in the face)

BristolUK

Sure...I was just aiming to show that the "rate" wasn't just $60.

Is that $224 the max from Federal and Ontario? I've always had the impression that NB comes out badly in these things.

Since we're on what I like to call a modest income, ours was "the max" $600 (approx) for two

$224 as a max for two is significantly different.

BristolUK

Is it really so different to people being *entitled* to all those tax deductible items and tax free savings?

If it's wrong for those on $200k to get child benefits, isn't it also wrong to get a subsidy on their home improvements?

Alan2005

I agree that subsidising peoples home improvements is completely wrong as this entails those who do not own property subsidising those who do - it's an inherently unfair wealth transfer. Tax free savings schemes are ok though as they are a universal benefit open to everyone regardless of their lifestyle choices.

BristolUK

Couldn't you say the same about child benefits?

Alan2005

No.

el_richo

Of course it is. Tax Free savings are open house. Child benefits aren't.

They're both wrong.

Nobody has really answered; why should people be "entitled" to child benefits?

fledermaus

No idea of entitlement but if it means a child doesn't go without then I don't mind paying taxes for that.

JonboyE

"People aren't". Children of less well off families are. (It's not their fault.)

No family earning $200,000 receives child tax benefit. They will still get the UCCB ($100 per month per child under 6 - taxable) but that is just a wacko Harper thing.