Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sandra MacKay
01:19 PM on 11/21/2012
I do agree we should do away with the Universal Child Benefit, high income earners and I mean those whose income is over 50,000 a year, don't need it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rhiness
01:23 PM on 11/21/2012
and neither do those below it, because if you can't afford it don't have it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ejais
01:41 PM on 11/21/2012
seriously?
01:55 PM on 11/21/2012
What? Low-income people with kids shouldn't receive help because they chose to have kids?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imma Okay
01:03 AM on 11/22/2012
I wasn't talking just about poor people. 0 should be the number of kids allowed in ANY household.
This comment has been removed.
12:23 PM on 11/21/2012
I was in low income with three children and worked hard. Child tax paid some of my rent, which was a huge issue. I have known people to have more kids because of child tax, so handing out more money will just make some people have more kids and not look after them. How about more affordable housing instead. If people actually spent their money on their kids they wouldn't have to worry. In Canada we receive more than enough hand outs. If you can't afford things, quit going out, don't buy a new purse. Look after your children first!!! There is enough money from the government. IT'S HOW PEOPLE MANAGE THE MONEY THEY DO HAVE.....THAT IS THE PROBLEM
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rhiness
03:21 PM on 11/21/2012
Well said Krista! Thank you for sharing and being an example of good for others.
04:12 PM on 11/21/2012
A mom of three working min wage, will receive about 1700 a month from the government plus your wages. How is that not enough to live on!!! Maybe you won't get what you want. But your kids should always have food and clothes!! That also includes free medication, dental and optical. There is no excuses!!! Even a mom on welfare will make $2200-2500 As Canadians we are very fortunate for the.free money from the government!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ansdlmol
05:37 PM on 11/21/2012
An excellent example of "When the going gets tough the tough get going".
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:18 PM on 11/21/2012
This is seemingly an acceptable proposal for lifting the poverty line, creating a maximin situation, but it does nothing to change the extent of the divide between the upper and the, diminishing, middle-class. Further, would this not widen the gap between the upper and middles?

I like the goal of the proposal but I think we can acheive this outcome without taking anything from the middle class. Why are we not targetting the upper class... the class that have minimal financial concerns and whose majority of healthy concerns come from lifestyle choices?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
12:11 PM on 11/21/2012
summary of federal spending for 2010.....for every tax dollar

•Canada Health Transfer (9 cents)
•Canada Revenue Agency (3 cents)
•Canada Social Transfer (4 cents)
•Children’s benefits (4 cents)
•Crown corporations (4 cents)
•Defence (8 cents)
•Employment Insurance benefits (8 cents)
•Other grants and contributions (14 cents)
•Other major transfers to other levels of government (8 cents)
•Other operations (11 cents)
•Public debt charges (11 cents)
•Public Safety (3 cents)
•Support to elderly (13 cents)

http://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2010/html-eng.asp
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:21 PM on 11/21/2012
I wonder if the 3 billion a year to oil corporations is in the "Other grants and contributions"?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/11/12/iea-us-top-oil-producer-fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_2117727.html
I'm sure we could use this money for things like education, healthcare etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rhiness
03:23 PM on 11/21/2012
According to most commenters on here Harper was taking 99 cents of every dollar for himself...are you telling me they were just overreacting?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
03:37 PM on 11/21/2012
Actually I was pointing out that we spend little on Children's benefits compared to other things......which is in relation to the article I just read....interesting what people glean from things eh?
11:52 AM on 11/21/2012
Why are people making less than 25k having kids exactly? Why are we supporting people having kids that they cannot afford????
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
NTodd
Aude Sapere
12:18 PM on 11/21/2012
Why are you so afraid of poor people procreating?
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rhiness
01:29 PM on 11/21/2012
Correction: Why is anyone :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:19 PM on 11/21/2012
China and their one child policy thank you... but our democracy thinks you've missed the point
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:21 PM on 11/21/2012
If I can't afford a house I don't uy it. If I can't afford a car I don't buy it. Just because you can make a baby doesn't mean you should do so without some fore thought as to how you will pay for it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Burlesque Lea
the dog is the only animal that has seen his god
11:44 AM on 11/21/2012
It should be done by a scale formula. The more your wage is, the less your CCB amount should be.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
canobserv
11:54 AM on 11/21/2012
I think it's already done this way, at least in regards to the Child Tax credit. I'm not sure what the cutoff is though.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ejais
12:26 PM on 11/21/2012
check on the canadian childs benefit tax website.Its very informative on the breakdown and in fact has a calculator to give people an idea on what you would recieve for the income and family situation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jeffery Cuneo
11:32 AM on 11/21/2012
They should bump up that minimum figure a bit so that a family earning 30k doesn't get screwed over. Make access to these funds available to any household earning less then 100k? At least as a start, and slowly lower that value over time until you find a good medium. Setting it at 25k and under will cripple a family earning 27k.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:22 PM on 11/21/2012
exactly. all it really does it blur and redefine the lines... it doesn't really help all those in need and it doesn't call on those who have resources to aid in the development of a society where everyone is as well as can be.
11:31 AM on 11/21/2012
What is the point of highlighting this woman in particular. How many people can afford to have five children today only the 1 percent and the very poor. If your husband is abusive why do you keep having children and staying with him 20 years. Did he just get abusive at the end and why is he not paying any child support? Did you not get any money for the home and the business you owned when you fled four years ago? Where do you find a four bedroom place in the Toronto area for $960 a month, is that subsidized as well or is that not part of the story either. Lots and lots of missing details.

Most families cannot afford five children, the 68K family with two 34K jobs which really is not even middle income in the Toronto area, they can only afford one or two kids and will get no benefits but then we will encourage the low income people to have more - talk about zero incentive to look after yourself.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Imma Okay
04:51 PM on 11/21/2012
I agree - but then again, what if you're a stupid poor person who already has 2 children? What should the government do, let them starve? What kind of people will they become? It's not that black and white.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Adrian31
11:30 AM on 11/21/2012
I'm all for helping the impoverished as I couldn't even begin to imagine what living off of $14,000/year with a few kids is like, but here we are, once again asking the middle class to make the sacrifices.
11:52 AM on 11/21/2012
This is a good observation. The other assumption is that pushing money at a problem automatically lifts children out of poverty.
It can help, but I'd attach a lot of strings to that money.
12:00 PM on 11/21/2012
So true. The tax credit that is eliminated affects middle class vs wealthy.

It's disproportionate as there are more middle-class than 1%'ers, so the wealthy still don't pay their fair share. Plus, they can pay for high-end lawyers and tax writers to take advantage of (or exploit) loopholes in our tax and employment system so they DON'T have to pay their fair share. That should be stopped immediately.
Why are rich corporations receiving subsidies and banks bailouts when they make mufti-billion profits? Stop that too.
And stop out-sourcing jobs, having government subsidized corporate offices all over full of high paid shysters who open businesses here but only retail and not industry because they've decided 80$ a day here/employee is too expensive when they can go to China and pay 10$ a day (not talking the dog-and-pony flagship workshops, but rather the majority of sweat shops that are out of the public eye). That should be stopped as well.
You have a business here, you employ here.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ansdlmol
05:46 PM on 11/21/2012
There FAIR share should be the SAME as everybody else. Why should the low enders benefit from the sweat off the brow of the industrious members of our society. That is socialist theft. It didn't work in Russia and it won't work in Canada.
11:27 AM on 11/21/2012
"...and if Ottawa also kicked in another $174 million per year,"... So does this mean that the tax credit elimination does not save enough money and new money is needed as well?

How many $$ did that 2% reduction in consumption tax (GST) cost us each year?

How much tax relief/subsidies does Corporate Canada (e.g. oil industry) get each year?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Atim-moot Tugayak
My last BIO was deemed inappropriate,although true
11:26 AM on 11/21/2012
The Conservatives will tell you that starvation is a good way to lose weight too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:24 AM on 11/21/2012
the ONLY true solution is to void all income taxes and bring in a flat tax (17%). Studies have proven that this benefits all, closes all these stupid loopholes in the tax system (hello Paul Martin offshore accounts!) and will actually result in tax revenue from criminal activity which is currently untaxed (I will let you try and figure out how that is, do your own research).
This comment has been removed.
11:37 AM on 11/21/2012
Sure, subsidize the rich with a flat tax. And what you call "loopholes" were at one time considered "incentives" to encourage certain behaviours, like giving to charities or enrolling children in sports.
11:23 AM on 11/21/2012
Programs like this are never going to happen under Harper. He absolutely hates what the conservatives refer to as entitlement programs. Basically they are programs to give people a hand up when times are tough but Harper and his tea baggers are so cold hearted and mean spirited the only thing they want to do is destroy any and all social programs designed to help people. Instead Harper is cutting social programs for seniors, students, unemployed, low income earners, single women while he gives huge tax breaks to filthy rich corporations who don't need financial help. Harper is destroying the basic concept of government ruling on behalf of it's citizens in favor of giving away the store to his corporate masters. This is why the conservatives in the US under Mitt Romney lost the recent election to Barack Obama. Harper is no different that Romney and their tea bagger friends.
photo
turkeylurky
Just keeping it real.
11:20 AM on 11/21/2012
Ahhh, the first crack in the Canadian tradition of universality of social programs.