Discussions

If a child does not receive adequate nourishment this can lead to a reduced ability to learn, a reduced ability to learn could remove opportunity from a person later in life, which means that some people would never have a chance regardless how hard they tried.

DadOf2 said "im amazed at some posters attitudes too     its more then just a few bad apples there are lots of people that believe they are entitled to other peoples money because they just are so where are your statistical numbers that prove that most people take an unjustified advantage of the system or is it just hearsay, filtered out and spread over everybody else who isn't as fortunate as you?, people that make middle to larger incomes made the sacrifices and continue to make sacrifices so their families dont have to struggle as much So, you actually assume other less fortunate people do not sacrifice their time and resources for their children with their means available...wow, that's the attitude, yet the government takes more and more from them because people think that they deserve what other got from hard work, yet dont want to make the same sacrifices Your point is not a point of this discussion as tax laws are set by the government we/you elected.     i have heard countless times again hearsay and 'brushing all people over the same comb' attitude - great, i cant because i cant work weekends, i cant work nights i cant work that many hours ect ect maybe there is a reason for not being able to do such a thing, maybe you take the effort and look past your nearsightedness.   well that is what the people are doing that make a higher income to do so, there are most likely the means necessary available to them - good for them/you. So how do the less fortunate suppose to pull it of?, so why should they do that just to have the government take their reward away I'm sure there is still a lot left for personal gain. because someone didnt want to but wants the same benefits? I'm sure low income earners do not get the same benefits/things high income earners have from their income. Do we really have to open another discussion about how our society works? Didn't you learn that in school already?     a helping hand is nice and sometimes its needed but the attitude that they deserve nice things What nice things specifically are you talking about? A big house with a SUV in front, a trailer in the double garage packed with skidoos and a camper, etc? Rest assured, low income earners have none of that. Even though they might dream of those things to have one day for their children or grandchildren to experience. or deserve to be a stay at home single parent is atrocious maybe look a little closer into the reasons behind, maybe they could not find daycare, maybe they have special needs children with no places available to them but home, etc., If we didnt have those helping hands there would be no choice but to get to work or starve so the hand up becomes a crutch instead Employment fitting to every person, is not always easy to come by. That is defined by life/abilities itself and our society. So should we just set up some work camps and force people to work? Did you hear how that worked out in the past?     BTW ei and cpp are based on working contributions and honestly I would be fine if we were on our own for more things then we are now, i support a flat tax rate, where everyone pays the same not one where there are a 1000 breaks for certain groups over other groups, no one should have to pay for my kids or anything i need or want and i shouldnt have to pay for anyone else, doesnt mean i wont choose to help someone but it will be my choice I'm really wondering who you would support with your money having that point of view shown, not one that is forced on me I'm sure high mid-income earners get more tax breaks on their tax return they can make use of then lower income earners. Thankfully we live in a rather socially oriented country, called Canada and not the US of A which would please your demands on the tax burden for mid-high income earners only to sacrifice social support.     I dont care if a person is broke exactly the reason why you think everybody else lives of your so 'hard earned' penny, i care when they think that means they are entitled to what i have because they are   I'm sure those child support payments will not buy us an SUV, neither will it pay for the mortgage of a big house or having any other luxury items.     ps, i have been so broke i lived on the street and also brought in enough income i didnt qualify for any benefits so i have seen both sides   So you call having enough income to not qualify for benefits, broke? I don't think you have really seen it what broke means. Being broke, living from a small pay check to the next is the ongoing financial state many people have to struggle with while raising their children.<p>   BTW. how hard are you working when you spend so much time on eBrandon making your point. "Hard" earned Dollars well deserved, I guess. I sacrificed my lunch time posting my comment and almost spew some of my meal out, reading some peoples posts (especially yours) and now I still have to take the effort to post after a hard days of work. I think I deserved the little income I earned today and will cook my kids a good meal.<P>   Good Day to you, Sir "

maybe you should re-read  
 
I said i have been on [b]both [/b]sides, so broke i lived on the street but then i worked my butt off to be in a position that i made enough i didnt get any benefits, then lost my job, but regardless of what my position is I believe hat our system is flawed, doesnt mean any of the people who receive benefits are bad people or anything like that but i still dont believe in the system. im really not sure why that would make you spew your meal lol  
 
and actually i usually work 7 days a week, 12-16 hr days 5 of them, 2 days a week i only work 8 which allows me to read a bit of crap on the net, but i dont know what work is :  
 
i do agree with the poster that said "you shouldn't be looking at whats on your neighbors plate to see what they have" just remember that that statement should go both ways, which some(not you) havent been doing

I love my child tax, it keeps us rolling in (real) cheese, fruit, milk and decent RESP contributions. Thankfully my husband can cover the other, more boring bills. I think some people are missing the point, at least on the subject of young children...young kids are expensive! Whether you stay at home with them (and have no income coming in) or work and have to pay for daycare, there is not a lot of money to be had. We need them though, for obvious reasons. The better we can provide for them, the more chance they will grow into productive adults. The extra money coming in for us - especially me, who would otherwise see 0 in my bank account month after month - takes a lot of stress off and allows me to make decisions regarding my family's health rather than leaving it all to my husband. And whoever was complaining that someone was going to take a vacation with the extra money? So what? Kids deserve to have memorable life experiences, no matter their income bracket. The more you get kids out in the world the better their chances of wanting "more" than they had (ie improving their education so that they can do the same with their own kids). Yes, the system is abused. No, I don't want everyone to be able to take off to Mexico on a 5 star vacation: but go see another part of Canada? Sure. Visit relatives and hit a theme park? Why not?

I still don't understand why some people deserve this benefit and not all. It is just take, take, take, what can I get for nothing in this world.  
 
The incentive to get ahead in this world is just not what it needs to be.

What why are you complaining, your husband works and you don't and your a stay at home mom that sends her kids to day-care say what?!? why? why on earth if you stay home are you sending your kids to daycare. Also if you guys can afford to have one working parent and one staying home and kids being sent to daycare you definitely do not need the Child care Benefits.  
 
If you can't live without that payment then you guys have maxed your high income out. It has said people over $200,000 will get nothing and good on that because the rest of us are trying to live on only say $50,000 a yr so stop complaining if you max yourself out. Some less then that and some more so yes basing it on income makes sense. christ if we made double what we made I wouldn't complain if benefits were taken away as $100,000 would be a dream for us. sry but tired of hearing about high income families complain about this because they have gone and maxed out their income that is only a dream to others.  
 
Thanks to this I may actually will be able to take a couple months Mat leave this yr as I'm self employed and EI benefits suck for the self employed. And even then will be relying on some money we have saved and hubby getting a part time job on top of his full time one to accomplish a bit of time off with not a penny extra at the end of the day. And here you get to stay home and you send your kids away for the day, again say what?!?  
 
Also what you get is based on NET income not GROSS so if people are confused about how they make the same as someone else but get a different amount that is why. It depends on how much you write off at the end of the yr as that will drop your income.  
 
 
 
I also saw someone complaining about child care costs again needing to be changed to make the difference... Childcare workers are one of the lowest paid groups so in order to drop rates the government would have to make up the pay to them.  
 
Example in home child care unlicensed:  
 
$30 (3.33hr) a day x 4 kids (if they have space for the max) for 9hrs of care is $13 and hr. So if like most they have their own kids drop that number and some make less then minimum wage. you also have to remember that is a number before losses (food, supplies, water, heat, ware n tare on personal furniture etc). Also if you get licensed and take the government funding and charge the provinces lower fees you will most likely make less with having 5 kids vs the 4 at $30. would maybe make more if they took the 3 school age kids but thats if they don't have their own children taking spots.  
 
for centres a non educated worker from what I know makes minimum wage and Im unsure how much an educated one makes but its at the lower end compared to other educated people in their chosen career. Basically it will be hard to fix and the government would have to payout quiet a bit more to daycares for them to lower prices.  
 
*I only skimmed through most other comments.  
 
But basically this change is going to help those that actually need it and even then sadly probably isn't enough for some.

Get why the government needs to supplement the income of those who choose to have children they can't afford to care for on their own? Don't get me wrong I'm a proud Canadian however, I think our government is enabling us to feel entitled to help when ever we need it. If you can't afford your current family situation don't complicate it by adding another member to the family. It's never gonna get any more cost effective to have a family. However, don't expect your neighbour or your friends friends to take care of your family. True, shit happens. I've learned that the hard way. However, if we keep giving money to those that "really need the help" is there any incentive for them to prosper so they no longer need the help. I got CCTB too and appreciated the little surprise in my bank account, so I'm not one of those 200 000 high income earners bitching. We are middle class. Both work. With a 1000 square foot house and we can't afford trips or another kid for that matter cause we get taxed to bloody death so we choose not too. Taxes are what fund these great "hand up" projects. With all the free family planning programs available( another tax funded project that nobody clearly uses) we have more then ever children born that are in poverty. And why is that? A pay day for the parents? I hope not but it would certainly seem that way. The welfare system is flawed too but that's another topic for a different day! So today, I am taking my kids to the show. Can't really afford to do that but that is their great adventure for the summer!!

For those who complain about "supporting" families that are "too poor" to take care of their kids...  
 
Here's a few facts to consider. I worked in the CCTB program for many years, both in processing applications and in the compliance program catching people who falsely claimed single/separated/divorced when in fact they were married/common-law. I also helped out in peak season in the financial part of it, working phones and answering client calls.  
 
1. Canada has a very low birth rate. So low, in fact, that we can't even keep a steady population without importing people. The CCTB program is a piece of social engineering to encourage people to have more kids (of all income levels, because everyone is a potential taxpayer) beyond the 0-1-2 most couples have. That is why more financial weight is given to 3rd and subsequent children, meaning your income threshold goes up with your 3rd, 4th, etc child, and the amount paid per child increases for your 3rd, 4th, etc vs. your first and second.  
 
We have 4 children. I can tell you, while you do need slightly more income to raise a larger family, economies of scale actually reduce the amount per child we need to spend. Many things cost the same whether you have 2 children or 4, and that 3rd and 4th child doesn't cost 50% more to feed as the other ones. Yet, in the breakdown (which I noticed they didn't include in their new "streamlined" notices this year), you get more per child after your second. There is no logical, financial reason to do with other than to encourage you to have more than 2.  
 
2. Another purpose of this program is to lift children out of poverty. Canada is heavily taxed, and all but the very lowest income-earners pay a hefty amount of income tax. Proportionally, low income earners might actually pay more income tax than higher income earners (as a percentage of their income) even when they're in a lower bracket simply because they can't take advantage of income-tax lowering items like RRSPs. This program is actually returning income tax to the lowest payers, and distributing income tax from higher earners to offset the enormous tax burden all Canadians pay - but that low-income earners feel the biggest impact from.  
 
It's imperfect, and in reality IMO the better solution would be to simply have people pay less tax. In programs like this, while politically popular, costs enormous amounts of money to run and administer. When I was working, Winnipeg alone employed hundreds of people in the program, and there were several other sites across Canada directly employing hundreds more, perhaps another thousand (there are thousands more of indirect employees). That's millions of dollars in salaries alone to distribute and administer this program. That money would be better served remaining in the hands of the people that earned it. However, the flip side of that is that hundreds or perhaps a thousand of well-paying jobs would disappear.  
 
3. All taxpayers, of all income-levels, are mandated to file their taxes correctly, including their marital status. That is the law, enshrined in the Income Tax Act. That means that if your are married or living common-law, you MUST file your taxes with that status. It is not optional, and it is not a case of doing "what most beneficial for me". The introduction of the common-law status was the equalize all families across Canada, married or not, for the administration of the Act (which includes CCTB).  
 
As others have pointed out, the people who don't claim their common-law status or claim separated when they are in fact not under the ITA are cheating everyone else. And you WILL get caught. Maybe not this year, maybe not next, but it will catch up with you. I know because I worked in these programs. One poster said $40k. That's a fair number.

I was on assistance for over a year, because I didn't qualify for maternity leave as I had a difficult pregnancy and was unable to work. I sat on wait lists for daycare and then he got a spot and off he went and off I went to work to "better" our lives. Truth is, people can and are better off on welfare sometimes. Get into MB housing, clear a good child tax benefit check and you're made in the shade. You're better off than the working population of the world after deductions, rents, bills etc. Not to mention if you get married or claim common law then you're really screwed if you're not bringing much in in the first place. Why not have a couple more kids and you could clear close or more to $1500 in child tax benefit, and you get to stay home and raise your own kids rather than working for nothing and having someone else do it for you. I'm not bashing welfare, because I was on it. But it's pretty sad when I got off of it, and sometimes wish I hadn't. I sacrifice time with my child every day like millions of us do, and for what? I didn't have to go off welfare, could've stayed on it until my child was 6 and/or off to kindergarten, or could've had another and stayed on it some more. Sad really.