Harper $100 monthly bonus

[AnnaBanana]

When do we start to get it? If the baby is born half-way through the month, do you get $50 for that month, or nothing til the first full month? Anyone know?

[3weddings]

I don't think it's prorated.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/uccb/menu-e.html

[ERIKAAMORRIS]

You need to apply for it. I only just sent my paperwork in last week...watiing for 9 months worth of cheques!

[charliebrown]

I don't think it's prorated.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/uccb/menu-e.html

same goes for other credits...Nov/Dec babies will benefit the most!!!

[ai_c]

when you fill out the forms for cctb, you are automatically signed up for uccb. and if you are already receiving cctb, you'll get uccb automatically, no forms to fill out.

[D-Roc]

Don't forget to claim it as it is taxable income. Stupid Harper.

[sdm242]

same goes for other credits...Nov/Dec babies will benefit the most!!!

I don't understand what you mean by this. I have a child born in October. In the month after she turned 6, the benefit was discontinued. It did not continue until the end of the year so I'm not sure how being born at the end of the year is of any benefit.

[charliebrown]

I don't understand what you mean by this. I have a child born in October. In the month after she turned 6, the benefit was discontinued. It did not continue until the end of the year so I'm not sure how being born at the end of the year is of any benefit.

yah, but in her first yr (i.e. Oct-Dec) you get to claim the full yr of tax credits available for children

[ayeung]

Just got my assessment for both UCCB and CCTB - my baby was born in Feb and it said the entitlement schedule is: March to June $100/month. So, the benefit starts in March? How about Feb? (The b-day listed on the assessment is correct though).


yah, but in her first yr (i.e. Oct-Dec) you get to claim the full yr of tax credits available for children

That's true.

[Bullseye]

Just got my assessment for both UCCB and CCTB - my baby was born in Feb and it said the entitlement schedule is: March to June $100/month. So, the benefit starts in March? How about Feb? (The b-day listed on the assessment is correct though).


I'm curious about that as well, as my son was born Feb 28th. I was wondering if I'd get the $100 for Feb, but it looks like the answer is no.

[NSMum]

Nope, you don't get UCCB or CCTB(baby bonus) for the month the child is born in. It especially sucks if your baby was born near the start of the month as one of kids was born Aug.2 so our benefits didn't start til September.

[ghostryder]

Don't forget to claim it as it is taxable income. Stupid Harper.

And they took away money from the CCTB when this was introduced. So depending on your province the $100 UCCB really only nets you $55 or so.

Unless one parent has no income then there is no tax payable on it.

[don242]

Unless one parent has no income then there is no tax payable on it.



Actually even if one parent has no income, there is still tax payable on it indirectly. The working parent cannot claim the spouse as completely dependent now because of the child benefit. So normally you could claim a spousal amount of $7,505 if the spouse has no income but instead you now reduce the amount you can claim as the spousal amount because the spouse now has an income from the child benefit. So you are paying tax on part of it anyway even with only one wroking parent.

[ghostryder]

You're right. That's even more annoying. We only got it for 2 months IIRC so I didn't pay much attention. When it was announced I got the impression that it was going to be structured so that it did not change the spousal credit.

The UCCB doesn't affect the CCTB, GST rebate though. It may or may not affect provincial social benefits.

[sixer]

Don't forget to claim it as it is taxable income. Stupid Harper.

Exactly! Harper is an idiot!

[Ferman]

In our family, my wife stays home. And that idiot Harper actually gave us $100 per month more for each of our 3 kids, even though it is taxable.

It is $100 more per child than the liberals gave families with stay at home parents,
they only helped those that shoved off their kids to daycare, by providing tax money to subsidize daycares.

Not an idiot in my books.

[ghostryder]

In our family, my wife stays home. And that idiot Harper actually gave us $100 per month more for each of our 3 kids, even though it is taxable.

Lucky for you you and your family can afford to do that. You are in the minority. I would love to be a stay at home dad but we just can't afford to do that. The families that benefit the most from the UCCB are of course high single income families. Families with 2 similar incomes and single parents get the shaft since there is no lower tax-bracket spouse to claim the UCCB.



It is $100 more per child than the liberals gave families with stay at home parents,
they only helped those that shoved off their kids to daycare, by providing tax money to subsidize daycares.

Not an idiot in my books.

As described above it's really only about $55 per month after tax and the reduction to the CCTB. The could have just increased the CCTB by $55 but then they couldn't brag "$100/month".

[shoppingmama]

I'm a SAHM but our kids are too old for the credit and we do not receive Child Tax either.

I think I would be pissed if I had to claim the $100 credit for both kids...thus making my DH not be able to claim the full spousal amount. Making it taxable was not a great move in my book. I heard that the new budget will see a rise in CCTB payments too, maybe they will drop the $100 credit and roll it into the CCTB which would avoid the taxes.

[Ferman]

I'm a SAHM but our kids are too old for the credit and we do not receive Child Tax either.

I think I would be pissed if I had to claim the $100 credit for both kids...thus making my DH not be able to claim the full spousal amount. Making it taxable was not a great move in my book. I heard that the new budget will see a rise in CCTB payments too, maybe they will drop the $100 credit and roll it into the CCTB which would avoid the taxes.

While I agree that the CCTB should have been made tax free, my point is that it is still more fair for everyone than before.

Before, families that sacrificed additional income by having one parent care for the children didn't get one cent of the benefit that others got when using subsidized daycare.

[ghostryder]

While I agree that the CCTB should have been made tax free, my point is that it is still more fair for everyone than before.

The CCTB is tax free, the UCCB is not.

It's hardly "more fair" that single income families that can afford and choose to have one parent stay home get a better benefit while lower dual income and single parents get less. Wouldn't it be "more fair" if everybody got the same?

They could have increased the CCTB which is income tested so the people who needed it the most would get it, or just make the UCCB tax free and then everyone gets the same benefit.


Before, families that sacrificed additional income by having one parent care for the children didn't get one cent of the benefit that others got when using subsidized daycare.

Those families made that choice and obviously felt they could afford it, and that the financial cost was worth the benefit. I wish I had the opportunity to make that choice, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't know any families who have that opportunity.

Subsidized daycare is income tested (YPMV) so the higher your gross family income the less you get. Assuming you can even find a subsidized daycare space. Not to mention the effect on other income tested social benefits that you may be eligible for.

[Ferman]

The CCTB is tax free, the UCCB is not.

Those families made that choice and obviously felt they could afford it, and that the financial cost was worth the benefit. I wish I had the opportunity to make that choice, I would do it in a heartbeat. I don't know any families who have that opportunity.

What about the families make due with one car, and don't eat out so they can afford to have one parent stay home? Don't they deserve the same benefits as those who want or need the additional income generated by both parents working?


Subsidized daycare is income tested (YPMV) so the higher your gross family income the less you get. Assuming you can even find a subsidized daycare space. Not to mention the effect on other income tested social benefits that you may be eligible for.

But the liberals wanted to put more money into daycare spots INSTEAD of the UCCB, which would have been a slap in the face to those families that sacrificed to have one parent stay home.

[don242]

What about the families make due with one car, and don't eat out so they can afford to have one parent stay home? Don't they deserve the same benefits as those who want or need the additional income generated by both parents working?

But the liberals wanted to put more money into daycare spots INSTEAD of the UCCB, which would have been a slap in the face to those families that sacrificed to have one parent stay home.

I have to agree here. Many families choose not to have one parent home because they think they cannot manage or aren't willing to make any sacrifices. Families who think they could not manage probably just aren't willing to sacrifice anything to do this. Please don't get me wrong, I realize there are families that truly need both parents working. But I argue that in many cases it is because both parents choose to work because they can't make the sacrifice.

[Bullseye]

I have to agree here. Many families choose not to have one parent home because they think they cannot manage or aren't willing to make any sacrifices. Families who think they could not manage probably just aren't willing to sacrifice anything to do this. Please don't get me wrong, I realize there are families that truly need both parents working. But I argue that in many cases it is because both parents choose to work because they can't make the sacrifice.

Second that. If I can make it work on the equivalent of one modest income in the GTA, with two kids, then surely people in cheaper parts of the country could.

Of course, very low income and single parent families would be excepted.

[ayeung]

I have to agree here. Many families choose not to have one parent home because they think they cannot manage or aren't willing to make any sacrifices. Families who think they could not manage probably just aren't willing to sacrifice anything to do this. Please don't get me wrong, I realize there are families that truly need both parents working. But I argue that in many cases it is because both parents choose to work because they can't make the sacrifice.

Second that. If I can make it work on the equivalent of one modest income in the GTA, with two kids, then surely people in cheaper parts of the country could.

Of course, very low income and single parent families would be excepted.

Not many families can afford to have only one parent working part time or both parents working part time and still able to manage to live ok with kids. This is especially true for young families although they want to "sacrifice" to stay home with their little ones (at least for the first few years). They just can't do this without downsizing or getting rid of their only car, or delay to have kids when they can afford to have only one working parent.

My point is that $100 (or $55 after tax) certainly helps some parents, but more availability of affordable daycare is also a pressing issue. The waiting lists of some good day care can easily run from 12-18 months while some less favorable ones' starting from 6 months. They are not-for-profit but they aren't cheap either - $1200 to $1400/month.

[don242]

Not many families can afford to have only one parent working part time or both parents working part time and still able to manage to live ok with kids. This is especially true for young families although they want to "sacrifice" to stay home with their little ones (at least for the first few years). They just can't do this without downsizing or getting rid of their only car, or delay to have kids when they can afford to have only one working parent.

Like I said, not all circumstances allow for one parent to stay home. However, I find that most believe their circumstances don't allow them to stay home but the truth of the matter is they just don't want to make the sacrifices.

I think many people also put themselves into a position where they may not be able to afford for one parent to stay home. They take on too large of a house or too many "toys" initially without realizing what imapact a child will have. So you are right to say that downsizing and selling your only car is probably not ideal. If that is the only option that would allow one parent to stay home then it probably isn't a good choice for you. For many it is because they just don't believe they could do it because how are they going to get by without being able to eat out 5 days a week (just an example).



My point is that $100 (or $55 after tax) certainly helps some parents, but more availability of affordable daycare is also a pressing issue. The waiting lists of some good day care can easily run from 12-18 months while some less favorable ones' starting from 6 months. They are not-for-profit but they aren't cheap either - $1200 to $1400/month.

Affordable day care availability is also an issue, I agree. Though I do find it a little strange that we all want to make a lot more than minimum wage on our job but refuse to pay someone else more than $5/hr to work for them and watch their children. Of course I understand that it needs to be affordable for those who need it. I guess if more people who could afford to stay home would choose to do that, then more childcare for those who actually need it would be available.

No easy answers and hopefully there can be a way to increase the availability of childcare spaces. But at the same time, those parents who choose to stay home and watch their children should have every same benefit. Unfortunately the $100 a month doesn't compare to what the government pays to subsidize childcare. Maybe those parents who stay home should be better subsidized by the government as well or at least allow the working parent to writeoff the equivalent costs of daycare to account for the cost of the one parent staying home. Of course then that leads to trying to create a fair system in every aspect of government. Well I guess there is no perfect solution for everyone.

In the end, I do believe that providing the UCCB to all parents equally (sort of equally anyway) is as close to fair as we are going to get.

[ghostryder]

What about the families make due with one car, and don't eat out so they can afford to have one parent stay home? Don't they deserve the same benefits as those who want or need the additional income generated by both parents working?

We're already make due with one car, don't eat out, have no debt except the mortgage. I TAKE HOME about $1500 a month. By the time the mortgage, property taxes, insurance, & utilities are paid I'm lucky to have $200 left per month to pay for food, clothing, gas, RRSP, RESP, etc. Without my wife's income we'd be living in social housing and grocery shopping at the food bank. So how is it fair that we get less out of the UCCB than a single income family with the same income as ours but has one parent at home?


But the liberals wanted to put more money into daycare spots INSTEAD of the UCCB, which would have been a slap in the face to those families that sacrificed to have one parent stay home.

Hardly a slap in the face. More like a acknowlegement that there are not enough daycare spaces to begin with and an awfull lot of families that cannot afford to live on only one income no matter what sacrifices they made.

They also wanted to lower taxes. I compared the proposals during the election and you would have to spend (after tax dollars) about $30,000 a year to break even between the income tax cuts that the liberals proposed and the cut to the GST. I don't make enough to spend $30,000 a year on GSTable stuff.

I'm not particularly loyal to any party but when even the Fraser institute is saying that liberal income tax reduction proposals from the last election are better than a GST cut I begin to wonder whether the combined number of brain cells of the CPC MP's even outnumber the actual number of CPC MP's themselves. I suspect that it takes 5-6 CPC MP's to get 1 or 2 brain cells.

[ghostryder]

Second that. If I can make it work on the equivalent of one modest income in the GTA, with two kids, then surely people in cheaper parts of the country could.

Of course, very low income and single parent families would be excepted.

I'm curious to know your definition of "modest"

[don242]

So how is it fair that we get less out of the UCCB than a single income family with the same income as ours but has one parent at home?


I guess you could argue the same thing about taxes in general then. How is it fair that the family with one parent working is making $40K and the family with both parents working is also making $20K each ($40K in total) yet the family with only one parent working pays more in taxes?


They also wanted to lower taxes. I compared the proposals during the election and you would have to spend (after tax dollars) about $30,000 a year to break even between the income tax cuts that the liberals proposed and the cut to the GST. I don't make enough to spend $30,000 a year on GSTable stuff.



You are right here. The GST cut on its own would have been fine, but to take away the income tax cuts means we pay more taxes with the GST cut then we did with the income tax cut. The only way you come out better is if you are making a big purchase. As usual, the government tries to buy us off with a highly visual tax cut, all the while we end up paying more than were before.

[Bullseye]

I'm curious to know your definition of "modest"

If that's your take home pay, then you would fall under the 'low income' part of my post, and I agree that for people in that situation, it would indeed require both parents working full time. I've seen some of the advice on taxes and finances you've posted, and I assumed you worked in that industry, which would provide a higher income than that.

'Modest' would depend on the area you live in, but I'd say a $60k family income would be the starting point for the GTA.

I think the point don and I are making is that many people we know choose to live in a larger house, own multiple cars, the big screen tv, etc, and then say they could never afford to only have one parent working. They could afford it, they just don't want to downgrade their life.

[Ferman]

So how is it fair that we get less out of the UCCB than a single income family with the same income as ours but has one parent at home?

My point is that it is more fair that every family benefits from UCCB, rather than only those who chose to use daycare services, whether they are low income or not.


Hardly a slap in the face. More like a acknowlegement that there are not enough daycare spaces to begin with and an awfull lot of families that cannot afford to live on only one income no matter what sacrifices they made.
I think it is a slap in the face to deny families any benefits if they decide to raise their own kids. Like I said before, we could have chosen to use daycare, and be ahead financially, but we decided not to. At least the UCCB treats us fairly regardless of our choice.

[Ferman]

I guess you could argue the same thing about taxes in general then. How is it fair that the family with one parent working is making $40K and the family with both parents working is also making $20K each ($40K in total) yet the family with only one parent working pays more in taxes?


This is exactly how the tax system punishes families. Until we have real income splitting like many other countries have, having a family in Canada will continue to be more of a financial burden than in other countries.

And people wonder why Canada has such a low birth rate.

[shoppingmama]

I'm hoping the Haper gov't does allow income splitting soon. As a SAHM for the past 11 years we do not get enough tax breaks...heck we can't even claim our children on our taxes. DH & I have often thought of divorcing on paper just to get the tax breaks. DH could pay me child support, he claims the deduction, I pay little tax on just child support and we'd be way farther ahead...that is crazy!!

[Bullseye]

I'm hoping the Haper gov't does allow income splitting soon. As a SAHM for the past 11 years we do not get enough tax breaks...heck we can't even claim our children on our taxes. DH & I have often thought of divorcing on paper just to get the tax breaks. DH could pay me child support, he claims the deduction, I pay little tax on just child support and we'd be way farther ahead...that is crazy!!

Child support stopped being a deductible expense/taxable income several years ago.

If you're a stay at home mom, your family does get the credit for a spouse with no income, as well as keeping more of the UCCB if you get it.

[ghostryder]

...heck we can't even claim our children on our taxes. DH & I have often thought of divorcing on paper just to get the tax breaks...


Some provinces do:


http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/5008-c/5008-c-06e.pdf


Line 5821

[shoppingmama]

Child support stopped being a deductible expense/taxable income several years ago.

If you're a stay at home mom, your family does get the credit for a spouse with no income, as well as keeping more of the UCCB if you get it.

I'll have to look into that, it's been awhile since I looked at the tax deductions for child support.

My DH does get to claim me, but not our children. We have not qualified for UCCB in a few years now...I miss that monthly payment, it always covered music and swim lessons for the kids :(

[Ottawa]

Harper's 100/month, after taxes, really only pays for 2 days of daycare (30$/day homecare).

What about the other 18 days in the month?????

I prefer the 7$/day daycare. That would help working families.
Granted it's not a perfect system....but better than what we have now.

[Ferman]

Harper's 100/month, after taxes, really only pays for 2 days of daycare (30$/day homecare).

What about the other 18 days in the month?????

I prefer the 7$/day daycare. That would help working families.
Granted it's not a perfect system....but better than what we have now.

Why should our family, where my wife stays home, have to pay additional taxes for those that want to use daycare facilities? Where do we benefit from that?

The only fair method of giving families assistance is by the number of children, regardless if they go to daycare, or stay at home with mom or dad.

[ayeung]

Why should our family, where my wife stays home, have to pay additional taxes for those that want to use daycare facilities? Where do we benefit from that?

Do you, single income family, pay "additional taxes" for those that want to use daycare facilities? I don't think so as income tax is based on level of income. I can also say that I don't use public transportation, I don't have children, I don't go to University, or I don't make use of enough public services, then why am I paying "additional tax".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point is that this $100 Harper money (UCCB) is in response to a request to improve day care, not child support/benefit. However, $100 (taxable) doesn't offer enough help in supporting child care, hence, it doesn't serve its purpose effectively. Harper didn't create more affordable child care but rather than this lazy $100 to each child regardless they go to day care or not. This $100 only help with about 1.5 to 2 days of daycare while it is like a bonus to those families that don't use daycare.

If Harper wants to increase child support, he should improve the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) that is designed to help families with children based on income.

[tkl]

Do you, single income family, pay "additional taxes" for those that want to use daycare facilities? I don't think so as income tax is based on level of income. I can also say that I don't use public transportation, I don't have children, I don't go to University, or I don't make use of enough public services, then why am I paying "additional tax".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point is that this $100 Harper money (UCCB) is in response to a request to improve day care, not child support/benefit. However, $100 (taxable) doesn't offer enough help in supporting child care, hence, it doesn't serve its purpose effectively. Harper didn't create more affordable child care but rather than this lazy $100 to each child regardless they go to day care or not. This $100 only help with about 1.5 to 2 days of daycare while it is like a bonus to those families that don't use daycare.

If Harper wants to increase child support, he should improve the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) that is designed to help families with children based on income.

WHY should the government be supporting child care ? Why to people feel this sense of entitlement to have the government take care of this child that they've created ???

We have a child and we made sacrifice to have a parent stay at home instead of warehousing them. Why should we take the loss in income AND pay with my tax dollars to support a daycare system for parents who didn't plan.

Regardless whether the $ 100 helps with about 1.5 or 2 days is not the issue. At least I'm getting something to help, something that none of the previous government, Liberal or PC gave. If the government really wanted to help, 1) lower my taxes. 2) any amount/subsidy towards a government backed daycare system should be claimable as some sort of tax credit for parents who do not want to warehouse their kids. If the true cost of government daycare subsidy is $ 5000/child then I should be able to claim that on my income tax.

If there was such a public system then it should only be used by single parents or people in such similar situation. Sheesh, take care of your own kids. If there are two of you, you can. Again, if you can't afford it, the perhaps that should have been thought out before hand. Having the government take care of your kid is not a right.

[don242]

Do you, single income family, pay "additional taxes" for those that want to use daycare facilities? I don't think so as income tax is based on level of income. I can also say that I don't use public transportation, I don't have children, I don't go to University, or I don't make use of enough public services, then why am I paying "additional tax".



Putting your child into daycare is different then using the healthcare system, public transportation or public roads. These other services are there not because you use them everyday, but because you may need them at any time. Just because a person may not use healthcare so why pay for it, will not be saying such a thing on the day they have an accident or a sudden health problem. You may not use public transportation, but it is available on that day when your vehicle is broken. Or instead you choose to drive and take advantage of the public roads.

The point is that this $100 Harper money (UCCB) is in response to a request to improve day care, not child support/benefit. However, $100 (taxable) doesn't offer enough help in supporting child care, hence, it doesn't serve its purpose effectively. Harper didn't create more affordable child care but rather than this lazy $100 to each child regardless they go to day care or not. This $100 only help with about 1.5 to 2 days of daycare while it is like a bonus to those families that don't use daycare.


The child benefits aren't meant to pay for child care, they are meant to give a little (and yes it is a little) back to families with young children to assist them in the early years. Hopefully the money is used to assist in the upbringing of the child (daycare, RESP, etc.) but it is by no means meant to be enough to support the child. That responsibility falls to the parents.

WHY should the government be supporting child care ? Why to people feel this sense of entitlement to have the government take care of this child that they've created ???

We have a child and we made sacrifice to have a parent stay at home instead of warehousing them. Why should we take the loss in income AND pay with my tax dollars to support a daycare system for parents who didn't plan.

Regardless whether the $ 100 helps with about 1.5 or 2 days is not the issue. At least I'm getting something to help, something that none of the previous government, Liberal or PC gave. If the government really wanted to help, 1) lower my taxes. 2) any amount/subsidy towards a government backed daycare system should be claimable as some sort of tax credit for parents who do not want to warehouse their kids. If the true cost of government daycare subsidy is $ 5000/child then I should be able to claim that on my income tax.

If there was such a public system then it should only be used by single parents or people in such similar situation. Sheesh, take care of your own kids. If there are two of you, you can. Again, if you can't afford it, the perhaps that should have been thought out before hand. Having the government take care of your kid is not a right.

Blunt post, but I have to agree. If a family chooses to keep both parents working instead of caring for their child themselves, then they should pay for it. Already people using daycare are getting a pretty good deal. Where else can you pay someone less than $5/hr to work for you.

People complain about the government interfering in everyone's lives and yet they want the government to raise the children.

[ayeung]

"The UCCB is designed to help Canadian families, as they try to balance work and family life, by supporting their child care choices through direct financial support. The UCCB is for children under the age of 6 years and is paid in instalments of $100 per month per child." - It is certainly not designed to help you pay for the RESP.

Most parents plan before they have children, of course, but that also doesn't change the fact that there is a serious shortage of child care space in the GTA and hence, they are so expensive (it's about $1200-1600 for age 1 to 2) and the gov't need to buy out home-based childcare centre. Without enough affordable childcare space, some couples just can't to afford or delay to have children (it's not a matter of you willing to "sacrifice" or not. Do not assume everyone can or willing to sustain single income. It is not wrong to put children in childcare center). Low birth rate or high rate of older pregnancy age will just create more problems to the society as a whole.

I also plan to stay home and raise my children, like some parents, day care can also be viewed as a back up. It's there when you need it. To be honest, there are people, including some members of my family/relative, who look at me as lazy and not wanting to go to work. So, if you say you are sacrificing to stay home, it's your choice, your opinion. While you don't work, other tax payers are paying your social benefits. Financially, how does it fair to other taxpayer who don't, won't, or can't have children?

It's true that the $100 is better than nothing but this just doesn't solve the childcare problem. I just don't understand how some people think it's not fair that the gov't will subsidize and create more affordable childcare space just because you think you are not using or not planning to use the service. There are many things that the gov't support, subsidize and we do not use but really, but you can't really say that it is not fair. If you like to think that way, the "unfair" list can go very long.

[don242]

It's true that the $100 is better than nothing but this just doesn't solve the childcare problem. I just don't understand how some people think it's not fair that the gov't will subsidize and create more affordable childcare space just because you think you are not using or not planning to use the service. There are many things that the gov't support, subsidize and we do not use but really, but you can't really say that it is not fair. If you like to think that way, the "unfair" list can go very long.

You are right that the $100 doesn't solve the childcare spaces problems. You are right saying the "unfair list" could go on and on. But what I don't understand is why it is the governments responsibility to subsidize daycare in the first place. I understand there are social implications which is why the government does this. But really why does everyone have to pay to watch your children. They are your children, so take care of them. If taking care of them requires you to send them off to another caregiver then it is still your responisibility to adequately compensate that caregiver for doing this service for you. Why does the government need to pay for the service?

There are plenty of child care spaces, just not subsidized ones. People just don't want to pay the actual cost for what the service is worth. They want to send their kids somewhere for nothing instead of paying the caregiver a proper salary for working for you.

And yes, I do think there is a need for affordable childcare for those who are not in the position to afford otherwise. But I stand by my argument that many choose not to afford otherwise. It is not always a simple question of need, but of want.

[knapper]

yah, but in her first yr (i.e. Oct-Dec) you get to claim the full yr of tax credits available for children

What credits? Are they the same as GST and PST credits? >:(

[Ferman]

Do you, single income family, pay "additional taxes" for those that want to use daycare facilities? I don't think so as income tax is based on level of income. I can also say that I don't use public transportation, I don't have children, I don't go to University, or I don't make use of enough public services, then why am I paying "additional tax".
Where do you think additional funding that people are wanting for more cheap daycare spots will come from? Taxes of course.

I agree with you, it should be a user pay system. If want to use the bus, I should PAY for it. I want to go to the municipal public golf course, I should pay for it. Why should everyone have to pay for things they don't use?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The point is that this $100 Harper money (UCCB) is in response to a request to improve day care, not child support/benefit. However, $100 (taxable) doesn't offer enough help in supporting child care, hence, it doesn't serve its purpose effectively. Harper didn't create more affordable child care but rather than this lazy $100 to each child regardless they go to day care or not. This $100 only help with about 1.5 to 2 days of daycare while it is like a bonus to those families that don't use daycare.

That bonus is available to everyone that has kids, not only those that use daycare. That is why its more fair than only helping those that want a higher family income.

[Ferman]

You are right that the $100 doesn't solve the childcare spaces problems. You are right saying the "unfair list" could go on and on. But what I don't understand is why it is the governments responsibility to subsidize daycare in the first place. I understand there are social implications which is why the government does this. But really why does everyone have to pay to watch your children. They are your children, so take care of them. If taking care of them requires you to send them off to another caregiver then it is still your responisibility to adequately compensate that caregiver for doing this service for you. Why does the government need to pay for the service?

There are plenty of child care spaces, just not subsidized ones. People just don't want to pay the actual cost for what the service is worth. They want to send their kids somewhere for nothing instead of paying the caregiver a proper salary for working for you.

And yes, I do think there is a need for affordable childcare for those who are not in the position to afford otherwise. But I stand by my argument that many choose not to afford otherwise. It is not always a simple question of need, but of want.

I wonder how many of those what want more cheap daycare spots are working so that they can pay for their spa treatments and manicures. I'm willing to bet that spa workers earn more than daycare workers do.

[ghostryder]

If Harper wants to increase child support, he should improve the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) that is designed to help families with children based on income.


Instead they took money away from the CCTB to pay for the UCCB.

[ghostryder]

Why should everyone have to pay for things they don't use?

I've never used the fire department or the military or etc etc etc but I still have to pay for it.


That bonus is available to everyone that has kids, not only those that use daycare. That is why its more fair than only helping those that want a higher family income.

My problem with the UCCB is that it favors single income families and punishes the dual income working poor. Simply increasing the CCTB would have been more effective.

[don242]

My problem with the UCCB is that it favors single income families and punishes the dual income working poor. Simply increasing the CCTB would have been more effective.

I agree here, a raise to the CCTB would have been better. The UCCB does favour the single income family but not as much as you think. It still is taxed and those taxes paid for by the income earner. Because the benefit is income for the non-working spouse, the working person cannot claim the full deduction of the spousal amount.

Of course a simple increase to the CCTB would not have had the same effect for the government. This way it sounds like the government is giving people $100 a month. They make no reference to what they took away in the other child benefits and of course we all know just how much is taken in taxes as well. The money is obviously more about show for the government than it was to actually help families. I am sure the government is relying on most Canadians not figure this out and continue to believe that Harper cut GST and gave families $100 per month per child, when in reality...

[doberman_baby]

I agree here, a raise to the CCTB would have been better. The UCCB does favour the single income family but not as much as you think. It still is taxed and those taxes paid for by the income earner. Because the benefit is income for the non-working spouse, the working person cannot claim the full deduction of the spousal amount.

Of course a simple increase to the CCTB would not have had the same effect for the government. This way it sounds like the government is giving people $100 a month. They make no reference to what they took away in the other child benefits and of course we all know just how much is taken in taxes as well. The money is obviously more about show for the government than it was to actually help families. I am sure the government is relying on most Canadians not figure this out and continue to believe that Harper cut GST and gave families $100 per month per child, when in reality...

Totally agree ... an increase to CCTB is much more beneficial to the families ... at least it's not subject to tax!

Neat trick by Harper, but Canadians are not as dumbs as he thinks!

[Ferman]

I've never used the fire department or the military or etc etc etc but I still have to pay for it.

Yes, but you might use the fire department in the future if you have a fire at your place etc,. Stay at home moms will NEVER use daycares.


My problem with the UCCB is that it favors single income families and punishes the dual income working poor. Simply increasing the CCTB would have been more effective.
But CCTB is not only for low incomes. Did you know that you can have a six figure single earner income, and still qualify for some CCTB if you have at least 3 kids?

[charliebrown]

saw a direct deposit in our bank account -- CANADA CTC

is that the $100 bonus??? (coz we got some funky amount...2 months after tax? 3 months after tax?)

[ai_c]

with td:

canada ctc = cctb
canada fed = uccb

[ghostryder]

Yes, but you might use the fire department in the future if you have a fire at your place etc,. Stay at home moms will NEVER use daycares.

So where do you think the kids across the street from me went when their stay at home mom got hit by a car and was in ICU for weeks & weeks?


But CCTB is not only for low incomes. Did you know that you can have a six figure single earner income, and still qualify for some CCTB if you have at least 3 kids?

But you are completely clawed back by the time you get to about $135,650 net familly income (3 kids). There is no cap or clawback on the UCCB.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/cctb/cctb_payment06-e.html

[don242]

So where do you think the kids across the street from me went when their stay at home mom got hit by a car and was in ICU for weeks & weeks?






That must have been a horrible situation. However, I highly doubt the children went to daycare for weeks and weeks while their mother recovered. I am sure they used a separate entity for such a situation.

[Ferman]

So where do you think the kids across the street from me went when their stay at home mom got hit by a car and was in ICU for weeks & weeks?

What kind of percentage of daycare use is this? less than 0.0001%?


But you are completely clawed back by the time you get to about $135,650 net family income (3 kids). There is no cap or clawback on the UCCB.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/cctb/cctb_payment06-e.html

So if a man makes between $100,000 to $135,000 and his spouse stays at home with 3 kids, they are considered low enough income to require government help?

UCCB is taxable, so there is a clawback in the form of taxes. It is designed to more fairly benefit all Canadian families, not just those that use daycares.

I still think that every family should get equal help. If they are a wealthier family, the help they receive will be reduced by taxes on what they receive. What could be more fair than that?

[ghostryder]

What kind of percentage of daycare use is this? less than 0.0001%?

You missed the point as usual.



So if a man makes between $100,000 to $135,000 and his spouse stays at home with 3 kids, they are considered low enough income to require government help?

Hey I didn't design the formula. I would rather have the CCTB get completely clawed back by $60,000 or so and more go to the bottom end of the scale where it is really needed the most. Besides that guy making $130k a year is only getting about $18/ a month. Enough to take the kids to mcdonalds maybe :lol:


UCCB is taxable, so there is a clawback in the form of taxes. It is designed to more fairly benefit all Canadian families, not just those that use daycares.

I still think that every family should get equal help. If they are a wealthier family, the help they receive will be reduced by taxes on what they receive. What could be more fair than that?

Sure it's taxable but in the hands of the lower income spouse. If that spouse has no income they pay no tax on it. Sure, the income spouse gives up a bit of the spousal credit but only at the lowest MTR.

But a dual income family making 30,000 a year gets the same UCCB as a single income family earning $20,000,000 a year. Equal maybe, fair??? :confused:

A dual income family making 100,000 a year evenly split between the two spouses will actually pay more tax on the UCCB than a single income family with the same income.

[ghostryder]

I agree with you, it should be a user pay system. If want to use the bus, I should PAY for it. I want to go to the municipal public golf course, I should pay for it. Why should everyone have to pay for things they don't use?


Hmmm, I suppose then you should pay for your own CPP, OAS, healthcare etc when you get older instead of making my kids pay for it. :)

[Ferman]

Hmmm, I suppose then you should pay for your own CPP, OAS, healthcare etc when you get older instead of making my kids pay for it. :)

Don't worry, your kids won't be paying for it, neither will mine. Because by the time I retire, cpp benefits will be clawed back at $10K/year income.

[Ferman]

You missed the point as usual.


No I didn't miss the point. Thanks for being so nice, as usual.

[Bullseye]

Don't worry, your kids won't be paying for it, neither will mine. Because by the time I retire, cpp benefits will be clawed back at $10K/year income.

How do you figure? The CPP has been certified by actuaries to continue paying out at current levels plus inflation for the next 75 years. Unlike our friends to the south with their Ponzi-scheme they call social security, our government pension plan funds are kept separate from general revenues.

OAS is another matter, though, I can see increasing clawbacks on that once the bulk of the boomers (read: active voters) die off.

[charliebrown]

hehehe...finally got the $100 :) They sent a cheque instead of direct deposit like all our other tax related stuff...weird...

maybe u folks can discuss this in the political forum?

[ghostryder]

No I didn't miss the point. Thanks for being so nice, as usual.

You're welcome. :)

[ghostryder]

OAS is another matter, though, I can see increasing clawbacks on that once the bulk of the boomers (read: active voters) die off.


Unfortunately I think we are going to see deficit spending again once the bulk of the boomers are collecting OAS. Increasing the clawbacks should start before then but it won't. Polititians will be loath to stand up to such a powerful voting group.

[don242]

hehehe...finally got the $100 :) They sent a cheque instead of direct deposit like all our other tax related stuff...weird...



The first payment comes as a cheque. From there you have to request the direct deposit. It is rather inefficient but the reasoning is that a physical $100 cheque in your hand makes more of a statement than just $100 deposited in your account. The government wants you to know they are giving you something so they make sure you get the cheque first.

[ayeung]

The first payment comes as a cheque. From there you have to request the direct deposit. It is rather inefficient but the reasoning is that a physical $100 cheque in your hand makes more of a statement than just $100 deposited in your account. The government wants you to know they are giving you something so they make sure you get the cheque first.


Not necessarily. I didn't receive a cheque. They all go into my bank account directly after I receive the initial assessment.

[AnnaBanana]

How do we request the direct deposit? I just got my 2nd cheque in the mail... and would much prefer direct deposit...

[don242]

Not necessarily. I didn't receive a cheque. They all go into my bank account directly after I receive the initial assessment.

Well then you must be the exception. Most everyone initially received a cheque for the first payment and you have to fill out the form and request the direct deposit. Even if all other government money comes as direct deposit, the first for the UCCB was a cheque.

[yjzeng]

How do we request the direct deposit? I just got my 2nd cheque in the mail... and would much prefer direct deposit...

You can go to CRA website to register your account (http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/eservices/tax/individuals/myaccount/menu-e.html). Once you have access, then you will be able to change the UCCB payment as direct deposit. Also, you can mail them the form(http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/benefits/deposit-e.html).

[ayeung]

Well then you must be the exception. Most everyone initially received a cheque for the first payment and you have to fill out the form and request the direct deposit. Even if all other government money comes as direct deposit, the first for the UCCB was a cheque.

I've been using direct deposit for my tax refund for yrs and may be that's why the first payment of UCCB (just this March) was direct deposit and not a cheque. The first UCCB and CCTB were direct deposit to my bank a/c on the same day.

[don242]

I've been using direct deposit for my tax refund for yrs and may be that's why the first payment of UCCB (just this March) was direct deposit and not a cheque. The first UCCB and CCTB were direct deposit to my bank a/c on the same day.

Same here, been using direct deposit for years but still got the cheque for the first payment. This was actually discussed last year when they first did this and everyone was receiving a cheque initially even though everything was direct deposit. Along with the first cheque came a nice little brochure about how much the Harper government is doing for us all.

Maybe now that the initial implementation is over, they are going to direct deposits from the start for those now starting to get the UCCB. It never did make sense the first time when they made everyone go through the hassle of requesting direct deposit when most were already getting that for everything else.

[xaveryptak]

Lucky for you you and your family can afford to do that. You are in the minority. I would love to be a stay at home dad but we just can't afford to do that.
That's a very ignorant comment. My wife stays home too and this has nothing to do with affordability. We decided to give up on not only luxuries but many basics because we felt that our kids are worth the sacrifice.

[ghostryder]

That's a very ignorant comment. My wife stays home too and this has nothing to do with affordability. We decided to give up on not only luxuries but many basics because we felt that our kids are worth the sacrifice.

Really? You mean basics like food, water, a roof over you head, a warm place to live in winter?

I was once a single income spouse while my wife was at home with our son. Then I lost my job. My wife was just about to go back to school. The year she started I made <$15,000, the next year <$19,000 That had to support a family of 3 with a sick infant (no medical coverage at work). I routinely did not eat for 4-5 days at a time to ensure that they had food to eat. Paying for heat in the middle of a Sask winter was more important than me eating. I think I know what "sacrifice" means.

My family has a choice. Either we both work and are productive taxpaying members of society or one of us works and we would have to live in taxpayer funded social housing and get our food at the food bank.

It was a hard few years but things are improving thank goodness.

As a fellow taxpayer which would you prefer?

[gorf]

As a fellow taxpayer which would you prefer?

Condoms?

[ghostryder]

Condoms?

Now that's ignorant.

If you have kids when you can afford them and an unforseen event happens what do you do then? Put the kid back in the womb?

[gorf]

Now that's ignorant.

Not really. Times have drastically changed from when I was kid and we were not financially well off. Our dollar went alot further.

What I see now though is very poor financial planning by some young people having children. No foresight into the future, no planning as to how food will be put on the table, no banked up financial safety net. Its really a shame that its happening.

Ofcourse unforseen circumstances occur, I don't deny that one bit. I commend you for doing what you have to do without relying on assistance, unfortunately I think too many people opt for the easy route.

[Shaynelle]

Please, let us stick to the topic.

One thing I was thinking, many parents wait months, sometimes close to a year to apply for the 'baby bonus' and $100/m credit - but in doing so you are losing interest you could be making on that money. It might not seem like much, but if you receive say 4.1% it adds up. Even $20 worth of interest is $20 in your pocket!

Shaynelle

[Bullseye]

It might not seem like much, but if you receive say 4.1% it adds up. Even $20 worth of interest is $20 in your pocket!

Shaynelle

Minus taxes, of course! Can't forget those. :cheesygri