April 20th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Quoting
46 visits? Your inbox must be runneth over with applications.
Some ladies may wish to cash in on this $1200 a year but as yet do not have the goods. You know, the kids in question.
Now I am willing to help out in that department. No need to pass up easy money for want of a trip or two into outer space.
Lefty ladies must agree not the brainwash the toddlers in Lenin and Marx. Failure to do so will forfeit the 46 follow up visits and all free golf lessons.
Now I am willing to help out in that department. No need to pass up easy money for want of a trip or two into outer space.
Lefty ladies must agree not the brainwash the toddlers in Lenin and Marx. Failure to do so will forfeit the 46 follow up visits and all free golf lessons.
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,492 
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
April 20th, 2006, 08:46 PM
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
April 20th, 2006, 10:22 PM
Quoting
ITN, I totally agree. It never ceases to amaze me that people will decline money because they might have to pay tax on it.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
Hall of Fame Member
Posts: 10,492
Location: The Evil Empire
Location: The Evil Empire
April 20th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Not only that Kreskin, but rights have been granted (almost without exception) a piece at a time. This could just be a start. Whether or not I agree with Child Care programs is irrelevant. Make a start, Harper gives $1200, take it, next government can be squeezed for more, take it. Never refuse anything because it sets a precedent, that's how people gain rights and priveleges, at least in my head.
Not only that Kreskin, but rights have been granted (almost without exception) a piece at a time. This could just be a start. Whether or not I agree with Child Care programs is irrelevant. Make a start, Harper gives $1200, take it, next government can be squeezed for more, take it. Never refuse anything because it sets a precedent, that's how people gain rights and priveleges, at least in my head.
Yo
Posts: 3,537
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
April 20th, 2006, 10:35 PM
Quoting
I wouldn't decline the money. However, what burns my ass is that I would have to pay tax on money that was collected through taxation, from me!!! That's just wrong, unless I'm missing something.
Quoting
ITN, I totally agree. It never ceases to amaze me that people will decline money because they might have to pay tax on it.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
April 20th, 2006, 11:02 PM
Said, I work in the investment industry and it boggles my mind how people will intentionally not make money because they might have to pay 25 or 30% of it to tax. They will throw away a net return of 70 or 75% to ensure they don't pay the tax. I don't get it. Yes, there are some cases where benefit clawbacks may be an issue, but it is rarely an issue to the majority of people.
Sometimes people get hung up on the small stuff and don't see the forest through the trees.
Quoting
I don't know if it will be taxed but if it is it would mean, for the majority of us, those who make a lot of money already and likely don't need it will be taxed the most. Those in lower income brackets who need it more will pay less tax. IMO, that is more fair than giving everyone the same benefit, whether they need it or not. The idea is to help those who need help. Quoting
I wouldn't decline the money. However, what burns my ass is that I would have to pay tax on money that was collected through taxation, from me!!! That's just wrong, unless I'm missing something.
Quoting
ITN, I totally agree. It never ceases to amaze me that people will decline money because they might have to pay tax on it.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
Said, I work in the investment industry and it boggles my mind how people will intentionally not make money because they might have to pay 25 or 30% of it to tax. They will throw away a net return of 70 or 75% to ensure they don't pay the tax. I don't get it. Yes, there are some cases where benefit clawbacks may be an issue, but it is rarely an issue to the majority of people.
Sometimes people get hung up on the small stuff and don't see the forest through the trees.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,004
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
April 20th, 2006, 11:23 PM
I wish someone would explain to me the problem with choices being an option for parents requiring daycare. The subsidies currently in place, and trust me they are generous, will NOT, REPEAT NOT, be changed by the CPC. This is a myth that is being spread by Liberal supporters. Parents do not have to worry about subsidies being eliminated, and the CPC plan will put money into parents pockets. How they choose (damn, there is that word again) to use the money is up to them.
A massive, bulky, unwieldy, union driven daycare system is fraught with problems, the least of which would be: What do parents do when the unionized childcare workers go on strike? And face it, being union members, it will happen sooner or later. And who will give the right ratio for child to caregiver, the relative/homedaycare provide or someone in the government sponsored system?
Quoting
FYI, my wife, and by extension me, have been in child care for over 20 years. The vast majority of child care in Canada is NOT, REPEAT NOT, provided by a "Kids-R-Us" type of daycare. Rather, child care is provided by relatives, friends, or home daycare, which is typically better than the large daycare centers, where the child to care giver ratio is so high, there is no individual attention to the kids. Therefore, the CPC childcare program provides relief to those parents using this type of daycare. Johnny Utah, with respect, I would suggest that two nations in such close proximity are likely, if not guaranteed, to draw comparisons between one another, such as Canada and the United States of America. However, I would agree with you if your premise is that there shouldn't be baseless insults between the two (but I would suggest that comparisons are entirely appropriate).
In terms of this child care plan, I'm not going to "bash" the right-wing persons who support the initiative of the present Government of Canada, but I would suggest that peraps the Government should look to compromise on this issue, in light of the fact that a majority of Members of Parliament (and I would contend the electorate) are opposed to this endeavour.
In terms of this child care plan, I'm not going to "bash" the right-wing persons who support the initiative of the present Government of Canada, but I would suggest that peraps the Government should look to compromise on this issue, in light of the fact that a majority of Members of Parliament (and I would contend the electorate) are opposed to this endeavour.
I wish someone would explain to me the problem with choices being an option for parents requiring daycare. The subsidies currently in place, and trust me they are generous, will NOT, REPEAT NOT, be changed by the CPC. This is a myth that is being spread by Liberal supporters. Parents do not have to worry about subsidies being eliminated, and the CPC plan will put money into parents pockets. How they choose (damn, there is that word again) to use the money is up to them.
A massive, bulky, unwieldy, union driven daycare system is fraught with problems, the least of which would be: What do parents do when the unionized childcare workers go on strike? And face it, being union members, it will happen sooner or later. And who will give the right ratio for child to caregiver, the relative/homedaycare provide or someone in the government sponsored system?
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,004
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
April 20th, 2006, 11:30 PM
But here is another scenario. My wife takes care of two kids whose parents do not receive subsidy because of their combined income. Fair enough, the system works. But these two are happy about the $2400 they are getting, because it now provides a bit of money to offset their non-subsidized child care costs. Someone tell me this is wrong. Here is another scenario. A parent, usually a mother, may work with her kids in daycare in order to develop a career. But her income, at an entry level position, basically may offset the cost of child care. Now this $1200 comes along, and provides this parent with a bit of a cushion against the cost of daycare, and allows this parent to continue in the workforce for a career if that is their wish.
Are their faults? Sure, but overall the benefits of this program outweigh the negatives, both from a freedom of choice issue and a monetary issue in most cases.
And the subsidies still remain.
Quoting
Said, I work in the investment industry and it boggles my mind how people will intentionally not make money because they might have to pay 25 or 30% of it to tax. They will throw away a net return of 70 or 75% to ensure they don't pay the tax. I don't get it. Yes, there are some cases where benefit clawbacks may be an issue, but it is rarely an issue to the majority of people.
Sometimes people get hung up on the small stuff and don't see the forest through the trees.
You make an excellent point, and because I work in the taxation area, I can say with some authority, that this $1200 will not affect the vast majority of people who really need it, as far as it being taxable. Quoting
I don't know if it will be taxed but if it is it would mean, for the majority of us, those who make a lot of money already and likely don't need it will be taxed the most. Those in lower income brackets who need it more will pay less tax. IMO, that is more fair than giving everyone the same benefit, whether they need it or not. The idea is to help those who need help. Quoting
I wouldn't decline the money. However, what burns my ass is that I would have to pay tax on money that was collected through taxation, from me!!! That's just wrong, unless I'm missing something.
Quoting
ITN, I totally agree. It never ceases to amaze me that people will decline money because they might have to pay tax on it.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
Said, I work in the investment industry and it boggles my mind how people will intentionally not make money because they might have to pay 25 or 30% of it to tax. They will throw away a net return of 70 or 75% to ensure they don't pay the tax. I don't get it. Yes, there are some cases where benefit clawbacks may be an issue, but it is rarely an issue to the majority of people.
Sometimes people get hung up on the small stuff and don't see the forest through the trees.
But here is another scenario. My wife takes care of two kids whose parents do not receive subsidy because of their combined income. Fair enough, the system works. But these two are happy about the $2400 they are getting, because it now provides a bit of money to offset their non-subsidized child care costs. Someone tell me this is wrong. Here is another scenario. A parent, usually a mother, may work with her kids in daycare in order to develop a career. But her income, at an entry level position, basically may offset the cost of child care. Now this $1200 comes along, and provides this parent with a bit of a cushion against the cost of daycare, and allows this parent to continue in the workforce for a career if that is their wish.
Are their faults? Sure, but overall the benefits of this program outweigh the negatives, both from a freedom of choice issue and a monetary issue in most cases.
And the subsidies still remain.
April 20th, 2006, 11:53 PM
Blue, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe daycare costs are also tax deductible to the lower income spouse. If the lower income earner is making 15k per year with the family paying 4k/year in daycare they'll probably save $700-$1000 tax on the deduction, depending on Province. If they get the $1200 and it is taxable they'll pay a few a couple hundred tax on it. So the 4k expenses is actually about 2k before factoring in any NCBS, if eligible.
Blue, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe daycare costs are also tax deductible to the lower income spouse. If the lower income earner is making 15k per year with the family paying 4k/year in daycare they'll probably save $700-$1000 tax on the deduction, depending on Province. If they get the $1200 and it is taxable they'll pay a few a couple hundred tax on it. So the 4k expenses is actually about 2k before factoring in any NCBS, if eligible.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,004
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
April 21st, 2006, 12:06 AM
But yes, the daycare costs are tax deductible. The point I am trying to make, and maybe not very well, is that lower income families, and lets face it, most young families are not your typical high wage earners, will benefit greatly from this $1200. Any extra income for new families is a tremendous benefit, even a couple of hundred bucks a month for those with a couple of kids. I remember how we could have used that money way back when. That is why my wife actually got into child care, because it made more sense to stay home with our own kids and make some money instead of putting our kids in child care and working to pay the child care costs. At that time, a tax refund once a year was not enough to offset monthly income, when we needed it.
Quoting
Sounds about right, but off the top of my head, I don't think there is much, if anything, for income taxes for anyone making $15k per year. (Hell, it is late, I am not at work, etc.)
Blue, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe daycare costs are also tax deductible to the lower income spouse. If the lower income earner is making 15k per year with the family paying 4k/year in daycare they'll probably save $700-$1000 tax on the deduction, depending on Province. If they get the $1200 and it is taxable they'll pay a few a couple hundred tax on it. So the 4k expenses is actually about 2k before factoring in any NCBS, if eligible.
But yes, the daycare costs are tax deductible. The point I am trying to make, and maybe not very well, is that lower income families, and lets face it, most young families are not your typical high wage earners, will benefit greatly from this $1200. Any extra income for new families is a tremendous benefit, even a couple of hundred bucks a month for those with a couple of kids. I remember how we could have used that money way back when. That is why my wife actually got into child care, because it made more sense to stay home with our own kids and make some money instead of putting our kids in child care and working to pay the child care costs. At that time, a tax refund once a year was not enough to offset monthly income, when we needed it.
April 21st, 2006, 12:21 AM
BA, I know what you mean. Anything will help. Let's take the money and run. As Warren Buffet once said, take the profit pay the taxes and move on.
15k income in Alberta pays $1144 tax. Reduce the income by 4k to 11k and they pay $456 tax (2005). I think the basic exemption will be about 9k for 2006.
What bothers me about the complaints of Jack Layton etal is that no matter what plan is introduced someone will get the short end of the stick. He wants a tax credit program and a bricks n mortar bureacracy. That would be marvelous for many but might not mean much for low income earners. The only sure fire way to cover most people is to give them the money.
BA, I know what you mean. Anything will help. Let's take the money and run. As Warren Buffet once said, take the profit pay the taxes and move on.
15k income in Alberta pays $1144 tax. Reduce the income by 4k to 11k and they pay $456 tax (2005). I think the basic exemption will be about 9k for 2006.
What bothers me about the complaints of Jack Layton etal is that no matter what plan is introduced someone will get the short end of the stick. He wants a tax credit program and a bricks n mortar bureacracy. That would be marvelous for many but might not mean much for low income earners. The only sure fire way to cover most people is to give them the money.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,004
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
April 21st, 2006, 12:37 AM
Certainly gives the most people the most option, in my opinion.
I never understand people, they bitch about high taxation, then when government wants to give it back (Child care and Ralphbucks) they complain about that too. Anytime anyone wants to give me money, hell, I will take it without asking questions. Beats the hell out of paying more and getting nothing back!
Quoting
BA, I know what you mean. Anything will help. Let's take the money and run. As Warren Buffet once said, take the profit pay the taxes and move on.
15k income in Alberta pays $1144 tax. Reduce the income by 4k to 11k and they pay $456 tax (2005). I think the basic exemption will be about 9k for 2006.
What bothers me about the complaints of Jack Layton etal is that no matter what plan is introduced someone will get the short end of the stick. He wants a tax credit program and a bricks n mortar bureacracy. That would be marvelous for many but might not mean much for low income earners. The only sure fire way to cover most people is to give them the money.
15k income in Alberta pays $1144 tax. Reduce the income by 4k to 11k and they pay $456 tax (2005). I think the basic exemption will be about 9k for 2006.
What bothers me about the complaints of Jack Layton etal is that no matter what plan is introduced someone will get the short end of the stick. He wants a tax credit program and a bricks n mortar bureacracy. That would be marvelous for many but might not mean much for low income earners. The only sure fire way to cover most people is to give them the money.
Certainly gives the most people the most option, in my opinion.
I never understand people, they bitch about high taxation, then when government wants to give it back (Child care and Ralphbucks) they complain about that too. Anytime anyone wants to give me money, hell, I will take it without asking questions. Beats the hell out of paying more and getting nothing back!
Yo
Posts: 3,537
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
Location: Counting Flowers on the Wall
April 21st, 2006, 07:05 AM
Quoting
If someone making 15k a year needs childcare, they would probably get a full subsidy, meaning no childcare costs. There are subsidies adn subsidized centres - ideally, poor working families would need both.
Blue, correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe daycare costs are also tax deductible to the lower income spouse. If the lower income earner is making 15k per year with the family paying 4k/year in daycare they'll probably save $700-$1000 tax on the deduction, depending on Province. If they get the $1200 and it is taxable they'll pay a few a couple hundred tax on it. So the 4k expenses is actually about 2k before factoring in any NCBS, if eligible.
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366
April 21st, 2006, 07:32 AM
Quoting
Liberals are just upset because they promised to do this 12 years ago and nothing came of it till the very, very end. Harper is sticking to his promise and this upsets Liberals.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,004
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
Location: Proud to be in Alberta
April 21st, 2006, 04:26 PM
Quoting
Yeah, you gotta hate that, somebody actually doing what he said he would do!! Quoting
Liberals are just upset because they promised to do this 12 years ago and nothing came of it till the very, very end. Harper is sticking to his promise and this upsets Liberals.
You know what I don't get? A government willing, I repeat, willing to give money to it's people and the people moan groan and bitch about it. Even if the money isn't enough, even if the whole thing is for politics and nothing more, TAKE THE MONEY!
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
If this Child Care doesn't work, throw out Harper, get someone else in that can do a better job.
