Parenting & Family

Do you all receive child benefit?

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 24th, 2017 3:44 am
[OP]
Sr. Member
Mar 19, 2012
667 posts
106 upvotes

Do you all receive child benefit?

Hi, I was wondering if everyone who has children receive child benefits? We have a 3 years old and never received anything. I don't work and currently my husband earns 6 digit salary but he wasn't earning that much before. Where can I get more info on this?

And also, I would like to start saving for my child's education but I don't know how to start or what to do. I would appreciate your inputs on this. Thank you.
43 replies
[OP]
Sr. Member
Mar 19, 2012
667 posts
106 upvotes
No. I didn't know I had to. I assumed they will contact/ send.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Mar 19, 2012
667 posts
106 upvotes
Stock R wrote:
Mar 3rd, 2017 10:39 pm
This...

Unless by 6 figure you mean $2xx,xxx which would be over the threshold.
When our child was born he was getting close to $90k then changed job and was around $130k for the past 6 months he is getting close to $200k gross. But this $200k includes the company shares he owns. He is salary is not $200k
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2155 posts
691 upvotes
Cocoon wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 1:25 am
When our child was born he was getting close to $90k then changed job and was around $130k for the past 6 months he is getting close to $200k gross. But this $200k includes the company shares he owns. He is salary is not $200k
The benefit is based on the income reported on your tax returns. Not his salary. Go to the CRA website they have a calculator to figure out how much you should be getting. But you have to know the income on your tax returns. You wil also find instructions on how to apply.
Deal Expert
Oct 6, 2005
15834 posts
1785 upvotes
Cocoon wrote:
Mar 3rd, 2017 6:22 pm
Hi, I was wondering if everyone who has children receive child benefits? We have a 3 years old and never received anything. I don't work and currently my husband earns 6 digit salary but he wasn't earning that much before. Where can I get more info on this?
Our wonderful Prime Minister thought that hard working, middle class, families are undeserving of such benefits. Child Care Benefits were cut significantly for middle class families and redirect to the poor.
Stock R wrote:
Mar 3rd, 2017 10:39 pm
Unless by 6 figure you mean $2xx,xxx which would be over the threshold.
The cutoff is $187,337 for a single child under 6, or $157,187 for a single child over 6, which is by no means a lot considering the cost of living in the major cities. Charts and details are here:

http://www.moneysense.ca/save/taxes/bud ... d-benefit/

So the government is basically say it's better to support poorer, less productive members of society than those with a track record to succeed. It's no wonder why as people get richer the less children they have... You have to wonder about the quality of future society we're promoting with these sorts of welfare policies.
Cocoon wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 1:25 am
When our child was born he was getting close to $90k then changed job and was around $130k for the past 6 months he is getting close to $200k gross. But this $200k includes the company shares he owns. He is salary is not $200k
The shares may not be included in coming depending on how they were given to your husband. If they are options, I think they are only taxed when the option is exercised. If the shares are Restricted Stock Units, they would be taxed as employment income upon receipt ... and again (depending on the price) as capital gains upon disposal.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3268 posts
773 upvotes
Toronto
coolspot wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 4:52 pm
So the government is basically say it's better to support poorer, less productive members of society than those with a track record to succeed. It's no wonder why as people get richer the less children they have... You have to wonder about the quality of future society we're promoting with these sorts of welfare policies.
Coolspot, that's a pretty entitled way to look at the world. People who don't make 187K aren't necessarily less productive. Success doesn't necessarily equate to income, nor does one need a high income to raise a child well. Many many people, in fact, pretty much everyone I know, including myself, are raising children quite well on less than an 187K income in the city. It is indeed, still quite a lot of money for a family. I'm more concerned about the quality of a future society that believes that's peanuts.
Deal Expert
Oct 6, 2005
15834 posts
1785 upvotes
wirebound wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 5:09 pm
People who don't make 187K aren't necessarily less productive.
It's not the poorer people of society who are paying adequate taxes to support social services. The government should really give a break to those who pay the bulk of Canadian taxes a break from time to time, especially when it comes to raising children which is vital for the future of Canada.
wirebound wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 5:09 pm
Many many people, in fact, pretty much everyone I know, including myself, are raising children quite well on less than an 187K income in the city. It is indeed, still quite a lot of money for a family. I'm more concerned about the quality of a future society that believes that's peanuts.
Families making $200,000+ are by no means living in luxury - the cost of living in Toronto is high. Policies such as this disincentives people work harder as taxes and lack of benefits make it not enticing to do so.
Last edited by coolspot on Mar 4th, 2017 5:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2155 posts
691 upvotes
coolspot wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 4:52 pm
Our wonderful Prime Minister thought that hard working, middle class, families are undeserving of such benefits. Child Care Benefits were cut significantly for middle class families and redirect to the poor.



The cutoff is $187,337 for a single child under 6, or $157,187 for a single child over 6, which is by no means a lot considering the cost of living in the major cities. Charts and details are here:

http://www.moneysense.ca/save/taxes/bud ... d-benefit/

So the government is basically say it's better to support poorer, less productive members of society than those with a track record to succeed. It's no wonder why as people get richer the less children they have... You have to wonder about the quality of future society we're promoting with these sorts of welfare policies.



The shares may not be included in coming depending on how they were given to your husband. If they are options, I think they are only taxed when the option is exercised. If the shares are Restricted Stock Units, they would be taxed as employment income upon receipt ... and again (depending on the price) as capital gains upon disposal.
Children from families making less money are in greater need of financial support. The child benefit is not some reward for hard work. It to help fight child poverty and help families take care of children
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2155 posts
691 upvotes
coolspot wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 5:24 pm
Families making $200,000+ are by no means living in luxury - the cost of living in Toronto is high. Policies such as this disincentives people work harder as taxes and lack of benefits make it not enticing to do so.
If you can't support a child while making $200,000 you have issues. No family making $200,000 is in need of a child benefit. Even living in a big city.
Deal Expert
Oct 6, 2005
15834 posts
1785 upvotes
Momof3cuties wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 5:27 pm
Children from families making less money are in greater need of financial support. The child benefit is not some reward for hard work. It to help fight child poverty and help families take care of children
We have other programs to find the poor like welfare - in this case, the CCB should be cut for all families except those considered to be poverty level.

If you label it a "Child Care Benefit" all Canadians having children should be entitled the benefit.
Member
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
455 posts
123 upvotes
KITCHENER
coolspot wrote:
Mar 4th, 2017 5:24 pm
It's not the poorer people of society who are paying adequate taxes to support social services. The government should really give a break to those who pay the bulk of Canadian taxes a break from time to time, especially when it comes to raising children which is vital for the future of Canada.



Families making $200,000+ are by no means living in luxury - the cost of living in Toronto is high. Policies such as this disincentives people work harder as taxes and lack of benefits make it not enticing to do so.
Most Canadians, indeed, 90% of Canadians earn less than $90,000/year. The income median is $27,000 in Canada. To suggest that people that earn less than $200,000 are lazy is ignorant. Not everyone can be a lawyer or doctor or CA.

As for giving breaks to higher income earners, they've gotten their break already. They're not suffering. I think most people would rather earn $200,000/year without government support than $100,000 with the small amount they'd give you.

BTW: What is your definition of middle class? Trudeau defined it as $90,000 for a family for 4. They didn't get much before, but now they do....
[OP]
Sr. Member
Mar 19, 2012
667 posts
106 upvotes
I just wanted to clarify that the $190k is not his salary. His salary is $174k and its gross. He has been giving shares by the company and if I remember correct they add the share price to his salary that's how the $190-200k comes up. We are paying taxes on the shares as well even though his company's share prices went down. It looks like we are going to pay $4000-5000 for this year. Last year we had a return for $10.

I also believe the government should give middle/high class some kind of relief considering those are the people heavily taxed and basically keeping the things going. Poor people not necessarily people who work and still make less. People who don't want to work and stay at home because they are lazy also considered "poor people" by the government. Basically, the Government is punishing people for studying, working hard. Having a kid is expensive and even with the salary we are getting we are not sure if we can afford to have two kids but it seems like "poor people" can afford to have 4-5 kids. Maybe we should ask them to educate "rich people" on how to have more then one kid and give them a proper education etc.
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2155 posts
691 upvotes
Cocoon wrote:
Mar 5th, 2017 12:25 am
I just wanted to clarify that the $190k is not his salary. His salary is $174k and its gross. He has been giving shares by the company and if I remember correct they add the share price to his salary that's how the $190-200k comes up. We are paying taxes on the shares as well even though his company's share prices went down. It looks like we are going to pay $4000-5000 for this year. Last year we had a return for $10.

I also believe the government should give middle/high class some kind of relief considering those are the people heavily taxed and basically keeping the things going. Poor people not necessarily people who work and still make less. People who don't want to work and stay at home because they are lazy also considered "poor people" by the government. Basically, the Government is punishing people for studying, working hard. Having a kid is expensive and even with the salary we are getting we are not sure if we can afford to have two kids but it seems like "poor people" can afford to have 4-5 kids. Maybe we should ask them to educate "rich people" on how to have more then one kid and give them a proper education etc.
What an ignorant view. That majority of people who get the benefit do work very hard for the money they make. Despite what you may believe not many people have incomes that high. You said you stay at home right? You don't work? So by your logic why should you be rewarded. By your logic your lazy.

The benefits are not some reward for having kids. It's to help those who don't make a high income provide for their children. I guess only privilgaed people like you should be able to have kids. Oh and actually it would be your husband who would have the right to have kids. You don't make any money remember.

And clearly you do need a better education. If the government were to give more benefits to wealthy individuals you would have to pay even more taxes. Money doesn't grow on trees you know.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top