Parenting & Family

Do you all receive child benefit?

  • Last Updated:
  • Mar 24th, 2017 9:44 pm
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2394 posts
973 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.
And you want to know how people can afford to have more kids on less income? They don't buy expensive houses, cars, vacations, clothes, gadgets etc etc. If you can't support 2 kids on that high of an income then you have issues. Espcially with no day care costs.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 8, 2008
3561 posts
1005 upvotes
Toronto
... and in 3 years she hasn't figure out how to google "child care benefits Canada". Maybe she shouldn't be raising kids ;P
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
740 posts
226 upvotes
KITCHENER
Not sure I understand your problem. You're saying that earning $174,000/year isn't enough to have more than 1 kid.

The government isn't punishing anyone, btw. I could argue, that, if I didn't have kids, my net income is only about 66% of my gross, that I am being overtaxed.

In my case, single income, and at one point, 3 kids and a spouse. Did this on less than $60,000/year, qualified for very little child tax benefits (less than $400).

If I can do it on my income with 3 kids, a wife, property tax, water/gas, hydro, HELOC (mortgage), cable, internet, 4 cell phone lines, food, etc, so can you guys.

The idea of the government taxing the higher income earners is because they can afford the tax. Taxing the rich doesn't make them poor. That said, I know of rich people that bitch about their horrible lot in life, and by that, I mean paying taxes. This one guy, he owned a number of houses, a cottage, a Winnebago, a yacht, a big ass truck, a Mercedes, a couple other cars and a helicopter. Still complained, and he paid most of his employee's minimum wage. Why was he rich? He paid his employee's crap money.

If you are having money issues, maybe look at your expenses.

Anyway, based on your current income, you qualify for $35/month.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 9, 2012
740 posts
226 upvotes
KITCHENER
coolspot wrote:
Mar 5th, 2017 2:52 pm
Average house in Toronto is $1,000,000... it's not excessive in Toronto.



The Trudeau Government discontinued the UCCB program and refactored it for low income families - this in essence was a punitive measure for mid-to-high income earners.




I already pay more taxes than you make in a year; yet the government takes away a small benefit to me. The rate of return of earning more money decreases significantly due to increase taxes. For example, a family earning $200,000 is in reality only making <60% more due to the increased marginal taxes and decrease in child benefits.
The Conservative Government created UCCB for everyone with kids under 7 years old, then at the same time removed the non-refundable tax credit for those with kids in 2015 because they added an extra $60 for all children under the age of 18. Either way, neither existed before 2006. For higher income earners, that extra $60/month they gave would never be realized due to the removal of non-refundable tax credit.

The idea of income tested policies, such at the CTB, is to help parents with lower incomes (in this case, $175,000). It's not meant to help those that have lots of money coming in.

As I said before, it has nothing to do with how hard one works. Hard work doesn't equal good income. And just because someone makes good money, it doesn't mean they work hard. How many executives have run businesses into the ground?

Remember people with high income are already benefiting from those that earn less. Therefore, people with lower income should also benefit from the wealthy by mean of tax breaks and tax credits (refundable).

If you feel that this is unfair, start making $90,000/year and enjoy the lower taxes and tax-credits and higher CTB.

Perhaps at the same time, the government of Ontario and government of Canada can stop funding Toronto's mega projects, like the subways, and make Toronto pay the going rate for property taxes, which is a lot less than anywhere else in the country. Why should the rest of Ontario benefit Toronto and therefore you??
Deal Expert
Oct 6, 2005
15938 posts
1853 upvotes
jeff1970 wrote:
Mar 5th, 2017 3:39 pm
Perhaps at the same time, the government of Ontario and government of Canada can stop funding Toronto's mega projects, like the subways, and make Toronto pay the going rate for property taxes, which is a lot less than anywhere else in the country. Why should the rest of Ontario benefit Toronto and therefore you??
I agree, Toronto residents should pay their fair share of taxes; what would be the equitable thing to do. I don't live in Toronto and have no desire to do so. Taxes in York Region are much higher and housing prices not much lower.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
May 25, 2009
7795 posts
868 upvotes
The Conservatives created the UCCB and bumped up child benefits in the months prior to the 2015 election in a desperate and blatant bid to buy votes. Trudeau just rolled it back.

My family is middle class, we have two kids, the child benefits are a bonus. Ours got bumped up by Harper at the end of his reign and got cut by Trudeau and I honestly couldn't care less. We don't need it and never did, again it was a nice bonus. I have no qualms with our benefit payments being cut, axed or even eliminated entirely if it means it goes to families that need it more.

Not all of us are greedy and selfish and only think about ourselves.

Back to the subject at hand, you are supposed to register your child's live birth with the federal government to qualify for child benefit payments, in Ontario you can do everything at once online on the Service Ontario website in one process that gets you the birth certificate, their Provincial Health Card and registration with the federal government to get their SIN and benefits. If you haven't received anything chances are you did not register your child with the federal government. Does your 3 yr old have an SIN? If they don't then you didn't do the registration because I believe both are rolled into the same registration.
"God's in His heaven. All's right with the world." - Robert Browning (1812-1889)
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
890 posts
314 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Winkle wrote:
Mar 7th, 2017 1:49 pm
The Conservatives created the UCCB and bumped up child benefits in the months prior to the 2015 election in a desperate and blatant bid to buy votes. Trudeau just rolled it back.

My family is middle class, we have two kids, the child benefits are a bonus. Ours got bumped up by Harper at the end of his reign and got cut by Trudeau and I honestly couldn't care less. We don't need it and never did, again it was a nice bonus. I have no qualms with our benefit payments being cut, axed or even eliminated entirely if it means it goes to families that need it more.

Not all of us are greedy and selfish and only think about ourselves.
Check this out: http://business.financialpost.com/perso ... heir-taxes

Coolspot isn't going to get a lot of sympathy votes here. That is because very few families (10% of all families) earn $200K. However, wanting some extra money to raise children isn't a selfish ask.

You're assuming as if the Liberals didn't do anything to win votes. ALL political parties waste money. ALL political parties do whatever it takes to win. This is just a fact of life.

In Coolspot's defense, if his family is paying their fair share of taxes then why is it selfish of him to ask for same type of child benefit as someone who earns less? If you claim that he doesn't "deserve" it then who is being selfish here? What gives you the moral authority to judge?
Deal Addict
Aug 19, 2013
2394 posts
973 upvotes
FinancialFreedom wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 5:37 pm
Check this out: http://business.financialpost.com/perso ... heir-taxes

Coolspot isn't going to get a lot of sympathy votes here. That is because very few families (10% of all families) earn $200K. However, wanting some extra money to raise children isn't a selfish ask.

You're assuming as if the Liberals didn't do anything to win votes. ALL political parties waste money. ALL political parties do whatever it takes to win. This is just a fact of life.

In Coolspot's defense, if his family is paying their fair share of taxes then why is it selfish of him to ask for same type of child benefit as someone who earns less? If you claim that he doesn't "deserve" it then who is being selfish here? What gives you the moral authority to judge?
Because the child benefits aren't a reward for having children. It's to help families who earn less, afford things their children need. It's not about deserving something.

And for the record I get very little benefit for my 3 kids and I don't care.
Member
Feb 8, 2017
238 posts
91 upvotes
i think the income thresholds should be lowered so that people who don't really need the money don't get it. as others have pointed out if you make (and/or your spouse too) good money you don't need the family benefit even though you qualify. a household income of $200k probably doesn't need the $2K or so they get from Justin every year.....
Sr. Member
Nov 13, 2013
641 posts
219 upvotes
OTTAWA
aubgray1 wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 9:35 pm
i think the income thresholds should be lowered so that people who don't really need the money don't get it. as others have pointed out if you make (and/or your spouse too) good money you don't need the family benefit even though you qualify. a household income of $200k probably doesn't need the $2K or so they get from Justin every year.....
I don't think you get $2k if you make $200k unless you have 4 kids under 6 or something. Regardless it replaces a tax break and this family is paying $50k+ in income taxes so certainly not a net benefit.
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
890 posts
314 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
Momof3cuties wrote:
Mar 20th, 2017 8:00 pm
Because the child benefits aren't a reward for having children. It's to help families who earn less, afford things their children need. It's not about deserving something.

And for the record I get very little benefit for my 3 kids and I don't care.
Hmm... interesting, because I'm under the impression that Canada wants (in fact, needs) more people. Look at our current demographic: we have a huge swath of folks in their 50's and 60's who will be an incredible burden on our health system. One way to mitigate is to have a) more immigration and b) encourage folks to have more kids.

As it is, high income earners have relatively few kids. What can we do to encourage that? I am under the impression that the CCB is to encourage more kids by making it easier to raise kids. Irrespective of your income, kids are expensive and having a set (defined?) benefit to help with the kids should be universal.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Nov 19, 2004
7142 posts
906 upvotes
Cambridge, ON
High income earners should by no means need the child benefits to afford to raise a child. If they are having troubles, then they are not spending within their means. It doesn't matter how much you earn, the first priority are to your needs, not your wants.

On the other side, a high income earner is likely paying more than their fair share of taxes. So I understand that it can be a hard pill to swallow at times.

These threads about people who are making way more than the average and yet complain about not being able to afford their luxury wants always make me wonder.
Deal Addict
May 5, 2008
4091 posts
1004 upvotes
Winnipeg
In Manitoba...the more kids you have the merrier for the low income
Sr. Member
Jan 27, 2015
890 posts
314 upvotes
Edmonton, AB
don242 wrote:
Mar 21st, 2017 9:27 pm
High income earners should by no means need the child benefits to afford to raise a child. If they are having troubles, then they are not spending within their means. It doesn't matter how much you earn, the first priority are to your needs, not your wants.

On the other side, a high income earner is likely paying more than their fair share of taxes. So I understand that it can be a hard pill to swallow at times.

These threads about people who are making way more than the average and yet complain about not being able to afford their luxury wants always make me wonder.
I'm sort of two minds about it: on one had I totally agree with you in that a family earning $200K+ per year doesn't need more "support." But it is difficult to accept reduced entitlements isn't it?

That's why baby boomers got so worked up by previous government's decision to increase the age for OAS to 67 (up from 65). Trudeau promptly reversed it to buy votes. He did the same thing with CCB to buy more votes. He increased GIC to buy more votes. He is giving billions to aboriginals and other countries to buy votes.

All of this is resulting in huge deficits which our children and grand children will be paying. Sigh.
Member
Sep 22, 2014
244 posts
72 upvotes
Ottawa, ON
To sum it up, high earners with kids will be paying more taxes (which is totally fair) and low earners who have kids get CCB (which can be seen as a huge tax benefit)? And the more kids these lower earners have, the bigger their ccb cheques are with no cap?

Using the ccb calculator, a family household income of $30,000 with 10kids (5-under 6 and 5-btw 7-17) will get $59,000/yr tax-free? So basically I can quit my high-stressed shiftwork job, become a waiter and make under 30k while my wife can quit her job and stay home to pump out babies and we would be making 26.2k (30k gross) + 59k which equates to 85.2k/yr after tax? I understand that raising 10kids will be uber expensive but 85.2k/yr? You'd have to make close to 120k gross to net 85k/yr. I ultimately want to have 4 or 5 kids so maybe my approach to working like a donkey to make >100k is totally wrong. I should be waiting tables.

Top