Printable View
If you are married or common-law, this will also interfere with your ability to claim for the split income because the UCCB is increased and taxable. However, the family allowance that was cancelled by the Conservatives was not a taxable income. It was cancelled at the same dollar amount that we are now receiving.Quote:
Originally Posted by tjthemanto
The Conservatives were the ones who cancelled family allowance, it was not taxable. $2,000 family allowance is comparable to today's taxable UCCB amount before taxation is considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalka
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natalka
$ 50,000/yr is like $ 25,000 per spouse . That's like almost minimum wage per spouse !!..assuming both parents are doing minimum wage jobs..surely you wouldn't call both parents slogging at a minimum wage job as fortunate ?
Trudeau makes way more than $ 50,000/yr , but atleast he is NOT trying to scam people & buy their votes with their own money & take that money back next year in taxes & also eliminate the child tax credit of $ 2,255 like Daddy Harper.
I guess people didn't need that $ 2,255 CTC for their children & wanted to donate it to Harpo, didn't they ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela273
Yup lot of people are falling for Harper's election bribe without fully realising they have to pay most of it back next year in taxes, plus benefits in other areas for their kids & family has been reduced. This is not some new money Harpo is dishing out, its just some old money he has stolen from somewhere else & repackaging it & handing it out as new money.
Basically giving your own money with one hand & taking it away with the other. But people see a nice little lump sum just before the election & think Harpo cares about their kids & family & will vote for him :(
This article is assuming families are just going to go on a shopping spree and blow all this money and then get a shock when they have to pay most of it back at income tax time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tjthemanto
What they are not saying is how much you get to keep in your pockets really depends on how you spend the UCCB money and your family income.
For most families if this money is put towards childcare costs, kids sports or into your RRSP you will not be paying tax on this money (most families I know already spend more than $360 per year in these categories). You are still losing out on the child tax credit at income tax time but you will get to keep more than $13.
For very low income families (ie. single moms), that do not pay income tax or pay very little income tax, they get the most benefit from this as they would have never benefited from the child tax credit as it was a non-refundable tax credit.
I am fortunate that I work from home and do not have childcare expenses. I do however spend over $500 a year on sports for my kids so that's were most of my UCCB will be going. The rest will go into my RRSP.
Based on income we never qualify for and tax relief so taking away a deduction irks me. We are no further a head in fact it will put us behind come tax time. I immediately put the money into a savings account, we are three years to university so we need to save it.
For those fortunate enough to be able to put the UCCB in an RESP, the govt will kick in another 20% grant(CESG) unless you have already received the max grant per child.
this is the ideal thing to do. We have monthly deductions that put us to the max, this is why I opted to just put it into savings. At this time Tangerine is paying 3% so its better than nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizzie bargain
I missed locating a reader's letter in the Toronto Star about being a tax preparer in Quebec and foreseeing some angry clients next tax season when they realize the new child benefit is taxable. SCers got that point very quickly after reading the news when it came out and noticing the former tax credit disappeared (poof!).
I am amazed at the amount of people that see this tactics masquerading of "free money" from the Harper Govt. I mean you don't need to be an economist or Bay street trader to see that it's complete and utter BS. 50K/yr this day is nothing considering the price of everything else, and if one has a a decent education / degree in something that is marketable / demand, then it shouldn't be a problem getting a decent job that will after a few years pay over 50k/yr.
It also seems to me that the people that decide to have so many kids, are the ones that are just getting by. I personally think it's unfair to have more kids than you can provide for...just because.
Finally got our UCCB by direct deposit this morning, backdated to January. We're under no illusions, so it has gone straight into the tax return part of our budget!
Single parents were benefiting from the previous tax credit as the equiv to spouse was on the first child and nothing for each additional child so the govt was really saying "since you're not married we are gonna throw you a bone" but again it didn't matter how many kids you had 1 or 5 was the same credit.. There was an 8k give or take, credit though.. So yeah - I'd call that a benefit.. I assume the dependent credit (equiv to spouse) has also been taken away?
^ Yeah but "single parents" get child support (non taxable) don't they either voluntarily by the bio father / mother, or through FRO by garnishing? There are a lot of single parent that shy away from bringing this up, and some even receive spousal support (taxable). Most of the time, the money doesn't get spent on the child/ren...oh, then there is double dipping i.e. going after a step parent
Until the law is revamp, some people will continue to expect the Govt / others to help raise their kid/s
"most" of the time child support isn't paid - hence the need for the FRO
and "double dipping".. Are you serious?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachdown