Someone cleverer than I actually did a bit of the math:
The institute has calculated that the families who will benefit most from the child-care allowance, after taxes and clawbacks, are those making $200,000 a year or more with one parent at home. They will keep $1,076 of the $1,200 annually. Families with two working parents and a combined income of $30,000, by contrast, will keep just $199 annually of the new payments.Fantastic! Killing off the young-child supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, too, was another nice touch for our new rural overlords. It's like an anti-clawback...or is that regressive taxation? Hard to remember as law school tax class was so long ago and apparently not just for me.
Comments
SayNay? - April 26, 2006 2:58 pm
I suppose the simple solution would be to make the payment non-taxable, non-included in income or benefit calculations, for any purpose.
Alan - April 26, 2006 3:04 pm
The simple solution would be to boost the child tax credit so you do not create another bureaucracy, do not spend my money on the children of the rich and not cutting out the poor as the Harper plan seems to focus on.
Gordo - April 26, 2006 3:33 pm
Alan! For shame! This is Canadian federal politics! Simple solutions that actually solve a problem just won't do!
Don - April 26, 2006 5:09 pm
Rather than looking at just this organization's attention grabbing summary....
Look at page 9 of the report - perhaps you can put this table on your post.
http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/588ENG.pdf
David Janes - April 26, 2006 6:46 pm
Priceless. The headline -- "Child-care proposal gives least to poorest" -- is a flat out lie. The poorest, those making $0 for example, actually do pretty good.
But it even gets better. That $200,000 single-income two-parent family is a _massive_ outlier on the charts. And how many of these families exist in Canada? Who the hell knows? I just spend 30 minute at stats can and families making more than 120,000 are so far off the chart, they don't break out the statistics. The predicates are (if you want to try yourself):
- two parent family
- one income
- income > $200,000
- at least one child under 6
Alan - April 26, 2006 8:27 pm
Don, that graph is more telling than David's and his <i>LIE! LIE!! LIE!!!</i> analysis - because since "Bush lied and thousands died" it has lost its use as a thought and is only a cartoon for distraction. <p>But it is more interesting to note that the 30,000 family with two incomes (a likely scenario) benefits $627 less than a 100,000 one. Why? Why not drop the parallel system nuttiness, jack up the child tax credit and clawback the rich. Simple, fair, focused.
David Janes - April 26, 2006 9:12 pm
A likely but not the only scenario. I'm starting to think the $1200 tax credit ... is that one of the NDP's counterproposals? -- may be the better idea (if you're into this sort of thing; for the record, I'd git rid of all of it).
Alan - April 27, 2006 7:50 am
The only problem wit the tax credit is that you have to have be taxed to deserve it. So is the personal exepmtions are now $17,000.00 and you have a 15% plus another (say 45% of the 15% or) 7% provincial tax on top of that for 22% you have to earn another - uh-oh...math time - 6 thousand per child to get the credit. Plus there is a bunch of other credits and deductions that every employee gets making that number higher. The Child Tax Credit is a fudge in the sense that it is not really a tax credit but kinda an opposite of a surcharge on final tax payable which should be what a credit is but the credits are calculated deeper back into the tax form. Unless it is a true credit like your taxes paid to date one is. Then that would be fine. Except that provides for no clawback. Frankly the 54 bucks I get for having two kids should be 100% clawed back from me. It should go for someone who needs it. For me it is a bonus that goes into general revenue that is lost in the haze of beer and popcorn purchases.