Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
hitops

Proposed Liberal child benefit calculator

Recommended Posts

Check it out:

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/helping-families/

One thing I noticed that you don't really hear much about, is how it does not scale depending on number of children.

For example if you put in an income of $60,000, and 2 kids, the benefit is $741.67. Firstly, that is an insane benefit. Secondly, you might think that adding another kid (2 to 3) might likewise increase the benefit by 50%. Nope - it goes to $1200, a 62% increase. Add another kid (3 to 4, a 33% increase in kids) and you hit $1733,33, a 44% increase. Every kid you increase, you get a larger relative increase in payment. How does that make any rational sense?

At 4 kids, you are actually getting paid like a part time job, just because you produced children. The above example family of 4 is increasing their annual income by 25% (an extra $20.7K) simply for having kids. Popping out kids is officially a fully worthwhile and highly profitable form of generating income (or more accurately, living off the income of others).

Don't even get me started on the welfare mom. She will bang out a cool $3200 off her 6 kids, monthly. Why should she stop there? $4266.67 in only 2 kids away!

If you are a single person, or married/common law but have no kids, or earn well, you are paying for these people to increase their income by having kids. I doubt they will ever thank you. Obscene. We have never in our history had such an incentive against work.

Edited by hitops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it leads to Eurocentric Canadians having more children then I am all for it. Then perhaps we have a way to save Canada from being over run with cultures that are not traditional Canadian cultures. Cultures that refuse to assimilate into a cohesive Canadian identity.

As it is now the only groups of people having more than 2 children are Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, Sikh's and Christians. Your run of the mill Canadians are not having children or waiting until very late in life to have them. So if it boosts our birthrate, good. Lets do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good. We should pay a lot more for people to have kids. I just went to a demographic seminar today that had some frightening statistics on how Canadian birthrates are plummeting, and how even relying on immigration is a false start because almost every other developed country in the world (all of which are, to on extent or another suffering the same problem) are trying to get skilled migrants into their country.

We are going to hit a brick wall on productivity and economic sustainability in the next 25 to 30 years, so if it means paying people to have kids, then I say let's make it not only a part time job, but a full time job.

Edited by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied [Opening Post]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't even get me started on the welfare mom. She will bang out a cool $3200 off her 6 kids, monthly. Why should she stop there? $4266.67 in only 2 kids away!

All that money and all she has to do is push out 6 kids in 5 years or less, since you've calculated the benefit for children < 6 years old. To get even more money, all she has to do is push out another two kids in five years or less.

Why stop there, you ask?

Well, biology for one.

Edited by cybercoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, I wouldn't trust the calculator on the Liberal Party website that was used as a campaign tool. The actual benefit is likely to change before it's written into law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting conundrum. On the one hand we have the possiblity of lazy people deciding they don't have to work at all if they can just get pregnant enough, while on the other we have the prospect of starvation for me and my age group because there aren't enough kids coming into the country to pay for my pension. Of course, with the work ethic they learn growing up, it might all be moot.

Roll on Global Warming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The feminists will have fun with this one. Stay-at-home Moms popping kids out.

I think as long as women have the choice to stay at home or go to work feminism has achieved its task.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More importantly, I wouldn't trust the calculator on the Liberal Party website that was used as a campaign tool. The actual benefit is likely to change before it's written into law.

How do you figure?

All that money and all she has to do is push out 6 kids in 5 years or less, since you've calculated the benefit for children < 6 years old. To get even more money, all she has to do is push out another two kids in five years or less.

Why stop there, you ask?

Well, biology for one.

Good point.

Edited by hitops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having kids is not a lazy person's best choice, imo. I had two kids, and that was more than enough for me .... not even the promise of "more money" would have made me more interested. I would consider child benefit payments more a perk of having children rather than an incentive. If a person really likes kids in general, and their own in particular, then they are probably going to have more even without a monetary reward.

The following articles discuss just how effective government incentives are for increasing birthrates - not very, it seems: http://www.mercatornet.com/demography/view/what-can-governments-do-to-increase-birthrates/16578

http://theconversation.com/the-baby-bonus-failed-to-increase-fertility-but-we-should-still-keep-it-4528

Personally, if I were still of childbearing age and needed money, I'd go the surrogate parent route. $30,000 to $50,000 for nine months, no ongoing costs, can still work. http://www.circlesurrogacy.com/surrogates/how-much-do-surrogates-get-paid

Edited by dialamah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having kids is not a lazy person's best choice, imo.

No kidding. Raising kids is more work than pretty much anything else one could do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women, even the irresponsible welfare bums that conservatives think are so rampant in our society, do not use a child-welfare calculator to determine if they should have 5 kids or 6....

And if the odd woman is so irresponsible as to not be able to afford children but still have several of them, I want that "welfare-bum" woman to have the means to at least keep her kids fed and clothed.

The best way to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Keep women and kids out of poverty and to educate them... which conservative types don't seem to want to invest in either.

So how about we try it the left-wing way for the next 20 years or so and see if that helps the situation. I know it will cost us less in the long run to do things in a more "progressive" manner. Reducing long-term costs should be a conservative ideal as well, but doesn't seem to be these days... it seems more important to them to "punish the wicked"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women, even the irresponsible welfare bums that conservatives think are so rampant in our society, do not use a child-welfare calculator to determine if they should have 5 kids or 6....

I in fact personally know people that use their children as a bank account. It's terrible and sad, but it is reality and not that uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think as long as women have the choice to stay at home or go to work feminism has achieved its task.

Unless it's a conservative policy like income splitting, which also helps mom's stay home, then it's bad, or was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Women, even the irresponsible welfare bums that conservatives think are so rampant in our society, do not use a child-welfare calculator to determine if they should have 5 kids or 6....

You're probably right, they don't have to use a calculator to know that their irresponsibility leads to more, pretend all you wish that all people on welfare are there because they just can't help it, but the reality simply doesn't reflect that. And of course you want them to have those means, probably because you aren't paying for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it's a conservative policy like income splitting, which also helps mom's stay home, then it's bad, or was.

Income-splitting is good in theory but only benefits the wealthy. You should start a thread on it instead of jacking this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're probably right, they don't have to use a calculator to know that their irresponsibility leads to more, pretend all you wish that all people on welfare are there because they just can't help it, but the reality simply doesn't reflect that.

I didn't say that all people on welfare can't help it. And I didn't say that there weren't irresponsible women who may be doing this. But to think it's a common problem... well, let's see a cite for that. I don't believe it at all.

And of course you want them to have those means, probably because you aren't paying for it.

I want them to have the means to feed and clothe their children because I don't want the cycle to be perpetuated. Of course I'm paying for it... like anyone who pays taxes. I'd just rather pay less in the long-term even if it means we have to put up with a few "bums"... It makes economic sense.

You can pay now, or pay later....

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/pay-now-or-really-pay-later-232168061.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Income-splitting is good in theory but only benefits the wealthy. You should start a thread on it instead of jacking this one.

It benefits any family where the spouses would be in different tax brackets if taxed individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Income-splitting is good in theory but only benefits the wealthy. You should start a thread on it instead of jacking this one.

Again, rhetoric. I know of some people who make $60k a year, and the spouse makes $35k, tell me, that only benefits the wealthy? Please. See Wilber's post above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, rhetoric. I know of some people who make $60k a year, and the spouse makes $35k, tell me, that only benefits the wealthy? Please. See Wilber's post above.

They make $95k. They don't need further tax breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They make $95k. They don't need further tax breaks.

$95k in a place like Vancouver is so so far from wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$95k in a place like Vancouver is so so far from wealthy.

I didn't say it was wealthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was wealthy.

Let me rephrase. Someone in Vancouver making $95k needs a tax break just as much as someone living in rural areas making $30k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase. Someone in Vancouver making $95k needs a tax break just as much as someone living in rural areas making $30k.

If you can't make it in Vancouver making $95 per year, perhaps move elsewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...