Choice for Childcare

Life and times of a non-working dependent eh!

Sunday, January 21, 2007

Does Olivia think we are stupid...

Child care cheque backlash brewing




The Conservative government could face a backlash from parents as the taxman demands his cut of the new $100-a-month child care cheques.

Early next month, families who have been receiving the Universal Child Care Benefit will receive a statement of payments from the Canada Revenue Agency to be filed with their 2006 returns. The feds insist they've been up-front on the fact it's a taxable benefit, but critics say it was downplayed by Tories desperate to sell a flawed program.

Liberal MP Bonnie Brown predicts many Canadians will be taken surprise by the tax bill, and said it will hit working poor and single parents the hardest.

"I don't think anyone is thrilled about paying taxes they weren't expecting, so I think they will be quite angry," she said. "And some won't have it. It will end up adding stress to the lives of those who are struggling already. I think some of them are going to be stressed and sad, and that might turn to anger because they might feel they were fooled."

Brown said a parent with three young children could owe close to $400 for half the year's benefits in 2006.




Murray Gross, a spokesman for Human Resources and Social Development Canada, insisted the department has tried to get the message out from the start. A government website explains how the program works, and a notice with the first payment included a reminder that it's taxable.

DELIBERATELY LOW KEY


"LOW KEY,, how is it low key we all know they are taxed. Don't get me wrong I'd rather them not, but to be fair...

WE WERE TOLD!"


"From the outset, the government has been clear that the UCCB would be treated as taxable income, and that it would be taxed in the hands of the lower-income spouse, ensuring that families get the greatest possible benefit," he said.

But NDP MP Olivia Chow also believes it was deliberately low key and thinks some people will be "really mad" to learn how much they owe back for the benefit.

"It's a sham. It's deceiving Canadian taxpayers and working families," she said. "People will feel they've been cheated."

Chow said the benefit should become a non-taxable benefit, and the millions collected this round should be directed to creating new daycare spaces. She also slammed the administrative costs to run the program, which are running at $31 million for the first year according to department figures.

27 Comments:

  • At 4:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It just feed the Liberal-NDP fearmongering of the big, bad and very secret conservatives.

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yes, it's taxable, but this is also money that they wouldn't have received. So, parents are still further ahead financially than with the previous non-existent daycare plan.

     
  • At 6:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Low income earners will not pay any tax on this, if they are really low income earners. If they pay tax, hello, your not low income.

    The opposition just hate this because parents are loving that extra money, that they never would have seem under the nanny-state.

     
  • At 7:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To answer your title question, Sara...

    YES, Olivia Chow thinks we're stupid. Sadly, she's not entirely wrong since both she and Taliban Jack keep getting elected... :(

     
  • At 7:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Chow dog said it herself though.. "some people."

    But like all commies: a few people becomes everyone and the left is their spokesman cause they identify with everyone when it comes to shafting the 'right.'
    (real conservative)

     
  • At 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Is this the same Olivia Chow that only about a year ago signed a Un-Tendered Contract with Bombadier for close to $800 Million dollars , or the same O.Chow that joined David Miller and paid close to $30 Million dollars of OUR tax money to not build a $20 Million dollar Bridge to Torontos Island Airport .
    I'm just checking , because Olivia Chow is the person from Toronto that claimed to defend children while she and hubby Layton rode in the Pride parade that has yearly displays of naked men geting their jollies in front of little boys and girls , in fact , the CRTC won't allow live coverage of the entire event because it's too obscene .

     
  • At 7:58 PM, Blogger Sara said…

    Chow dog said it herself though.. "some people."

    I'd prefer you not to call her dog please.
    I'm not her number 1 fan but I'd rather not bring this on a personal level since I don't like it when people call me names.

    Thank you,

     
  • At 9:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    NDP/Liberals firmly believe the masses are stupid and need them to take charge of their daily lives.

    It's a combination of arrogance and ignorance.

     
  • At 11:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Chow dog said it herself though.. "some people."


    "I'd prefer you not to call her dog please."

    I think you should have deleted the comment entirely, Sara. If your blog is to have any credibility, keep it decent.

     
  • At 12:13 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    i'm sorry Bonnie Brown deserves just as much disrespect as Olivia Chow. I remember during the election during a debate she starts ranting about "keep your kids off the street a conservative government would have them in jail!" Shes the one who thinks we are all stupid!

     
  • At 1:59 AM, Anonymous herringchoker said…

    Gee, people might have to pay as much as $400 on $1800 of income. Where do I sign up?

    As one of those who receives the benefit, and one who could have weaseled one of Ken Dryden's much vaunted daycare spots (through connections, we're middle-class after all), I can honestly report that the $100 each month has gone straight to our heads and unleashed a spate of completely discretionary spending that would otherwise not have happened. Forget the diapers and formula (or the beer and popcorn), the $100 went to increase our payments to the retirees who actually mind our daughter during the day. She calls them Nana and Dunc ('cuz she can't say Grampy yet). The horror of it all. Federal childcare money going to increase the disposable income of Canada's seniors. It sounds like social conservatism at work to me.

    The real question I have is where do I go to sign up for the 22% income tax rate Bonnie Brown was talking about? The last paycheque I received had my withholding rate at 38%.

    PS. Am I the only one to find it unusual that the NDP childcare critic has no children? Jack has a few from Wife No 1, but Olivia has never bothered to get in touch with her reproductive side, which has always made her pronouncements on the travails of working mothers sound a wee bit strained to my ears. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition is a citizen of another country so I guess Parliament is just being Po-Mo.

     
  • At 6:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Jack and Olivia ripped off low rental housing , or non profit housing where their incomes exceeded the supposed means test for getting and staying in it . This two faced style is the what the NDP is made of ... Private property is anathema to them, so is making more than 60,000 a year although both Jack and Olivia handsomely top that.... but for the socialist, it doesn't matter that they have to pay a little more as long as the people beneath them have to pay a little more too.... never mind that if you make less than the CHows, the "little more" has a relatively higher impactg on your bottom line.

    Olivia is a militant socialist whose entire being is taken up with the struggle....thats her life. I cannot imagine how one can come here from Communist China, and the era of Mao tse Dung, and still continue to worship at any shrine of socialism. I admire Jan Wong for renouncing her Red Guard past . The Chowster should do it too.

     
  • At 8:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Where are our investigative journalists? How hard would it be to find out if the Chows walk the walk and use or USED their precious publicly-funded daycare they preach about to everyone else?

    It's the equivalent of politicians who tout the public school system for everyone, but for their own kids choose private school. That type is known as a cocktail socialist. David Lewis, Pierre Trudeau, Bob Rae, Paul Martin, to name a few. No one would dare EVER question their double standard, would they? Maybe it's time we did.

     
  • At 8:24 AM, Blogger Sara said…

    No I won't delete the comment, I asked nicely if they could use another word. I'm also not even mad the name was used, it happens and we are all human. That is why I applied my own feelings towards the name. The chowster sounded good to me.
    You're right about the double standards and the media. Maybe one of you could write to the media on this with facts. If they are too lazy to do their job than we could do it for them. I've done it myself.
    By the way I know you are all arguing but I LOVE IT, this kind of talk brings in a real discussion and that is perfect for today's society thank you all...

     
  • At 10:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I'm also not even mad the name was used,"

    That is a very telling comment.

     
  • At 11:37 AM, Blogger Sara said…

    why, because people are human and they screw up. People make mistakes and fix them all the time, but to keep attacking even though they know it hurts the other person is actually mean. Right anon,,,

     
  • At 1:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I find anon's cocktail socialist comment the most revealing to what is really going on here...

    Yes we all like the extra money but

    The program was haphazardly put together and attached to the CTTB

    Parents will be more annoyed than surprised or shocked at giving a good sized chunk of this money back. Wasn't the CTTB fixed a decade ago and converted to a non-taxable benefit, but non-universal?

    It is only on Sara's blog, today that I find out that "it would be taxed in the hands of the lower-income spouse" This despite all the reading onthe gov't web sites and even calling their hotline, were I was arrogantly told tough luck, and was quoted a discriminatory exerpt of the tax law, on feminine presumption.

    To herringchocker: After you pay back your share of taxes of these $100 payments, Nana and Dunc, will pay theirs... Gotta love the tax system

     
  • At 3:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To anon 1:32

    But Sara won't have to pay ANY tax on her child care bonus because she is a stay-at-home mom with NO income.

    Tell me again, Sara, how single-income families are treated unfairly.

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Anonymous anon # N said…

    I'm just checking , because Olivia Chow is the person from Toronto that claimed to defend children while she and hubby Layton rode in the Pride parade

    so are you saying that because somebody supports gay people's rights and takes part of a parade to show support...that this person then should have their "defend children" acts questioned?

    If these parades offend you...simply don't go. Plain and simple. maybe if gay people were fully accepted into our society, they wouldn't need to have "parades" and such.


    This is also Sara's blog...and then you question her credibilty over allowing some comments...yet if the comments were made against say "Steffi" I bet you wouldn't bat a big blue eye....

     
  • At 4:52 PM, Blogger Jay said…

    Gay men getting off in front of children? Thats about the most absurd thing I ever heard.

    You should be careful with such comments. It appears you are of the religious variety and catholic priests and evangelical ministers don't have the best record of keeping there pants on around children and/or adults. The majority of abused children are abused in the home or by neighbours not by gay people.

    You keep saying in fact yet you provide none. Until you provide some of these facts you are nothing but full of shit.

    Step up, shed your anonymous cowards protection and provide some of these facts you seem to have a heap of otherwise you are nothing but a lier.

     
  • At 5:10 PM, Blogger Sara said…

    Tell me again, Sara, how single-income families are treated unfairly.

    let sexplain in simple terms for you

    double income family MAKES 2 INCOMES,,,

    single income family MAKES 1


    hmmm see the dif

     
  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger Sara said…

    Hi Jay,
    thanks for your comments on Garth's blog..

    McVety I've never met by the way.

     
  • At 7:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "But Sara won't have to pay ANY tax on her child care bonus because she is a stay-at-home mom with NO income."

    I guess you didn't get my point, so I will explain it to you. YOU don't have to pay tax on the child care bonus, but the couple who each make, say $20,000, do. They also have to pay for daycare.

    See the difference!?!

     
  • At 9:30 PM, Blogger Jay said…

    No prob Sara.

    I know better than that.

    :)

    If you did know him you could never visit my blog!

    Especially my Dawkins posts!

     
  • At 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sara,

    Won't this $100 per month income reduce the personal tax credit we all get? So if you have $1200 less in personal tax credit, won`t your husband pay more taxes?

    Concerned parent 00042276

     
  • At 3:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It seems you won't be happy until you get a full time government income for staying at home. This money is without accountability. If you decide to not work that is your choice but don't expect the government (as in the people and taxpayers) to foot your bill.

     
  • At 12:34 AM, Anonymous herringchoker said…

    Anon 1:32

    Child-care expenses are deductible.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

 
Choice for Childcare at Blogged