Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Baby bonuses are silly. Message-ID: <5095@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Tue, 28-Aug-84 12:09:15 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.5095 Posted: Tue Aug 28 12:09:15 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Aug-84 12:36:05 EDT References: <980@hcrvax.UUCP> <5075@utcsrgv.UUCP> <1068@hcrvax.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (& Sherman) Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 92 In article <1068@hcrvax.UUCP> chrisr@hcrvax.UUCP (Chris Retterath) writes: ~| In reply to Dave Sherman's (dave@utcsrgv.UUCP) reply to my original note (!), ~| I still beleive the system is all wrong. Dave raises a good point when ~| he mentions: ~| ~| ~ The only way to have you not receive a baby bonus in the first place, ~| ~ or only receive half as much, would be for the Wealth and Hellfire ~| ~ Canada people to have records of your current income, so they know ~| ~ how much to send you. ~| ~| My reply to this is, of course, why bother? A negative income tax would ~| accomplish the same thing, albeit without a sum coming in monthly. ~| Now, it wouldn't look as much like a "bonus", but then it isn't a bonus ~| in the sense that people do not have more babies so that they can collect ~| an extra $30.00 a month! The "bonus" will not even keep a baby in diapers! The "sum coming in monthly" is important to a lot of people, however. Do you know how many women there are out there who have to rely on the baby bonus cheque for groceries a lot of the time? Some of these women have husbands who spend their paycheques and give their wives nothing. Sad but true, unfortunately. ~| (Dave calculates that at maximum Ontario tax levels, 50% of the income is ~| taxed -- in other words, once a month a cheque arrives for $30.00, and at ~| the end of the year, out of the total $360.00, $180 is taxed away. ~| All that work to give someone $180.00! *I* call that silly!!) Yes, but how many people have a taxable income (after all deductions) of over $59,424? That's at least $64,000 before tax, usually more. For the women who depend on that monthly cheque, there's usually no tax at all, because they make next to nothing. Also, it's $30 per child. If you have 7 kids (like one of our neighbours), you get $210 a month, or $2,520 per year, which is a bit more than $180. ~| ~| This is how most proposed negative taxes are supposed to work: ~| if you had less than a certain amount in income that year, you would get ~| a grant to bring up your income to that minimal figure. If you had more, ~| you would pay tax. The whole thing is administered by Nat'l Revenue, ~| and calculated when the income tax form is completed. BUT. If you had no income during the year, a big cheque in July is no use. You starved during the year, practically. And many poor people will take that big cheque in July and blow it all at once. A "grant to bring up your income" only works if it arrives regularly. Anyway, that is how the Guaranteed Income Supplement for seniors works. ~| ~| Notice, now, that if that minimal income figure was set to the ~| so-called "poverty line", then Canada would have solved poverty; we would no ~| longer have any poor people! All those silly welfare giveaways could stop, ~| (but note: I consider equalization payments, subsidized housing, CPP, ~| GIS, et cetera, to be "welfare"). There are studies that show the cost ~| to be lower, given that the program is administered in one department ~| in one objective review of income ONLY. And think what it does for the poor! ~| Now they are not penalized for trying to get a job, losing their welfare ~| privileges, only to have to re-apply (and wait several weeks) if that job ~| is lost. Now they are not penalized for remaining married -- it is long been ~| the case that if you were a welfare father, you could do MORE for your ~| family by faking an abandonment, allowing your wife to apply for welfare ~| as a single mother with dependents, and then surreptiously send her money ~| from your continued welfare or job monies! ~| Now they are not penalized for owning a car/house/et cetera, as they ~| currently are when applying for welfare. ~| Much of what you say makes sense, except that if people have a house and car, they probably should sell those before they go on welfare. ~| The final item of discussion: the universality of our social systems. ~| Someone please explain to me why it better to give everyone a taxable ~| benefit at considerable cost, and then spend more money trying to tax ~| back most or all of the benefits? Is it supposed to feel more "fair"? ~| I guess most people do not realize the costs of administering such programs, ~| a cost which of course is felt in a higher tax load. ~| As I said earlier, it's cheaper to have DNR recover a portion of the baby bonus when tax is collected. Actually, to implement what you want, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have the baby bonus work like UIC - when you file your tax form, if you got UIC and had a high income during the year, you have to pay a chunk of it back (not just have it included in your income for tax purposes, but actually pay it back). ~| On our own heads, be it! ~| -- ~| Chris Retterath ~| {decvax,utcsrgv,utzoo}!hcr!hcrvax!chrisr Dave Sherman -- { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave