I hear about people getting $2,000 per month from the government.. for free and no application needed.. all they had to do was reproduce multiple times. Now, say I am a person that doesn’t want to have children, where is my free government money? People having MORE children so they can get more government money, and they just raised the monthly amount too.. shouldn’t there be an incentive for people that DON’T have children? You know, for the people that AREN’T giving birth to the future waves of welfare bums? —No-child credit
This article appears in Jul 23-29, 2015.
Hmmmm… did you cut a line?
That money is actually repackaged money. There is no extra money. Further, that money will be treated differently on a tax return and ultimately people will get less in the long run. It’s a Stephen Harper scam. Yes, you too can have Stephen Harper scam money. But it comes with a heavy price… children.
My smoke & mirrors trick should result in parents getting $13.19 a month per child – taking in consideration the 2016 changes on said parents’ income tax.
Nobody wins in my country.
Conservative majority bought and paid for by your tax dollars. Don’t worry though, they’ll take it back after the election.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
The principle behind the handout to those who have children is noble – eradicating child poverty. On the other hand, to protest that people will simply propagate in order to receive it is ridiculous while to claim that those who have no children and intend to have none should receive it as well is base.
Perhaps the bitcher would like to adopt Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” aimed at eliminating hunger and child poverty in 19th. century Ireland: The parents should simply cook and eat their own children.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
OB, if you are talking about the universal child care benefit (UCCB), it’s $2000 per year – not per month. For most people it’s not enough to be the deciding factor on how many children they will have, if any. It strikes me more as a way to try to buy women’s votes – especially stay at home moms.
Its pretty fucked up. I doubt people are making their decision to have kids based on how much they can get from the gov’t. The reality of my income decided it for me (for the most part, I don’t actually want the inconvenience of having kids around for 20 years), too bad more people couldn’t accept their financial reality and suck on it.
You are clearly not a very smart person, it works out to be 13.19 a month not 2000.00 a month you idiot.
woopdy freaking doo that doesn’t even buy me diapers for a week! i have worked since i was 16 yrs old am now 28 and just had my first child. i am not a welfare bum nor will my child be one either. I work for in health care and my partner works for the government, we are raising future tax payers and will have a lasting imprint in this world unlike you who will die and the only thing people will remember is the0 uneducated comments and opinions you wrote. so again tell me how 13.19 a month makes you so upset you feel the need to trash anyone who has children.
I’m a gay male – I can’t have my own children. This is discrimination. Imagine the fucking outcry if the govt started giving bonuses to men who stayed single. They save the government money because they don’t create multiple new bodies that need paid healthcare – so where is the incentive? Oh right – that would be wrong and sexist.
However, the joke is really on the parents this time – they will most likely lose most of the benefit come tax time. Burn.
No parent whether they have money or are on Welfare, have children and want them to grow-up to be welfare bums…No one knows what the future holds.
Those on Social Assistance will have that $13.19 deducted from their cheques anyway.
Just to add my two cents.. I know someone with multiple young children and she gets over $1000 per month from the government. Not sure where this $13 figure is coming from or the $2000 per year. Maybe that’s per child?
As the OB said, all they had to do was “reproduce m-u-l-t-i-p-l-e times”.
Those big ass strollers don’t buy themselves people.
https://www.facebook.com/Project.Democracy.Canada/photos/a.204480172918757.52045.198789580154483/1059353310764768/?type=1&theater
https://www.facebook.com/Project.Democracy.Canada
Naveed,
According to the fed gov website:
The UCCB was increased to $160 per month for each child under the age of six.
The UCCB was expanded to children aged 6 through 17. Parents will receive a benefit of up to $60 per month for each child in their care aged 6 through 17.
In order to get “over 1000 per month” your friend would have to have at least 7 kids. If so, I think I know who your friend is. There’s a poem about her that starts out :
“There was an old woman who lived in a shoe.”
“She had so many children, she didn’t know what to do;”
Cheers,
The Space Cowboy
Lotta morons here today.
I guess the point of any kind of child benefit or family allowance is that it offers a small amount of assistance in buying necessities for a child or children who, let’s face it, do not get to choose their parents.
While I dislike any abuses of these benefits, I believe that there are many people who do genuinely need extra support. That is why I prefer the Canadian tradition over the American one. Sadly, our once-famous social safety net is getting less supportive, not more, and our society is getting increasingly negligent of our most vulnerable citizens.
I think a lot have missed the mark on this one.
I’m not sure if a lot notice but there are “certain” people in society who shouldn’t have children, do because of this. This system, while it was put in place, for a good cause as explained earlier, which I agree with, is actually enabling those people to take advantage of this system, while taking away from the honest ones.
Single parent families get more than full families because they don’t have double incomes. Regardless of how much the parent makes, the single parent will qualify for more.
I was recently looking at condos in the city and, in 2 of the buildings, the leasing / selling agents told me and I quote “more than 50% of the residents here are single mothers with children less than 12 years old”. Those locations were expensive locations. So this system gives them the ability to be able to afford such places, (condos starting at $250k with minimum $360 HOA fee). I personally know what my budget is and I know as a single person with no family, I’d have a hard time with such prices. I did the math and figured it must be the “single parent status” that allows them to be able to live better.
Don’t get me wrong, no child what so ever, should live in poverty, but what I don’t agree with is people who have children on purpose to take advantage of this system. I personally believe that it’s better for a child to grow up in poverty in a wholesome family value home rather than one where the parent has them for the sole purpose of collecting money. Imagine the example they’re setting for that child and what those children will be when they’re adults. Hence why you see so many social problems!
It may not be a point of view a lot would agree with nor support. But it needs to be looked at to fix the problems we are living with.
For example, in the US they’re suggesting drug testing for those on welfare. A lot of people are questioning it and wondering how that affects a person’s constitutional rights.
Fine, but let’s look at the other side of the coin. We may be affecting the constitutional rights of some, to make sure they’re not on welfare to support their drug addiction, but what about the constitutional rights of the tax payers that support those in need? What about their rights to refuse to support those that are taking advantage of the system? Be it a drug addict, or someone with kids from various donors to collect that cheque? What happened to my right and vote to not support that habbit? Do I not have that right as a citizen or they get more rights than I do?
I believe that’s the point the OP is trying to make.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would have children to make money from this system. It must be extremely rare and is a none issue when discussing this UCCB. This issue with this UCCB is that its a ploy by our current Government to buy votes for the upcoming election. They simply changed something that existed so they could mail out cheques to voters before the election.
Randomness, perhaps those single mothers are just very successful? Perhaps they’re doctors or engineers or some profession with a good salary. The UCCB will not allow someone to purchase an expensive condo. I’d be very surprised if something like the UCCB would be counted as income when applying for a mortgage.
Also, you’re just making up rights in your last paragraph, you have no right to deny services to anyone as a tax payer. This is certainly a issue (welfare and drug addicitons) but you’re looking at it wrong. Instead of looking at what not to give those people we should be looking at what to give them in place of welfare that could help them recover from their addiction.
All the folks who cry foul over benefits for those who have children should remember that it will be those children that pay the taxes to cover your healthcare and provide the infrastructure necessary for a functioning country. Encouraging people to have children is necessary if we want a thriving society, and it is the responsibility of every member of society whether he or she has children or not.