New budget is ending the children’s fitness tax credit and the children’s arts tax credit. That was a very forward thinking plan by the previous govt.
Forward thinking?
It was pesos tossed in the direction of the public. For what it did on the small scale... just keep the f**king money. Use it to increase MP pensions and offer more corporate tax breaks.
Tell that to all happy young ones playing sports and watch their reaction. An incentive to get your kids active - silly me for thinking that's a great idea.
edit - penalty box for you, go sit and discuss your favourite colour and when your done pouting come back
I've got kids in sports. I just did my taxes.
You're talking like the 'progressive thinking' was progressive thinking. It wasn't. It was a cheap tactic with very little substance: "Hey. Look at us all concerned for our youth in sport." Yah. Not really. But good try.
So yes... silly you.
Aside from the parents that can afford anything for their children it helped many other parents in situations at times. Imagine not being able to enroll your child into swimming (insert sport here) for a session because during that month for enrolling you just didn't have the means. This was a program designed to help families that seem to struggle more than others. Unless you have the means to enroll your child in an elitist sport sometimes sending your kid to soccer for one day a week over summer knowing that it is covered is a nice feeling and does wonders for the child.
You're not hearing me.
This program did very little to get kids in sport that couldn't afford it. What they threw at us never came close to covering what costs associated with programs are.
^^^ I agree the costs are astronomical in many "organized" sports. But to get your child in a non competitive easy going kick the ball around sport was very accessible with this program - essentially subsidized daycare for the parents and a happy child laughing and playing.
^^^ I agree the costs are astronomical in many "organized" sports. But to get your child in a non competitive easy going kick the ball around sport was very accessible with this program - essentially subsidized daycare for the parents and a happy child laughing and playing.
I just don't know many of those.
If they took the taxes completely out of the youth sport equation... on all sides of it... then you'd have my attention.
^^^ That will never happen so we got thrown a few pesos for our troubles. Make lemonade. As adults you were given $150 a year to put your child in whatever you wanted sportwise. It was not meant to fund your childs way to the nhl.
^^^ That will never happen so we got thrown a few pesos for our troubles. Make lemonade. As adults you were given $150 a year to put your child in whatever you wanted sportwise. It was not meant to fund your childs way to the nhl.
^^^ That will never happen so we got thrown a few pesos for our troubles. Make lemonade. As adults you were given $150 a year to put your child in whatever you wanted sportwise. It was not meant to fund your childs way to the nhl.
^^^ That will never happen so we got thrown a few pesos for our troubles. Make lemonade. As adults you were given $150 a year to put your child in whatever you wanted sportwise. It was not meant to fund your childs way to the nhl.
The budget...isn't this the budget promises that got him elected. Yes he left a few things out, but for the most part this is what they ran on. They overshot their deficit targets by a little...hehehehe.
The previous government wasn't serious about balancing the budget either...
I do however approve of keeping OAS at 65...because the most vulnerable, those working at labour intensive jobs are the most effected by this.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The budget...isn't this the budget promises that got him elected. Yes he left a few things out, but for the most part this is what they ran on. They overshot their deficit targets by a little...hehehehe.
The previous government wasn't serious about balancing the budget either...
I do however approve of keeping OAS at 65...because the most vulnerable, those working at labour intensive jobs are the most effected by this.
they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...
they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...
Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The budget...isn't this the budget promises that got him elected. Yes he left a few things out, but for the most part this is what they ran on. They overshot their deficit targets by a little...hehehehe.
The previous government wasn't serious about balancing the budget either...
I do however approve of keeping OAS at 65...because the most vulnerable, those working at labour intensive jobs are the most effected by this.
Glad to see you back here lukin.
Thank you, glad to be back.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...
Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?
Ya ... i've heard a percentage point on gst is worth $7 billion a year ... I'm not sure I know of anyone who has benefited so greatly from these tax cuts ... meanwhile, our country is going to shit ...
they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...
Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?
Ya ... i've heard a percentage point on gst is worth $7 billion a year ... I'm not sure I know of anyone who has benefited so greatly from these tax cuts ... meanwhile, our country is going to shit ...
Harper’s GST legacy leaves the fiscal ship at the mercy of the world economy: Hébert
Even if that 14 billion just went into health care, that would be just what health care needs. That was my biggest takeaway from the budget, health care was not front and centre.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
they won't be able to balance the books until they raise gst back ... fundamentally, expenditures are gonna go up and there is no revenue mechanism in place ...
Agreed...dropping the GST by 2 percent cost around 14 billion, is that correct?
Ya ... i've heard a percentage point on gst is worth $7 billion a year ... I'm not sure I know of anyone who has benefited so greatly from these tax cuts ... meanwhile, our country is going to shit ...
Harper’s GST legacy leaves the fiscal ship at the mercy of the world economy: Hébert
Even if that 14 billion just went into health care, that would be just what health care needs. That was my biggest takeaway from the budget, health care was not front and centre.
we have to rethink health care in this country ... it can't continue to be reactive solution focused on drugs and expensive treatments ... how long are we going to let various lobbies dictate the health of our population ...
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I realize that. On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.
You're not listening to one point. $150 was meant to cover one cost for a child in a bad financial household. Get the kid out on the field while mommy and daddy work things out.
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I realize that. On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.
that's not true at all. a lot, even most, people live within their means. they budget, if they budget, down to every dime they have. not many people have money floating around in their bank account unaccounted for. and if it is, it goes to things that may happen, like car or house repairs.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
^^^ And to the above I'm not saying that Fitness Credit defined Harpers legacy I simply am stating that it was a benefit that helped all families with children - regardless of what govt started it. Now it is gone.
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.
You're not listening to one point. $150 was meant to cover one cost for a child in a bad financial household. Get the kid out on the field while mommy and daddy work things out.
I know you guys were talking about paying for sports. Yeah, bad segue, but I am talking about child care, because that is way more important when it comes to the point that HFD made about having to pay for shit. Getting the kid on a field "while mommy and daddy work it out" isn't going to do shit when it comes to child care.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I realize that. On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.
that's not true at all. a lot, even most, people live within their means. they budget, if they budget, down to every dime they have. not many people have money floating around in their bank account unaccounted for. and if it is, it goes to things that may happen, like car or house repairs.
If you did it once you would have the same $150 returning to you year after year. I don't know why you have an issue on this point. If you can't afford $150 once a year for your child there are plenty of ways to apply for assistance and receive immediate funds by way of direct enrollment and the tab being billed to the govt.
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I completely agree with this. Child care reform is desperately needed, and sending paltry amounts with cheques is absolutely not the way to do it. Wtf is $150/month going to do for families when child care costs are as much as $1000+ per child?? Something needs to be done about this. It is not only for the sake of family economics. It's for the sake of gender equality as well. Right now, child care costs are effectively holding women back from being able to reach the same goals as men generally can professionally. If Trudeau really cares about that he'd come up with a good child care plan that ends that cycle.
You're not listening to one point. $150 was meant to cover one cost for a child in a bad financial household. Get the kid out on the field while mommy and daddy work things out.
I know you guys were talking about paying for sports. Yeah, bad segue, but I am talking about child care, because that is way more important when it comes to the point that HFD made about having to pay for shit. Getting the kid on a field "while mommy and daddy work it out" isn't going to do shit when it comes to child care.
Stop adding on completely different talking points with your edits it is very confusing when someone wants to respond. I am not talking about childcare at all whatsoever if you read anything at all. There was $150 free a year to all that wanted to use it. Now its gone.
I'll do what i want - i couldn't care less if i confuse you. And you of all people should not be harping on anyone about not reading stuff. (I read everything, but you often do not). I never said you mentioned child care and never thought you did. What you guys were talking about made me think of it.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'll do what i want - i couldn't care less if i confuse you. And you of all people should not be harping on anyone about not reading stuff. (I read everything, but you often do not). I never said you mentioned child care and never thought you did. What you guys were talking about made me think of it.
Ok. So what do you want to reform about child care? The kids are on the field now so give us your ideas.
^^^ It was a maximum $150 credit return. So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
giving a tax break on the back end does nothing for those that can't afford the cost up front. subsidize it bringing the initial cost down or do nothing. all that did was give money back to people who could already afford the cost.
I realize that. On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.
that's not true at all. a lot, even most, people live within their means. they budget, if they budget, down to every dime they have. not many people have money floating around in their bank account unaccounted for. and if it is, it goes to things that may happen, like car or house repairs.
If you did it once you would have the same $150 returning to you year after year. I don't know why you have an issue on this point. If you can't afford $150 once a year for your child there are plenty of ways to apply for assistance and receive immediate funds by way of direct enrollment and the tab being billed to the govt.
because it's silly to think that if someone can't afford $150 up front for recreation "one time" they have "serious problems". that's just not reality for a good portion of the population.
there is a massive gap that doesn't cover those who are eligible for assistance with direct enrollment and those who are not eligible and still can't afford the up front cost. it's the single biggest reason so many people stay on welfare. if you take home more on welfare than you do working for minimum wage, what the hell is the point of working? it's the same idea here.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Comments
Sometimes you do have to step back and actually say aloud "It's for the children"
This program did very little to get kids in sport that couldn't afford it. What they threw at us never came close to covering what costs associated with programs are.
They saved nobody.
I agree the costs are astronomical in many "organized" sports.
But to get your child in a non competitive easy going kick the ball around sport was very accessible with this program - essentially subsidized daycare for the parents and a happy child laughing and playing.
If they took the taxes completely out of the youth sport equation... on all sides of it... then you'd have my attention.
That will never happen so we got thrown a few pesos for our troubles.
Make lemonade.
As adults you were given $150 a year to put your child in whatever you wanted sportwise.
It was not meant to fund your childs way to the nhl.
Then you had to claim it on your tax return.
I know you had to claim it.
Half a tank of gas when it was all said and done.
It was a maximum $150 credit return.
So if parents budgeted feasibly sporting programs were a free option.
The previous government wasn't serious about balancing the budget either...
I do however approve of keeping OAS at 65...because the most vulnerable, those working at labour intensive jobs are the most effected by this.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/03/24/harpers-gst-legacy-leaves-the-fiscal-ship-at-the-mercy-of-the-world-economy-hbert.html
Even if that 14 billion just went into health care, that would be just what health care needs. That was my biggest takeaway from the budget, health care was not front and centre.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
-EV 8/14/93
On a bigger picture if a family can't afford up to $150/yr once to register their child in a sports/arts program they are in a serious situation. Something is wrong saying that you (not you) can't afford to do that.
-EV 8/14/93
And to the above I'm not saying that Fitness Credit defined Harpers legacy I simply am stating that it was a benefit that helped all families with children - regardless of what govt started it.
Now it is gone.
Getting the kid on a field "while mommy and daddy work it out" isn't going to do shit when it comes to child care.
I am not talking about childcare at all whatsoever if you read anything at all.
There was $150 free a year to all that wanted to use it. Now its gone.
I never said you mentioned child care and never thought you did. What you guys were talking about made me think of it.
The kids are on the field now so give us your ideas.
there is a massive gap that doesn't cover those who are eligible for assistance with direct enrollment and those who are not eligible and still can't afford the up front cost. it's the single biggest reason so many people stay on welfare. if you take home more on welfare than you do working for minimum wage, what the hell is the point of working? it's the same idea here.
-EV 8/14/93