Fitness Tax Credit

[Azure]

Originally Posted by worth

i'm healthy and work out at home. give me my tax credit in the form of a cheque i can cash.

Same here.

I'm going to contact my MLA and ask him about it. Even pressure him to get on board.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Locke

People understand how tax credits work right? This isnt an enormous sum of money by any stretch of the imagination.

The cash difference on a tax return wouldnt even pay for my soccer fees for one season let alone the year, forget Gym memberships.

From the horse's (err, CRA's) mouth:

tax credit (crédit d'impôt).

An amount deducted directly from income tax otherwise payable.Examples include the disability tax credit and the married credit for individuals, and the scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit for corporations.
See also age credit; film or video production services tax credit;goods and services tax (GST) credit; input tax credit; investment tax credit; manufacturing and processing tax credit; pension income credit; refundable tax credit.

tax deduction (déduction fiscale).
An amount deducted from total income to arrive at taxable income. Childcare expenses and capital cost allowances are tax deductions.
See also small business deduction

And from everyone's favorite 'pedia:

A tax credit is generally more valuable than a tax deduction or tax allowance of the same magnitude because a tax credit reduces tax directly, while a deduction or allowance only reduces taxable income and so the reduction in tax is only a fraction (the marginal tax rate) of the deduction or allowance.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Anyone have Dave Rodney's number?

http://www.daverodney.ca/



Contact

Constituency Office
#311A, 2525 Woodview Drive SW
Calgary, AB
Canada T2W 4N4
Phone: (403) 238-1212
Fax: (403) 251-5453
calgary.lougheed@assembly.ab.ca

Legislature Office
132 Legislature Building
10800 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
Canada T5K 2B6
Phone: (780) 427-1800
Fax: (780) 415-0968


If your call to Dave is long distance, please dial 310-0000 then the area code and the phone number you would like to reach in order to receive toll free access.

[Azure]

I emailed my MLA about it....asked him a few questions and told him to get on board if possible.

I encourage everyone to do the same.

[Sylvanfan]

Well good luck getting them to just give you money to buy your own home gym equipment.....

As Fredr states in the first post....Cost is not what is keeping people out of shape. Anyone can go out and go for a walk or a run, that costs you nothing. It's lack of time and ambition in most cases that is ailing people. I can't see all the obese people in Alberta getting up and going to a personal trainer because the government will give them a tax credit afterwards.

[Eric Vail]

Will I be able to claim repairs at the bike shop?

[Wookie]

Stupid idea,

It's been looked into plenty of times, while getting your kids active is a good idea, generally active in shape people live longer and survive more diseases and problems then those that aren't.

In the end you just cost more to the health care system as you live longer and survive a bit more.

That said.
Hockey $650
Hockey $200
Hockey $225
Hockey $235
Gym membership $350
Swim Coach $300
Various event fees $500+
Spin Classes $150
Yoga $150

$2760.

That's just off the top of my head. Nevermind associated costs.

I also agree that places would just bump their fees, trainers would make more, etc. I'd rather see the money put directly into facilities than back in users pockets.

[KTown]

Originally Posted by Azure

I emailed my MLA about it....asked him a few questions and told him to get on board if possible.

I encourage everyone to do the same.

Do you know where to find a list of MLA's and there areas?

On another note, this is a great idea. My soccer fees are quite high as I play competitive and the cost of referees are getting expensive as there is a shortage.

Anybody that says people will abuse this, you are right. But even if 10% of overweight people get on board with this, the money it would save in healthcare costs down the road would be well worth it as we all know healthcare isn't cheap.


It's a win win situation.

[SebC]

If the motivation for this is to increase participation in organized sports, it's a good idea. But for giving people an incentive to keep in shape? Just make it a credit for:

non-smoker
not underweight or overweight

And you're way more likely to make that back in healthcare dollars saved. Not sure how I'd make the logistics work though.

[Wookie]

Originally Posted by SebC

If the motivation for this is to increase participation in organized sports, it's a good idea. But for giving people an incentive to keep in shape? Just make it a credit for:

non-smoker
not underweight or overweight

And you're way more likely to make that back in healthcare dollars saved. Not sure how I'd make the logistics work though.

Originally Posted by Science Guy;

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle.../15293006.html

[fredr123]

So there should be a steak and beer tax credit?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Sylvanfan

Technically you're being subsidized by all these people who don't go. Plus these places would all up their fees to $1500 a year and claim it costs you nothing since you can get a tax credit.

Not quite. Correct me if I am wrong, but a tax credit simply subtracts from your taxable earnings. So, you would not get $1500 back, only the tax you paid on that $1500. And, given this is a provincial initiative, not a federal one, the return you would get is that 10% flat tax, so, up to $150.

I would definitely take advantage - especially if things like our softball league were to count (unlikely since it isn't NSA/CSA, etc approved), but we're not talking about Ralph Bucks here.

[Crispy's Critter]

Originally Posted by SebC

But for giving people an incentive to keep in shape? Just make it a credit for:

non-smoker
not underweight or overweight

green works fine for me, but the red highlight doesn't. The reason it doesn't is based on personal experience. Back in the day when I was ripped and exercised constantly, before my accident and I ballooned up, I was 5'6" and 165 lbs. I had less than 1% body fat, had a sixpack, muscular arms and legs, etc, all the good stuff. However, based on an optimal body weight chart my doctor at the time gave me, I was 10 lbs overweight. So if I was in the best shape of my life at that moment, and was still supposedly 10 lbs overweight, how many other people would be in the same boat. Maybe if doctors make a more realistic body weight chart it might be ok, but as it stands (and AFIK they still use the same chart) there would be very few people who would qualify for any tax credits on that criteria. Plus when it comes to weight, people lie

Saying that though, I agree the tax credit is a positive step, though needs some tinkering, and possibly more studies done, but a good idea nonetheless. Also agree with the people saying that there should be something done for those that prefer to get their excercise from another source other than a gym or sports club, as most people I know, myself included, would rather bike or jog, or even walk their dogs than go into some organized club. They shouldn't be penalized for this.

[llama64]

Great idea, bad execution.

Want to help the medical system? Introduce a requirement for a general checkup on a periodic basis. Depending on the outcome of the examination, you are handed out health demerits. The demerits count for a certain percentage of the cost of a medical procedure/care. The more demerits you recieve, the more you pay.

That's right fatty/smoker/alcoholic, your disgusting habits will no longer be picked up by the bank of the people.

/grumble

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by Locke

People could just pay the money and not do any activity but still qualify.

So? You're going to end up more in the red than if you didn't pay any fees than by paying, not going, and applying for the credit.

[Ford Prefect]

If I understand things correctly, you have to be a member of some kind of athletic/recreational club to qualify for this credit. If that's the case it's a rather discriminatory plan. Joining a fitness club/athletic may not be a problem for urban dwellers, but here in Drumheller there aren't many options for a fat 40-year-old. There's a few, like curling, but they only have a limited number of people they can accommodate. Same with the one gym in town. The smaller the centre, the fewer the options and openings, so this would be a rather discriminatory plan for rural Albertans. I don't complain about fewer options being available in rural centres in general ... there are fewer people and fewer tax dollars to support recreational facilities, so I understand that I'm not going to have as much at my disposal compared to larger centres. But something like a tax credit should be equal opportunity for ALL tax payers. Setting up a tax credit that all Albertans don't have equal access to is unfair and discriminatory. Of course the government could just take my word that I go out mountain biking for at least a half hour a day, but I somehow doubt they would be willing to do that.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Meh. that idea has alot of holes. All you have to do is buy a pair of runners and go for a jog. Thats what I do. Cost per year=$150.00

[Sylvanfan]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not quite. Correct me if I am wrong, but a tax credit simply subtracts from your taxable earnings. So, you would not get $1500 back, only the tax you paid on that $1500. And, given this is a provincial initiative, not a federal one, the return you would get is that 10% flat tax, so, up to $150.

I would definitely take advantage - especially if things like our softball league were to count (unlikely since it isn't NSA/CSA, etc approved), but we're not talking about Ralph Bucks here.

Yeah, I was being a bit ficticious there. But if you proved that you spent $1500 on fitness related activities that qualified than you'd get to take $1500 off your income when it comes to paying provincial taxes. But my problem is that how the hell can they verify what is legitimate and what's not.

I played Fastpitch softball for three years in a pretty competitive league and my team went to the BC Provincials one year. But really....my team which was mostly 23-28 year old guys, we got our arse kicked by a bunch of smoking 40 year old guys who had a guy who could throw 85 miles an hour and a bunch of other slugs who tried to hit the ball out of the park. Those guys weren't exactly keeping active and were there to drink beer as much as anything. So how do they determine what is and what isn't a legitimate athletics association and than what is and isn't physical activity? Some one riding a bike 20km to work each day probaby doesnt' qualify for this credit yet is getting more activity than most people with a Gym membership. Hence why I think it has no hope in hell. Nice idea....but next to impossible to implement.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by fotze

By that we should also make those that contribute less taxes get less services as well. Those filthy $20k per year earners should no longer be able to suckle at the expensive government teat. Earnings power and health are both largely controllable by the individual, why is one more of a sacred cow than another.

Apples to oranges. There are people out there who cannot make more then $25k a year for legitimate reasons (often health, social situation, etc). These people depend on help and government services. Yeah, there are the lazy slobs out there, but they don't impact things all that much.

I'm speaking against people who deliberately choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle (smoking, drugs, obesity, etc). Either we nail them with the cost initially (increase taxes on things they purchase) or we hit them when they try to correct their health problems caused by the lifestyle.

If you smoke, excessively drink and whatnot, you do not deserve free healthcare. My opinion of course.

[llama64]

You know, it would probably just be better to devote more money to public recreational programs. But I suppose that doesn't result in an immediate political gain for those proposing it. The results wouldn't show up for 15-20 years.