Would love to know why a 65+ making 175k a year needs this government money more than a 25yo student.
They don’t… I think it’s only seniors who qualify for seniors benefits which would be single senior with an annual income of $29,630 or less, and senior couples with a combined annual income of $48,120 or less.
They don’t… I think it’s only seniors who qualify for seniors benefits which would be single senior with an annual income of $29,630 or less, and senior couples with a combined annual income of $48,120 or less.
Seniors and families with dependent children under 18 will get $100 installments for six months for each child and senior. Only families with incomes below $180,000 per year are eligible.
Two things you’re not addressing. Having kids is a choice and if you thought it’d be inexpensive and easy, you’re an idiot. The second is that those without kids are already massively subsidizing your family. The most obvious one is the education portion of one’s property taxes.
Im not saying those with kids shouldn’t be getting assistance when the government is handing out money, but to feel more entitled because you’ve underestimated what it takes to raise children is just ignorant.
The public education is for the child's benefit, and is part of the social contract in which every individual in our society participates. Everyone receives exactly one public education. You received a public education and now you pay taxes. Each of these kids will receive a public education and later they will pay taxes. There is no subsidy to the parents there.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Nancy For This Useful Post:
Seniors and families with dependent children under 18 will get $100 installments for six months for each child and senior. Only families with incomes below $180,000 per year are eligible.
The public education is for the child's benefit, and is part of the social contract in which every individual in our society participates. Everyone receives exactly one public education. You received a public education and now you pay taxes. Each of these kids will receive a public education and later they will pay taxes. There is no subsidy to the parents there.
It's also for society's benefit. Just look South of us to see the long-term impacts of a poor public education system.
Two things you’re not addressing. Having kids is a choice and if you thought it’d be inexpensive and easy, you’re an idiot. The second is that those without kids are already massively subsidizing your family. The most obvious one is the education portion of one’s property taxes.
Im not saying those with kids shouldn’t be getting assistance when the government is handing out money, but to feel more entitled because you’ve underestimated what it takes to raise children is just ignorant.
A little off topic but this is backwards. Those without kids entire financial future, health outcomes and even simply heat and power for their home in old age are entirely dependent on other people having children. If no one had kids society collapses if everyone had 2.1 kids society continues quite well. So who is subsidizing who?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I would be curious to see the math on this one. I know Trevor is respected and I am not calling him a liar but a grand seem like a lot for the people without kids. $200 in energy rebates and removing the 4.5 cents gas tax does not seem to add up to a grand unless you are doing a lot of driving. Also there is the indexing tax brackets but I can't see that moving the needle a whole lot.
I would be curious to see the math on this one. I know Trevor is respected and I am not calling him a liar but a grand seem like a lot for the people without kids. $200 in energy rebates and removing the 4.5 cents gas tax does not seem to add up to a grand unless you are doing a lot of driving. Also there is the indexing tax brackets but I can't see that moving the needle a whole lot.
Danielle Smith, the pundit turned premier, wants to self-immunize from her opinionated past
Past utterances have caused her grief, even recent ones. She can't evade them all
Quote:
Well, scrutinize no longer. The public has been alerted by Danielle Smith herself: "I know I'm not a talk show host or media commentator any longer."
That stuff she said? It's so 2003. Way back in 2019. Or 2020. More than a year ago. As far as nine months ago. Or perhaps she was a UCP leadership candidate, but surely wasn't premier yet.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the premier brings up constantly that federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault used to be a tower-scaling Greenpeace activist. That was in 2001. Smith would have us believe that this Liberal leopard cannot change his spots, while Albertans need not to pay heed to her words from last summer.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to RedHot25 For This Useful Post:
Smith (or her social media team) have also apparently been scrubbing Tweets about controversial topics she's made in the past as well. They're trying to remove any trace of extreme viewpoints or far-right sentiments.
Erase past, buy votes, soften tone. Really trying to get the moderates to like her and not ask questions.
But just like an out-of-control house pet, they'll play along nicely when you dangle a snack (re: election), but will obliterate your house all the same afterwards.
The point is, how many kids you have is irrelevant. A family making 175K/year simply does not need a cash infusion of $600. By using the fact that you have children to incite a parental response that you are 'owed' is bottom of the barrel pandering.
It's simple to identify a base income that would trigger the reallocation. If both parents don't make that amount, they receive $1200 for their family. If someone else is struggling to pull in 30K/year, but don't have kids. You know what... pay them.
Giving $1200 to a couple that has two kids and a combined income of 175K/year is giving them money to help winterize their 500K 5th wheel.
What the hell are you all talking about "society", the the survival of the human race? Talk about raising the righteous bar way to high. It reminds me of a book that read once, called "The Puppy Who Lost his Way". The world was changing, and the puppy was getting bigger........ and nobody, especially the little boy "Society", knew where to find them. Except that the puppy was a dog, but the industry my friends, that was a revolution.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
