LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Canadian Feminism: Why it's not wise to get married in Badbabysitter's country
- Thread starter LJ_Reloaded
- Start date
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
do you ever do your own research?
Canadian feminists are in fact against this, including myself... as well as the following feminist
By: Laurie Monsebraaten Social justice reporter, Published on Mon Jan 26 2015
Family policy in Canada needs to grow up and recognize the need for child care, parental leave for fathers and tax measures that support low- and moderate-income parents, not just the wealthy, says a new report being released Tuesday.
“The work and family lives of Canadians have evolved over the past three decades. It is time our family policies grew up too,” says the report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The report includes the latest available data on the impact of the Harper government’s fall economic statement, which introduced income-splitting and increases to the monthly child care benefit and child-care expense deduction.
On income splitting, the report shows that 48 per cent of families with children under age 18 will get nothing. Another 29 per cent will get less than $1,000. The biggest benefits will go to families with annual incomes over $233,000, who already have financial options to have one parent stay home with young children.
The Conservatives capped the benefit at $2,000 to blunt criticism that most of the money was going high income earners, said economist David Macdonald, who co-authored the report with Kate McInturff, director of the research centre’s Making Women Count project.
“But it doesn’t help anybody else, like the single mother who has two kids, or low-income families that can’t afford to have one parent at home,” Macdonald said. “You still end up with a program that is dramatically unfair.”
The complicated process of applying for the benefit, with up to 85 additional steps on tax forms, means even fewer families will profit from the move, he added.
The $2 billion in annual revenue lost from income splitting would be much better spent building a national child care program, like Quebec’s $7-a-day model, which has encouraged more women to work, boosted fertility rates and pumped more tax dollars into provincial and federal coffers, the report notes.
Canadian feminists are in fact against this, including myself... as well as the following feminist
By: Laurie Monsebraaten Social justice reporter, Published on Mon Jan 26 2015
Family policy in Canada needs to grow up and recognize the need for child care, parental leave for fathers and tax measures that support low- and moderate-income parents, not just the wealthy, says a new report being released Tuesday.
“The work and family lives of Canadians have evolved over the past three decades. It is time our family policies grew up too,” says the report by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The report includes the latest available data on the impact of the Harper government’s fall economic statement, which introduced income-splitting and increases to the monthly child care benefit and child-care expense deduction.
On income splitting, the report shows that 48 per cent of families with children under age 18 will get nothing. Another 29 per cent will get less than $1,000. The biggest benefits will go to families with annual incomes over $233,000, who already have financial options to have one parent stay home with young children.
The Conservatives capped the benefit at $2,000 to blunt criticism that most of the money was going high income earners, said economist David Macdonald, who co-authored the report with Kate McInturff, director of the research centre’s Making Women Count project.
“But it doesn’t help anybody else, like the single mother who has two kids, or low-income families that can’t afford to have one parent at home,” Macdonald said. “You still end up with a program that is dramatically unfair.”
The complicated process of applying for the benefit, with up to 85 additional steps on tax forms, means even fewer families will profit from the move, he added.
The $2 billion in annual revenue lost from income splitting would be much better spent building a national child care program, like Quebec’s $7-a-day model, which has encouraged more women to work, boosted fertility rates and pumped more tax dollars into provincial and federal coffers, the report notes.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
here's some more criticism of the tax
OTTAWA—The tax shakeup announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last month will leave many Canadians in the cold. And while others will benefit, detailed calculations show the benefits may fall far short of expectations.
The changes in income tax and family supports are being trumpeted as a huge package of breaks for Canadians. At a cost of $26.7 billion between now and 2019, they will eat up the bulk of total budget surpluses forecast for Ottawa during that period.
Each taxpayer will be impacted differently by the complex interaction of new measures. But analysis shows the major benefactors will be households where one spouse earns a hefty income and the other earns a low income or no income.
For instance, a two-earner couple with young children where one spouse brings in $95,000 a year and the other earns $25,000 could see tax savings of nearly $3,000 in 2015 as a result of the new measures, according to Finance Department calculations.
Most of that windfall arises from the centrepiece of the Conservatives’ package, the so-called Family Tax Cut, a version of income-splitting for families with children. Single people, single-parent families or families with children who are no longer minors do not qualify for any kind of tax break under this measure.
In fact, only about 15 per cent of households will benefit from the $2 billion a year in foregone federal revenue devoted to income-splitting, with one-earner families at the top of the income scale coming out best. Two-earner families where spouses make similar incomes will see little or no benefit.
The average income of families that would receive any benefit from the Family Tax Cut exceeds $123,000, according to calculations done for the Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
Studies done in advance of Harper’s announcement had found that a family with one breadwinner in the highest income tax bracket could see the family’s federal tax bill reduced by $5,000 or more a year as a result of the Family Tax Cut. To eliminate such a huge windfall and keep the cost of the measure from skyrocketing, the government capped the possible tax savings from this policy at $2,000 per year per family.
But the fact that most households will not benefit at all from the costly Family Tax Cut still prompted widespread criticism.
OTTAWA—The tax shakeup announced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last month will leave many Canadians in the cold. And while others will benefit, detailed calculations show the benefits may fall far short of expectations.
The changes in income tax and family supports are being trumpeted as a huge package of breaks for Canadians. At a cost of $26.7 billion between now and 2019, they will eat up the bulk of total budget surpluses forecast for Ottawa during that period.
Each taxpayer will be impacted differently by the complex interaction of new measures. But analysis shows the major benefactors will be households where one spouse earns a hefty income and the other earns a low income or no income.
For instance, a two-earner couple with young children where one spouse brings in $95,000 a year and the other earns $25,000 could see tax savings of nearly $3,000 in 2015 as a result of the new measures, according to Finance Department calculations.
Most of that windfall arises from the centrepiece of the Conservatives’ package, the so-called Family Tax Cut, a version of income-splitting for families with children. Single people, single-parent families or families with children who are no longer minors do not qualify for any kind of tax break under this measure.
In fact, only about 15 per cent of households will benefit from the $2 billion a year in foregone federal revenue devoted to income-splitting, with one-earner families at the top of the income scale coming out best. Two-earner families where spouses make similar incomes will see little or no benefit.
The average income of families that would receive any benefit from the Family Tax Cut exceeds $123,000, according to calculations done for the Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
Studies done in advance of Harper’s announcement had found that a family with one breadwinner in the highest income tax bracket could see the family’s federal tax bill reduced by $5,000 or more a year as a result of the Family Tax Cut. To eliminate such a huge windfall and keep the cost of the measure from skyrocketing, the government capped the possible tax savings from this policy at $2,000 per year per family.
But the fact that most households will not benefit at all from the costly Family Tax Cut still prompted widespread criticism.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
the funny thing is that poster of the vid blames the evil feminists and implies the left are responsible for it.. despite it being a long term conservative trend
.. he makes the direct statement that it was men that paid more.. even though nothing in the law states as such... even in the 90's
he then cites non existent studies
he says then feminists demanded men pay more.. when it fact nothing like this happened at all... but we have to believe just his word... because he never actually cites ...well...anything
he then cites that the department of justice and some vague top economist cited how wrong this was... but never mentions who or when
he then goes on about how all these feminist groups pushed for changes in government policy and forced them into doing shit... which he also literally never cites a single human being
every claim he then subsequently makes applies to both men and women... but blames women and feminists solely for any injustices that incur
this shit isnt even worthy of the John Birch Society...
the fact that you got taken in by something even the Daily Caller wouldnt print.....does not speak well for you
.. he makes the direct statement that it was men that paid more.. even though nothing in the law states as such... even in the 90's
he then cites non existent studies
he says then feminists demanded men pay more.. when it fact nothing like this happened at all... but we have to believe just his word... because he never actually cites ...well...anything
he then cites that the department of justice and some vague top economist cited how wrong this was... but never mentions who or when
he then goes on about how all these feminist groups pushed for changes in government policy and forced them into doing shit... which he also literally never cites a single human being
every claim he then subsequently makes applies to both men and women... but blames women and feminists solely for any injustices that incur
this shit isnt even worthy of the John Birch Society...
the fact that you got taken in by something even the Daily Caller wouldnt print.....does not speak well for you
J
JAMESBJOHNSON
Guest
Laurie Moosebreath? Never heard of her.
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
The reality is Conservatives and feminists are working together
once again
to screw over men.
Y'all have a long history of that.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
soooo... you literally ignored everything I just posted
awesome
awesome
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Because you're full of shit and, hey, if you don't have kids or get married in Canada, what relevance are your responses anyway?
If you do, of course, then you're right fucked.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
what exact part was full of shit.. please point it out
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Who cares? The solution is to NOT get married or have kids in Canada.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
translation = you got nothing
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
Nothing you said in response was true. None of it. Feminism ruined Canada for marriage and childbearing. And if anything, Conservatives helped them.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
but you havent actually shown me literally one thing in what I said was wrong
you claim what I said was wrong
show me
LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
I don't have to - you have no substantiation for any of that garbage. And I'm tired of waiting for substantiation that's NEVER coming.
badbabysitter
Vault Girl
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2002
- Posts
- 19,179
what am i supposed to substantiate.. if you dont actually show me what I'm wrong about?
does not compute
