View Full Version : 2017 Child Support Tables

Dad First
04-18-2018, 02:18 PM
Can someone please explain to me how even though provincial and federal income tax rates went up, when the 2011 Child Support Tables were "updated to reflect more recent tax rules" the amount went up across the board?

I try to avoid legal circles. I just try to follow the law, but I'm pissed off that the misandry and lack of accountability to provide for yourself continues to grow. Child support includes implied spousal support. I watch the welfare dependency grow.

On my top dollar I pay a combined income tax and child support burden of 67.92% for children I have 50% of the time. Obscene.

04-18-2018, 02:32 PM
The tables were a little out of date when they were introduced in 2011. The update has been done to include inflation because child support is used to pay for childrens expenses. Remember too that welfare has not seen an increase and up until last year, social assistance was clawed back for support recipients.

If you have 50/50, why are you paying full table?

Dad First
04-18-2018, 02:43 PM
Thanks for the quick response.

I'm not paying full table. We are deducting her table amount from mine, which is always higher.

I understand inflation, but wages inflate too. The percentage shouldn't change. I was hoping it would go down to reflect the increased taxes. The top rate of tax plus CS is now 67.92% vs. 60.2% in Ontario. I have 25.1% less take home on my top dollar.

I have no idea about welfare outside of child support. We both have always worked.

04-18-2018, 03:54 PM
The update has been done to include inflation because child support is used to pay for childrens expenses.

Mathematically, this does not make sense. CS tables are basically percentage tables. Inflation should have little to no effect.

04-18-2018, 04:59 PM
I thought that was why they updated them. My bad.

Dad First
04-18-2018, 05:26 PM
Don't feel bad. I appreciate your interest. I think Janus is right because inflation affects both parties.

The new table creates higher payments at every income level.

04-18-2018, 06:00 PM
That said, I believe CS tables were adjusted due to changes in taxation, or at least that was the notional reason for the "update". They rarely need a good reason to increase CS, any ol' reason will do.

I just get a little triggered when "inflation" and "percentage" are used in the same sentence, like when people try to justify why tipping percentages have increased drastically over the years.

Dad First
04-18-2018, 06:16 PM
Don't get me started.

Increase in income tax seems like a reason to lower rates. I don't believe they care if payers get to enjoy any of the money they earned. It's demotivating. Or maybe motivating to move to a more tax friendly regime. I think this is also how deadbeats are created.

04-18-2018, 06:53 PM
Sure, but for the vast majority of people, income tax rates were lowered, which is why CS table rates were raised. You had to be making over $140,000 or so to pay higher tax.

Just because Fox News or the Canadian version of it says that taxes have increased, doesn't make it true :).

It's demotivating. Or maybe motivating to move to a more tax friendly regime.You can find very tax friendly regimes in Somalia and other similar places, if you choose to relocate. Sadly, if you relocate within the Western World, you'll likely still have to pay CS. Pick your poison. Civilization is expensive.

04-18-2018, 06:55 PM
oops, you need to actually be making over $200,000 to qualify for higher tax rates.

Dad First
04-19-2018, 08:16 AM
Partially true federally. Other factors include child activities, TFSA reduction, cap gain and eligible dividend increase, and no bracket indexing on upper tax brackets. There have been Ontario provincial increases as well.

The CS tables at minimum don't reflect the 200k hit. Not that I have to worry about it, but for those who do, I'm guessing they've made a significant tax contribution by then. And if they are supporting children, they have more than they need.

BTW, I don't want to leave Canada, and I'd never abandon my kids. It's not an option and the powers that make family law know this. It's my home, but don't let the CBC tell you there aren't other options. There's a reason it's hard to find a doctor for lots of good people.

04-23-2018, 08:53 AM
There's a reason it's hard to find a doctor for lots of good people.
That can be fixed by forcing the CMA to open up more residency spots for immigrants. Despite a very vocal minority, most doctors don't feel underpaid.

, TFSA reduction

This is drifting into political... but TFSA is a horrible thing. It is a tax break exclusively for the wealthy, that represents an extreme level of intergenerational theft.

RRSP's also require you to have a reasonable income, but at least that tax break is a gift to the future. You don't pay tax now, but you pay tax later. TFSA are a theft from the future, you pay tax now, but you don't pay tax in the future.

TFSA is also a long-term gun aimed at the government, which is going to cost billions of dollars in the future. It is very right wing, it wrecks the tax base, which is kinda what the right wing likes.

Dad First
04-24-2018, 03:45 AM
I get it. You like seeing hard working people have their money taken and redistributed. Makes sense now. You do know that socialism only works until you run out of other people's money to give away.

04-24-2018, 11:39 AM
You do know that socialism only works until you run out of other people's money to give away.

You do know that clever writing only works until you run out of other people's quotes to claim as your own.

Dad First
04-24-2018, 11:58 AM
I'm out. I'm ashamed I've allowed myself to get dragged this far into this, but I do believe every word I've written, and you've revealed your ideology.

That was a paraphrase, BTW, not a quote of Ms. Thatcher's and who knows if they are even her wise words or if she borrowed them as well.

04-24-2018, 03:44 PM
Some of these people have been indoctrinated into socialist ideology since they were children. For example, I have been told authoritatively and unequivocally by my high school teacher, a public sector union member of course, that socialism works.

Socialism "works" for the public sector unions; for most people working private sector on whose backs they get things like gold-plated pensions and paid Easter Mondays, not so much.

The 2017 "Child" Support tables work for the recipients of the money (with some exceptions at the extreme low income end); for the fathers paying it, who have been essentially relegated to worker drone status, not so much.

Alas, the idea that income ought to belong to the person who earned it through the work they did has somehow been lost in this country. It could benefit from more publicity.

Dad First
04-24-2018, 03:59 PM
Well said. Thank you!

Dad First
07-14-2018, 09:06 AM
50-50 is not easy for most dad's. You and I are lucky in that regard.

Offset child support on full table is also no great victory - this is not going both ways. How about offset on 50% of table value, since you each have the kids 50% of the time? How about CS values that top out at what it actually costs to raise a child? How about percentages that are fair to payers and leave incentive to accomplishment for receivers?

I've seen what a sizeable CS cheque has done to my ex. She works for show. It's destroyed her motivation to do better. And it is a total anchor on my dreams as well.

67.92% at the top for upper middle class earners. Not the rich, just the upper middle. That means even well below this rate it is well over 50% if you have 2 kids. And this is just income tax and CS. Property tax, HST and all the other taxes are not included in this.

07-24-2018, 03:32 PM
As far as I'm concerned if I have the kids 50% then that is my half - of both money and time I owe into raising them. The idea that continually I owe the ex anything in that scenario is assinine. Sweden sees it this way:

Prior to my divorce proceedings, I always assumed this because to me it is common sense.

Parents without shared parenting also deserve better than to be forced into a life of servitude to the ex.