Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Family Allocations vs Child Support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Yes, it would be very complicated......not sure how things can be done when there are payees and recipients that are dead beats on both sides.

    I get what the op is saying...then how about it being consider in the calculations of section 7? Even in 50/50 it would apply.

    I know some are not going to like my point of view on this but that why this is an open forums.




    CTTB is like child support, there for the child in question.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by good_mom View Post
      Yes, it would be very complicated......not sure how things can be done when there are payees and recipients that are dead beats on both sides.

      I get what the op is saying...then how about it being consider in the calculations of section 7? Even in 50/50 it would apply.

      I know some are not going to like my point of view on this but that why this is an open forums.




      CTTB is like child support, there for the child in question.
      The only way it's like child support is that it is meant to support the child. Otherwise, it's a completely different ball of wax as they say.

      CTC does factor into S7, specifically for child care, as does the UCCB.

      Comment


      • #18
        You know the more i read regarding social assitance and support payment I See there is a clear prioritization.

        Minimize the cost to the government
        Maximize the money transferred from NCP --> CP
        Maximize the expense to NCP vs the CP

        When calculating welfare, for a CS recipient they DEDUCT the CS received from the welfare they'd collect. They consider the CS income for the mother which is really the opposite of what is in family law...

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
          You know the more i read regarding social assitance and support payment I See there is a clear prioritization.

          Minimize the cost to the government
          Maximize the money transferred from NCP --> CP
          Maximize the expense to NCP vs the CP

          When calculating welfare, for a CS recipient they DEDUCT the CS received from the welfare they'd collect. They consider the CS income for the mother which is really the opposite of what is in family law...
          If a CS receiver is on welfare or ODSP for that matter, the CS goes to the Ministry of Social Services. That's why so many NCP's end up in court for CS when the CP applies for social assistance. Social assistance takes the lead and ensures that you apply for legal aid to get CS.

          Comment


          • #20
            Right but they consider the CS to be income against the "basic benefit" as if it is regular income for the CP whereas that type of mindset is not present at all in family law. Do you see the double standard?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Links17 View Post
              You know the more i read regarding social assitance and support payment I See there is a clear prioritization.

              Minimize the cost to the government
              Maximize the money transferred from NCP --> CP
              Maximize the expense to NCP vs the CP

              When calculating welfare, for a CS recipient they DEDUCT the CS received from the welfare they'd collect. They consider the CS income for the mother which is really the opposite of what is in family law...
              They don't consider the CS collected income at all, they use that amount of offset the social assistance received.

              Income from ODSP, welfare is taxable. CS is not taxable, as it isn't income for the adult, it's money meant to take care of the minor child. CS is the right of the child.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                Right but they consider the CS to be income against the "basic benefit" as if it is regular income for the CP whereas that type of mindset is not present at all in family law. Do you see the double standard?

                I do see what you're saying, but when you look at the basic benefit and add the extra benefit received by the CP for the child, it's meant to offset that benefit, not the parent's.

                And ODSP, Welfare are taxable income. With the funds going through the ministry you may look at CS being taxable, but in reality, anyone on ODSP or Welfare for a year wouldn't get even personal examption in benefits from the government, therefore no tax liabilities anyway.

                Comment


                • #23
                  I do see what you're saying, but when you look at the basic benefit and add the extra benefit received by the CP for the child, it's meant to offset that benefit, not the parent's.
                  In Quebec it seems to be different, it gets deducted I think dollar for dollar.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    In Quebec it seems to be different, it gets deducted I think dollar for dollar.

                    There's a dollar for dollar deduction in Ontario too. But, part of the parent's welfare/ODSP is for housing, etc. All that is an expense the parent bears, but is required by the child.

                    Comment

                    Our Divorce Forums
                    Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                    Working...
                    X