You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Family Allocations vs Child Support
- Thread starter Links17
- Start date
I am trying to understand the theoretical basis for why family allocations are not DEDUCTED from child support.
In a full family ppl spend on kids then ppl get govt money - is it "added" to what they spend on kids or "deducted" from what they spend on kids?
Why would it be deducted from child support? What I get in Child Tax Credit has nothing to do with the ex's income and everything to do with mine. Why should he get a financial break because of my income?
Because child support is meant to theoretically support the children so if children have need X.
CP receives amount Y from 3rd party (because they have children)
then shouldn't it be
X - Y = Z
I know it isn't like that but I'm trying to understand the rational or is it already accounted for....?
CP receives amount Y from 3rd party (because they have children)
then shouldn't it be
X - Y = Z
I know it isn't like that but I'm trying to understand the rational or is it already accounted for....?
Because child support is meant to theoretically support the children so if children have need X.
CP receives amount Y from 3rd party (because they have children)
then shouldn't it be
X - Y = Z
I know it isn't like that but I'm trying to understand the rational or is it already accounted for....?
The rational is that the child tax credit is generated due to my income level, not my ex's.
If we looked at his income alone, he wouldn't qualify for the credit.
If we were still a household, neither of us would qualify for the credit.
So, why should he benefit from my low income when his income is at a level where he wouldn't even qualify for the benefit?
If you used your income would you qualify for the tax credit? It doesn't take much to income yourself out of these government monies.
Because child support is meant to theoretically support the children so if children have need X.
CP receives amount Y from 3rd party (because they have children)
then shouldn't it be
X - Y = Z
I know it isn't like that but I'm trying to understand the rational or is it already accounted for....?
What you propose there is akin to me handing my ex my CTC cheque monthly.
The less I earn in a year, the more CTC I get. So what you propose means that as my income goes down, my CTC goes up, thereby decreasing your CS. So, not only do I have a lower income, I now get less CS.
-CTC is generated because you have a child and modified based on your income.
-Everybody agrees that both parents should support the needs/expenses of the children in proportion to their means.
-If the needs/expenses of your children are a fixed value (independent of whether you get CTC or not) then why should you get child support AND the allocations, it seems to be double accounting.
-At the end the parents will still pay child support AFTER accounting for govt benefits.
This isn't about "why should my ex benefit etc..." It is about making sure that child support goes to the children and not drained from one adult's pocket to the other.
I need to read up on the creation of the tables, there already major flaws I know about, (Equivalence tables for example) and percent of income dedicated to children as income increases.
-Everybody agrees that both parents should support the needs/expenses of the children in proportion to their means.
-If the needs/expenses of your children are a fixed value (independent of whether you get CTC or not) then why should you get child support AND the allocations, it seems to be double accounting.
-At the end the parents will still pay child support AFTER accounting for govt benefits.
This isn't about "why should my ex benefit etc..." It is about making sure that child support goes to the children and not drained from one adult's pocket to the other.
I need to read up on the creation of the tables, there already major flaws I know about, (Equivalence tables for example) and percent of income dedicated to children as income increases.
-CTC is generated because you have a child and modified based on your income.
-Everybody agrees that both parents should support the needs/expenses of the children in proportion to their means.
-If the needs/expenses of your children are a fixed value (independent of whether you get CTC or not) then why should you get child support AND the allocations, it seems to be double accounting.
-At the end the parents will still pay child support AFTER accounting for govt benefits.
This isn't about "why should my ex benefit etc..." It is about making sure that child support goes to the children and not drained from one adult's pocket to the other.
I need to read up on the creation of the tables, there already major flaws I know about, (Equivalence tables for example) and percent of income dedicated to children as income increases.
If you're bringing it up as a method to reduce child support than it is about the benefit you receive.
Here's an explanation of how it's calculated.
CCTB: calculation and payment information
Your CCTB payments for the period of July 2013 to June 2014 are calculated using the following information:
- The number of children you have;
- Your province or territory of residence;
- Your 2012 adjusted family net income and;
- Your child's eligibility for the child disability benefit.
- The basic benefit is $1,433 ($119.41 a month) for each child under age 18 (the basic benefit is different for residents of Alberta, see the note below).
- There is a supplement of $100 ($8.33 a month) for your third and each additional child.
- We subtract a benefit reduction from this amount if your family net income is more than $43,561. For a one-child family, the reduction is 2% of the amount of your family net income that is more than $43,561. For families with two or more children, the reduction is 4%.
Canada child tax benefit/related provincial and territorial benefits calculator
Child Support is paid by the non-custodial parent and is based on the non-custodial parent's income.
CTC is paid by the government and is based on the custodial parent's income, not the child support payor's income.
The CTC does not offset CS because it has nothing to do with the CS payor's income.
CTC is paid by the government and is based on the custodial parent's income, not the child support payor's income.
The CTC does not offset CS because it has nothing to do with the CS payor's income.
I mean on more philosophical level - what is the basis of child support?
It is money paid by a parent to another parent to pay for the expenses of their joint child.
IF the expenses is ALREADY paid for OR the expenses doesn't exist then there is no need for child support.
It is money paid by a parent to another parent to pay for the expenses of their joint child.
IF the expenses is ALREADY paid for OR the expenses doesn't exist then there is no need for child support.
I mean on more philosophical level - what is the basis of child support?
It is money paid by a parent to another parent to pay for the expenses of their joint child.
IF the expenses is ALREADY paid for OR the expenses doesn't exist then there is no need for child support.
Seriously - philosphy intertwined with tax accounting?
Philosphy is mostly gray with tiny white and black dots here and there.
Tax accounting couldn't be more black and white, rule driven. There is no gray. You'll drive yourself nuts with that one.
Think of it as the government's assistance in bringing the custodial parents income up to a level that is more manageable, which is to the benefit of the child.
auroradiem
New member
Doesn't child support help to offset the costs of raising a child? In addition to things like food and clothing, shouldn't the additional cost for housing also be part of the blanket that covers 'the cost of raising kids'? The increase in utility usage, the need for a bigger home etc.
In reality...CTTB should be calculated based on income and CS.
Like you said MSMom, you would not get the credit before...in fact you where getting it by having 2 incomes to support the child/ren.
CS is in support of the children to equalize the standard of living and that should be reflected by add CS in calculations for CTTB.
If the gov wanted to save money it would be a way to go and a real reflection of reality.
Like you said MSMom, you would not get the credit before...in fact you where getting it by having 2 incomes to support the child/ren.
CS is in support of the children to equalize the standard of living and that should be reflected by add CS in calculations for CTTB.
If the gov wanted to save money it would be a way to go and a real reflection of reality.
In reality...CTTB should be calculated based on income and CS.
Like you said MSMom, you would not get the credit before...in fact you where getting it by having 2 incomes to support the child/ren.
CS is in support of the children to equalize the standard of living and that should be reflected by add CS in calculations for CTTB.
If the gov wanted to save money it would be a way to go and a real reflection of reality.
I would think that would be fair. But as CS isn't taxable it isn't included as income when filing taxes. You also have the whole issue of CS "not paid"....complicates the taxes even further as it's often two different taxation years in consideration.
There's also the further complication of additional members in the family. My CCTB went down drastically when I married as CCTB is based on household income, not just the custodial parent's income. That would make doing offset CCTB even more difficult.
I would think that would be fair. But as CS isn't taxable it isn't included as income when filing taxes. You also have the whole issue of CS "not paid"....complicates the taxes even further as it's often two different taxation years in consideration.
There's also the further complication of additional members in the family. My CCTB went down drastically when I married as CCTB is based on household income, not just the custodial parent's income. That would make doing offset CCTB even more difficult.
I'm just thinking what implications that would have on my taxes. I'm going after arrears from 2008 which won't get fully paid (if awarded of course) until 2017. Think about the broad implications that him not paying this support over the years would have on my CTC?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.