(dotted line) at 28k income and $120k income. It would cost less than the Liberal program, but provide more for everyone under $120k income (compared to dotted line), and more than the proposed for every parent earning under $18k income.
- That line could be shifted up with the same slope (clawback tax rate) until its cost is identical to the proposed program, and would result in even higher basic child benefit, and even greater benefit to those earning under $20k and $70k.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Liberal government loves parents more than Conservatives, but has a special deep love for parents with incomes between $18-30k and $70-140k, and special deep contempt for parents with income below $18k, between $30-70k, and over $140k.
The value of progressive child benefits
From the perspective that raising children is a gift to society and necessary for its future prosperity, it is justifiable to offer progressive or flat tax benefits to support such choices. Yet every kink in the above curve that decreases in slope is a regressive kink placing more tax burdens on lower income groups below the kink. Their claimed goal of eliminating child poverty is insincere if they fail to understand that parents with income below $0-25k need more help than those with income of $30k. A perfectly straight curve (flat tax) better achieves poverty elimination, and doesn't demand an explanation for why the Canadian government hates people in the extra punished groups.
Does the Canadian government hate single Canadians aged 18-65?
Its not the case that this group does not receive tax credits and programs, and so just because they are outcast from some programs is not an expression of hatred from their government. CPP is a direct benefit to the contributor. OAS promises to one day free you from the slavery-equivalent-life-pressures you must experience until 65. EI, disability, welfare, housing assistance, and labour laws (minimum wage, overtime) are fundamental acknowledgements that dystopian slavery pressures must be counterbalanced with conditional dignity patchworks. Earned income tax credits, and student assistance are other conditional programs meant to encourage constructive social participation.
Replacing programs and non-refundable tax credits one at a time
Any program or tax credit can be replaced with a refundable tax credit at equivalent cost. As a simple example the basic and spousal Canadian federal tax credits are equivalent to $1750 each clawed back at 15% of income. As non-refundable tax credits these just work as if taxable levels of income start at $11500 for singles or $23000 for couples. A refundable tax credit of the same amount would not affect those who earn over those levels, but would benefit those who earn less. An equivalent social cost amount might be $1650 refundable tax credit to account for the slightly higher tax expense of providing refunds to those currently ineligible. Canada has a patchwork of antipoverty programs, some with considerable administration cost and waste, and so noone has the (public) view that the poor should not receive aid. If enough tax credits and programs can be eliminated (replaced with refundable tax credits), then poverty can be directly eliminated as well, all without bureaucratic burden on the poor or tax payers.
The US Food stamp program (SNAP)
Is a department of agriculture program, that by definition serves the agriculture industry, and provides those with income below $14000 and cash balance below $2000 (higher for larger families) that allows recipients to purchase agricultural goods with stamps. An average benefit of $133.08/mo cost $76.6B (in total direct benefits) implies 48M Americans received the benefit in 2013.
These costs don't include policing individuals and businesses for failing to comply with Agricultural industry' subsidy mandate. It is for instance, illegal to trade them for cash, or to try to buy toothpaste and tampons with them. There is bureaucratic overhead as well. The direct cost to 100M US taxpayers is $766/taxpayer/yr. With policing/bureaucracy,