Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcs!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Universal social programs
Message-ID: <264@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 14:42:40 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.264
Posted: Wed Jan  2 14:42:40 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Jan-85 15:41:45 EST
References:  <1299@dciem.UUCP> <907@ubc-cs.UUCP> <4839@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 22

Much better than a means test would be to modify the income
tax system to tax back the entire baby bonus, in the hands of
the high-earning spouse (that is: do not include the family allowance
into income; instead, include it into a separate "refundable family
allowance" calculation, which is 100% repayable to the government
if income is over a certain level).

A side advantage of this would be to avoid taking the monthly
cheques away from the women who actually need them for spending
money because their husbands refuse to give them money; yet the
husband would be the one repaying it at the end of the year.
(Sorry to sound sexist, but unfortunately there are a lot of
families like that - the husbands gamble, drink or squirrel away
their paychecks and the wives make do on what they can, including
the baby bonus.)

Dave Sherman
The Law Society of Upper Canada
Toronto
-- 
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave