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