# Ethically shaky Frugatlity



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

So here's my situation. Recently divorced with child. Currently last recorded taxable income with the government is ~ $9000 and when I file taxes this year my taxable earnings for 2014 will be around 11K. I now make about 66K per year.

Here's the deal, now that I'm divorced, even with my solid income the government classify's me as a 'family in poverty'. The pro to this is that I've been automatically enrolled in all of these poverty based programs such as the National child benefit supplement. Anyway, basically I get $400 from the government each month because of my 'official poverty'.

This is obviously ethically shaky but I'm OK with it. Middle and upper middle class people who use the TFSA and clamour for it's expansion under the guise that it helps low income people really are not ethically better so I feel like I'm in good company here.

So my question is: What else can I apply for? Free bus passes? Child care supplement? What other programs are based on Notice of assessment Total income records?

PS I live in BC

Thanks for the help!


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

You will qualify for 100% premium assistance on MSP, so that's a $72 saving per month. This is automatic, so you don't have to apply for it.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I don't even pay for that - I thought I was covered through work.... thanks for the tip. I should look into that.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Weren't you the one who made the thread about government retirees abusing privileges a month ago?

I'm faced with ethical dilemmas that don't align with my personal values all the time. My quick test is "what if everyone did this?" and "what if this was exposed to the public?"

If I understand correctly, you were officially poor in 2014 but you won't be in 2015. So you are possibly entitled to these benefits because of a rough year. Aren't these all taxable benefits anyways?


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

In that case you probably are covered already.

I gave you the wrong number -- it's $130.50 for a family of two, $72 for a single person.


----------



## Bowzer (Feb 25, 2015)

I've been in the same situation. I had extremely low earnings while I struggled with a business with 2 children. The business took off, and the subsidies continued until I filed my next tax return. That's the system.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Bowzer said:


> I've been in the same situation. I had extremely low earnings while I struggled with a business with 2 children. The business took off, and the subsidies continued until I filed my next tax return. That's the system.


Yeah, that's where I am with it now too. Sure I could say no to it but then at times when I feel I would be ethically entitled to something and I don't get it - there is no recourse. Anyway, I figure everyone is trying their best to screw the system through loopholes and what not so if I don't take advantage then I'm being kind of silly.

Maybe I should bump up my charitable contributions to compensate.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Unless you purposely lowered or misrepresented your income to collect these benefits, I don't see the ethical dilemma or loophole here. You could lobby for policy changes in your spare time if you feel compelled to.. but if you were officially poor and are just getting the benefits late.. What is your proposal to fix this "loophole"? Report our income to CRA on a monthly basis? That would probably cost more in overhead etc


----------



## Davis (Nov 11, 2014)

Income testing benefits using tax return information has a lot of advantages: it makes things very easy for applicants - no need to bring bank statements, pay stubs, rent receipts, etc. And it is easy and inexpensive to administer. It provides a number that can be verified by Canada Revenue Agency, which cross-checks against information provided by employers, banks, brokers, etc.

It also has a key disadvantage: it is not timely.

For most low-income people, last year's income is a pretty good indicator of this year's income. In your case, not so much - you will qualify for a bunch of benefits you don't need this year. 

But if at the end of 2015 you lose your job, you'll be out of luck as far as these benefits go, because for 2016, you'll be treated as having too much income to qualify.

Social assistance, which is considered to be a program of last resort, is much more timely, because it is based on monthly income reporting. But that means it also more burdensome and intrusive for the applicant, and costly to administer.

So you do qualify, don't sweat it. But don't feel you have to knock yourself out looking for more benefits to get. Giving to charity is a great way of balancing things out.

And congrats for landing a great job.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Thanks Davis. Makes sense I guess. Pretty sweet deal but you're right, the benefits are ultimately income tested so I'll be giving about half of them back anyway.

Some inefficiencies in the giveth other take away. I guess I should just enjoy the extra beer and popcorn.

Yes, my job is super great. 29 more days until I pass government tenure - then I'll feel much more secure. I don't plan on leaving this job for at LEAST 25 years, maybe 30. This job is awesome.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Agreed with other comments...unless you purposely misrepresented (i.e., lied) about your income, the system is the system and you are welcome to be part of it as designed. I don't see where ethics is an issue; you did nothing morally wrong.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I guess where i'm uncomfortable is that I see a divide between what is legal and what is ethical. I see some illegal things (like using drugs) as totally ethical and some legal things - such as circumcism as unethical. I told my brother (who is relatively poor) about this and it made him pretty angry. These programs are designed to help people legitiately in need and not a loop hole to be abused.

Anyway, I've always said that a funny thing about life is finding your level of hypocrisy that you are comfortable with (which tend to increase with age). Any Cest la vie.


----------



## rikk (May 28, 2012)

^ Out of curiosity, and because I'm killing time waiting to go for the yearly blood work, I found this ... "Your CCTB notice shows you how the CRA calculate your CCTB payment. If there is an error in the information used to calculate your payment on your notice, then the amount of your payment may be wrong too.
_If any of the information is wrong or if it changes at any time, contact the CRA as soon as possible." __... http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/bnfts/cctb/cctb_cntct-eng.html ... _which says to me you're obliged to report your updated income of $66K. No worries though, I'm sure CRA will catch up eventually, they're like that, they're in no hurry ...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I see no issue with this.

Think of all the young people still collecting GST cheques and other benefits the year after they have finished school and started working. Probably the majority and completely normal.
I made 0 dollars in 2012, and thus got nice big GST cheques until April 2014. In 2013 I made 122,000 dollars.

Just typical lag, nothing unethical.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

look at the net, government takes a lot of money from you that one may consider ethically or otherwise wrong (plenty to pick from), now you get some of that money back, so at the end you just pay them less for things that are ethically wrong ;-)

And if you still can't live with that burden just donate the money to a good cause.


----------



## Brian K (Jan 29, 2011)

I once heard a lawyer say "It doesn't matter if it's ethical, as long as it's legal". No wonder there are lawyer 'jokes'!


----------

