Printable View
I don't get it! Yes I understand u have to claim and I do with my daycare. But all those 16 yr olds or even college students who babysit evenings and wkends to make extra money do not claim it! I see nothing wrong with this stay at home mom who obviously doesn't need the income but is wanting to help her friend out take these kids at a low rate and not claim. That's just me though :)
First off let's not get too dramatic here as no one went into a store and stole something. In Texas it's illegal to eat a pickle in a bathtub does that mean I'm not going to do it just bc it's illegal? So let's arrest the waitress for not claiming their tips, or the hair dresser for not claiming, or the 16 year old babysitter who by law is of age to work and should claim that money too?
That's exactly how I see it! I have a cop as a client who is well aware of the law and hired a nanny who was in university and paid her under the table ? Technically they both broke the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by babydom
I would report them all.
It is illegal. Period. No justifications on level of illegal. Anyone earning more than $50 a week is legally bound to declare that income. Maybe, if every didn't enable people working illegally, the taxes we pay to cover their unpaid taxes, would not be so expensive.
But there is justifications on the levels of something that is illegal. That of petty crimes such as stealing gum or not claiming when your babysitting vs something more serious like robbing a bank. If we bothered with every little things then our taxes would stay inflated if not increase as we would have to hire more people such as reveune Canada employees, bylaw staff, police etc. Hiring a police officer with a 30 000-50 000 salary to catch gum stealers and late night babysitters.
We wouldn't have to pay for more law enforcement if people accepted and respected the laws and didn't down play them and break them because it didn't suit them. It's the mentality that 'it was only a pack of gum' that allows more and more people to down play their crimes. The pack of gum soon becomes a new pair of pants, a new cell phone, someone else's car because so many people just shrug it off like it is no big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyTwigs
Stealing that pack of gum has the same penalty as stealing a new phone as stealing most cars. The law classifies it as theft under $5,000 and theft over $5,000 on paper, later on ll your record shows is you committed the crime of stealing something under $5,000. It doesn't say "meh it was only a pack of gum so don't really worry about this charge!
The whole...well other people do it and 'well if a teenager doesn't have to claim their earnings then why should I' really just sets the tone for the allowance of breaking 'doing small crimes' bigger and bigger. Not a great mentality and no one benefits from it.
Also, pretty sure the stats show that the person that freely steals the pack of gum is often going to escalate because they get away with it and people condone it. We really shouldn't shrug this off and should hold them accountable.
Revenue Canada has it set up so the moms that are staying at home and earning a bit helping a friend by watching their children isn't penalized as much as the head CEO's making the big bucks. Typically the stay at home mom is making less than the amount they set before taxes are taken off. The system does rely on everyone being honest and contributing their fair share no matter how low it is.
I only watch one DCK these days, make peanuts doing it. I still claim what I make.
My husband is a lawyer and he says there is justification as the police department won't even become involved to a certain extent for items/issues under $20 and this would be called "petty theft" and will be charged as misdemeanor (with infractions rather than a diversion program).
So yes, I would say there is justification and difference between a pack of gum vs $300 in BestBuy electronics even though it IS under the same law.
As for you stating that people who choose to steal and get away with it will do it again - I believe that is not true. For some it may be, but you cannot make the same assumption for all otherwise there wouldn't be programs to help these people (rehab for drug addictions, etc.).
It also then doesn't make you any better than other people who claim home daycares are dangerous since that little girl died so it must be the same as all other private ones correct? Stereotype and judgement are the words.
Despite being fraudulent, IMO, not claiming income is just plain stupid! The examples given of people not claiming because "it's not much money" make no sense. If you don't make that much money you are below the taxable threshold anyway. Not paying into CPP is extremely short sighted. If you don't pay in, you don't collect. Personally, I plan to enjoy my retirement and not live on ramen.
Legalities aside, as a parent if you don't get a receipt you can't claim it as a tax deduction because you need to provide proof and identity of the provider. As a provider, not giving a receipt or claiming the income is just daft because you lose out on soooo many deductions as business expenses! And in most cases, with a small income the provider will owe little to nothing but can still pay CPP. As for a discounted rate with no receipt, WHY? You are still caring for 3 children so why lose money.
I'd just rather be the person trying to reason that it is best to be on the better side of the law than the person, like you, that spends a lot of time pulling out examples and loop holes that seemingly justify being on the wrong side of the law. Wrong is wrong no matter how much you try and make it seem right.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyTwigs
Wrong is wrong just because it is of lower severity doesn't make it right. Just because the police doesn't have the man power to fully become involved and classifies it as petty theft doesn't mean it isn't theft and doesn't make it right.
My moral compass just makes it so I can't agree with you on this.