Tag Archives: budgets

Why I Don’t Expect People to Buy Me Christmas Presents

Posted on by

Every year my children get reminded well in advance of Mother’s Day that I’d like a hug, and possibly a hand-made note or card but that I definitely do NOT want anything from a store. Fortunately for me, they are too lazy considerate to go against my wishes and we don’t end up with a lot of unwanted stuff around here. Similarly, I don’t expect a huge pile of bags or boxes under the tree at Christmas. I have almost everything I want and personally I think I am a royal pain to shop for.  Here are some of the reasons why I don’t expect people to buy my holiday presents.

I don’t particularly like clothes. I have some. I would wear newer ones if I had them but I don’t want anything.

I don’t drink alcohol (any more; I drank moderately in my uni days.) I do use Chambord Royale in fudge but it takes a fairish amount of time to use up a bottle.

I don’t smoke legal or otherwise-listed substances.

I have several pieces of good jewellery and a few more of costume. My engagement ring is beautiful and my custom wedding ring was made by a person who worked with my family for many years so it is both beautiful and brings warm feelings of remembrance. I have no urge to replace either. My other ring is worth less than $10 and is priceless. Like clothes, I would accept and occasionally wear new jewellery but I don’t actually want anything.

I don’t wear or use a watch.

I don’t use a cell phone or tablet, handheld or mp3 player nor do I want one. Our “family” laptop, purchased in 2008 is still going strong.

I have a fairly recent boat anchor. I just retired my 1998 computer and re-homed my Tandy 2000 and feel no urge to replace either. I expect the newest one will last for at least 10 years if internet technology doesn’t sideline it (which is more or less what happened to the 1998.)

I have a camera and a zoom and macro lens. Until I become significantly better using what I have, I don’t see any need to spend any money on newer equipment. (I doubt I will actually ever need better equipment but it’s possible: I didn’t see needing to replace my film Nikon with a digital one but eventually that did happen.)

We have so many ornamental objects that we have gradually been giving them away keeping only those made by friends and relatives. Having talented people in our circle means the house is full of beautiful objects: it only makes it difficult sometimes because there are almost too many.

Within certain unpleasant dietary restrictions, I love food and can and will enjoy any given. It’s not a need, though, just a pleasure.

Although I have travelled a lot I don’t particularly enjoy it for several reasons. And I always have a vague feeling that I am contributing to many of the world’s problems when I travel far. I think the internet and the explosion of high quality films have offered me a better choice. For example, I would be devastated if I discovered I had accidentally introduced white-nose syndrome to North American bats. Far better for me to watch video of someone else’s visit to the Antarctic or Galapagos than to go myself and increase the stress burden on the wildlife there.

I don’t watch sports enough to want to see anything professional “live.”

I don’t golf, play tennis, sail, downhill ski, water-ski, horseback ride, play hockey or other team sports. All of the sports I like do not require memberships or fees. (For example, swimming, hiking, cross country skiing, recreational cycling, tobogganing, and flat-water canoeing.) I rarely need new equipment for any of them either.

I don’t belong to a gym. We have equipment for what we need in our home and in our garage.

I like attending the occasional live theatre or music production but I wouldn’t complain if I could never seen another live performance. I do enjoy attending school and amateur productions and would miss those.

I enjoy visiting zoos, aquariums, museums, galleries and various types of historical, cultural and biological buildings, parks and preserves. Almost all of them, though, can also be visited for free if I couldn’t afford entrance admission. Tickets to something would always get used and enjoyed but I could easily deal with it if I could no longer go again.

To be honest, the two things I like best are spending time with people who matter to me and spending time observing nature. Neither of those activities has a high cost. And while there are gifts I can and do receive related to both they aren’t as simple to get as, say, a new iPad.

So I will be happy if I get some hugs for Christmas and hopefully a handmade gift or two. And I will love the chance to spend time with friends and family. If the weather cooperates, a few hours outside would also be welcome. I will never forget the Christmas when a friend and I were cross-country skiing through a lightly falling snow when a Great Horned Owl floated over us to the shelter of a pine. Truly the best things at Christmas don’t come from a store.

PS One of my children just read part of this over my shoulder and commented: but you do know that *I* want an iPad, a new camera, a laptop, clothes, a nice watch, and new clothes for Christmas, right? And yes, I was aware of that.

Related Reading

Join In
Is it easy for people to buy you presents at a store? Or are you the bane of your loved ones shopping list? Please share your style with a comment.

Deliberately Misleading Government Ads About Tax Breaks Anger No-Young-Children Canadians Needlessly

Posted on by

Here we go again. The Federal Government has announced some new income tax changes in a way that grossly over-states what is really on offer. The ads and discussion will focus on some totally misleading numbers and will anger people who no longer have (or never had) children under 18: I get so tired of this.

Why Announce a $50 000 Tax Split If It Has No Meaning Whatsoever?

In this current round of misleading announcements, the Federal Government has said it is proposing a bill which will allow 2-parent families to move $50 000 of income from one spouse’s tax return to the other.

You can practically see the steam rising from the ears of the millions of Canadians who won’t be able to take advantage of this change.

But is the number $50 000 worthy of being announced?

NO. Because the impact of that shift is limited to a maximum benefit of $2 000!

The announcement should have been: Tax change allows families with children under 18 to save up to $2 000.

That’s it. It should not have ever quoted a misleading number like $50 000.

Here’s why.

Why the $50 000 Income Sharing Option is Totally Bogus

I only have access to 2013 tax software to run some tests with but here’s the case I reviewed:

  • One parent is earning $125 000 a year.
  • One parent is earning $25 000 a year.
  • Two children under 18.
  • Various normal types of deductions and small additional income amounts from Canada Savings Bonds etc.

How much should the higher-earning parent shift to the lower earning parent to save $2 000 in FEDERAL income tax?

(Note the proposed tax changes do not reduce provincial taxes at all.)

If they shift $18 000 in earnings from the higher earning spouse’s tax return to the lower, they save $1 667 in federal tax. (NOTE: The actual 2014 savings will vary depending on the 2014 tax return and some other factors.)

So they should keep going, right?

If they shift $30 000, they save $1 667.

What?!

If they shift $50 000 they still save $1 667.

Why??

Because after they shift $18 000 both of the family member’s are in the same tax bracket. Shifting who pays tax on it does nothing. (Many pensioners with near equal incomes are familiar with this.)

Here’s another case:

  • One parent is earning $125 000 a year.
  • The other parent is earning $0.

If they shift $50 000 to the lower earning spouse, they should get more than $2 000 back but they can’t.

So what do they have to shift to get $2 000 back?

For the example test case for 2013 taxes that I’m using, they only have to shift $18 500 to get the $2000 in federal tax savings.

So why announce you can shift $50 000 in income if it makes no difference!?

Because it sounds better! Because it might win votes! Because it’s a nice big sounding round number!

(And I suppose if I ran a few dozen cases, I’d probably find because it is the amount you need to shift between spouses under one or two circumstances to get the maximum $2 000 savings.)

I hate this kind of electioneering!

Why don’t they just announce, a new tax savings of up to $2 000 for parents of children under 18 who have very disparate incomes?

They don’t because $2 000 doesn’t sound that amazing, does it? It’s not even enough to top out one RESP contribution for a year.

Other Examples of an Inflated Unrealistic Tax Announcements

This is not the first outrageous announcement the government has made. How many people have seen ads telling them that families can use a $500 Children’s Fitness Tax Credit per child on their federal income tax return?

But what is the actual amount the parent saves? It sounds like $500. But the real savings is $75.

That is a $425 difference between what people THINK parents are getting and what they may be receiving.

It sounds like a family with three children could get $1500 back. In reality they get back at most $225 on their federal taxes.

Another example is the Adoption Tax Credit. It sounds amazing: $11 669! But that’s not what the parents get back. If they have $11 669 in applicable adoption expenses they can get back up to $1 750 on their federal income taxes. But again, announcing a savings of less than $2 000 isn’t the kind of big splashy number the political parties want to trumpet to the media.

What Is the Serious Negative Effect of these Intentionally Misleading Tax Announcements?

The real problem with this steady stream of misleading tax announcements is that it

  • doesn’t help parents that much
  • makes everyone who isn’t a parent at this time to children in that age group seethingly angry

The people who do not get any tax break see the big numbers:

  • $50 000 tax splitting!
  • $1000 per child sports tax savings!
  • $500 per child arts tax savings!
  • $10 000 (and more with inflation adjustments) per child for eligible adoption expenses!

And they think they are getting royally ripped off.

They don’t see

  • MAXIMUM $2 000 but most of you won’t get that much income splitting credit
  • $150 per child sports tax rebate
  • $75 per child arts tax rebate
  • $1 750 adoption expense tax rebate

Which would let them think, gee, is $150 back really going to pay for a kid’s skating, swimming, hockey and soccer fees for year?

Does $75 buy a lot of music lessons?

Does a child eat and require fewer clothes than $2000 a year provides?

If it costs over $11 000 to adopt a child is saving $1 750 really going to open more homes to children?

It just builds resentment against young Canadian families without really giving them much.

I wish there was a law against it! Some kind of “truth in advertising” law that would stop the government from playing this head-game with Canadians and setting us against each other.

Related Reading

Join In
Do you hate government propaganda? Do you have other examples of misleading announcements and ads you’d like to share? Please join in with a comment.