New Children’s Arts Tax Credit

[grammafreddy]

Rick and Andrea have two young children, Adam and Chloe. Every year, Adam plays in a minor hockey league and attends a week-long music camp in the summer, while Chloe plays competitive soccer and takes art lessons. With the introduction of the Children’s Arts Tax Credit, Rick and Andrea may claim between them up to $500 for Adam’s music camp and up to $500 for Chloe’s art lessons—this is in addition to eligible expenses of up to $500 they may claim for Adam’s hockey and up to $500 for Chloe’s soccer under the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit. As a result, in 2011, Rick and Andrea may claim a credit on up to $2,000 in expenses for their children’s activities.

http://www.actionplan.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=4114

Introducing a New Children’s Arts Tax Credit
6 June 2011



To promote physical fitness among children, Budget 2006 introduced the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit, which became effective January 1, 2007. Like physical fitness, participation in artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities can positively contribute to a child’s development. At the same time, the costs of these activities can make them difficult for many parents to afford.

To better recognize the costs associated with children’s artistic, cultural, recreational and developmental activities, Budget 2011 builds on the Government’s record of helping families by proposing to introduce a 15‑per‑cent non-refundable Children’s Arts Tax Credit.

The credit will be available for a wide range of activities that contribute to a child’s development, and that are not eligible for the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit. The credit will be provided on up to $500 of eligible fees per child in respect of qualifying children’s programs, and will otherwise be based on eligibility conditions for the Children’s Fitness Tax Credit. In this regard, the credit will be available for children under the age of 16 years for registration costs associated with participation in qualifying supervised activities. In respect of children eligible for the Disability Tax Credit, the age limit will be raised by two years and an additional $500 non-refundable amount will be provided.

This measure will apply to eligible expenses paid starting in the 2011 taxation year. It is estimated to reduce federal revenues by $25 million in 2010–11, and by $100 million in each of 2011–12 and 2012–13.

I think my signature says how I feel about this new exemption.

[steven lloyd]

I think my signature says how I feel about this new exemption.

I like how it targets families who already have to be advantaged enough to receive the credits. What income gap ?

[grammafreddy]

I've always wanted to take painting lessons but could never afford to. Now it seems I will be helping to pay for everybody else's kids' art lessons.

When I was 13, my parents paid for a few basic painting lessons for me - nobody expected anyone to help them afford it. In return, I had to do extra chores. The lessons were a privilege I had to earn.

When both my kids wanted piano lessons, I paid for it - not the taxpayers. To help me pay for it, they agree they would not go to the movies and not expect meals and treats at Dairy Queen. They had to give up something in order to help the family stay within the budget. They also did chores at home.

[steven lloyd]

Now it seems I will be helping to pay for everybody else's kids' art lessons.

And the beauty is you won't be helping families who have no hope of paying for their children's art classes - only paying back families who ware well off enough to afford them in the first place. Excellent!

[northglenmore08]

I certainly hear what you are all saying; however, I wonder if, due to this new credit, more children will have a greater opportunity to experience healthy, development-building extra-curricular art activities instead of sitting in front of a television, computer, or video game? Please remember that not all children can participate in fitness activities due to disabilities. Why should their families be left out of the tax exemption? I think this is the government's way of trying to be inclusive...how can that be a bad thing?

[grammafreddy]

I certainly hear what you are all saying; however, I wonder if, due to this new credit, more children will have a greater opportunity to experience healthy, development-building extra-curricular art activities instead of sitting in front of a television, computer, or video game? Please remember that not all children can participate in fitness activities due to disabilities. Why should their families be left out of the tax exemption? I think this is the government's way of trying to be inclusive...how can that be a bad thing?

Why should "the government" pay for art lessons or piano stuff or anything like that? If you have kids, pay for their fluff yourself. There is so much free stuff as well as arts stuff in the schools that I really don't see the need for the taxpayers to pay for any more. We already pay for a lot - and ANY child in school can take advantage of the school art, band, glee, drama, etc classes.

On top of that, this is a tax credit - meaning the parents had to pay for it themselves first, then save the receipts and claim the cost of these arts programs on their income tax. That only benefits the kids whose parents had the money to pay for them in the first place - and not any kids who come from low income families who could not afford to give their child these "advantages".

The best way to help these kids who are sitting in front of a television, computer or playing video games is to turn the damn things off and get actively involved in your children's lives.

Just in case you missed it, this tax credit amounts to an additional $125 million over three years that we, the taxpayers, will be coughing out to these parents who have the bucks to pay for the programs up front.

[Mr. Personality]

I've always wanted to take painting lessons but could never afford to. Now it seems I will be helping to pay for everybody else's kids' art lessons.

When I was 13, my parents paid for a few basic painting lessons for me - nobody expected anyone to help them afford it. In return, I had to do extra chores. The lessons were a privilege I had to earn.

When both my kids wanted piano lessons, I paid for it - not the taxpayers. To help me pay for it, they agree they would not go to the movies and not expect meals and treats at Dairy Queen. They had to give up something in order to help the family stay within the budget. They also did chores at home.

So you're syaing, "I didn't get this when I was a kid, why should they"?
It's wrong to make things better for our kids? Let's face it school based art programs are terrible.
Any type of lessons should only be for rich kids, like it was in the good ol' days?

[Captain Awesome]

It's wrong to make things better for our kids? Let's face it school based art programs are terrible.

Making things better is a great thing. Making things better for your child and making people pay for it - that`s another story.

Go ahead and enroll your kids. Just don`t send a bill to the govt.

Or in this case - dear govt, stop paying people`s bills.

[V-Rated]

My parents couldn't afford such luxuries for me, mind you, I don't recall any of my friends either - except one girl who's parents took her skiing but you know her parents paid for those activities out of their pockets.

Now when my boys were young, I did put them in hockey, but that came out of my pocket alone. The gear was bought second hand. I didn't get any monies from anyone for that, nor expect it - and I will bet neither did any of you when your kids were young.

It also irks me when at stores they always ask if you want to donate to send a low income family kid to camp... well, I would like to know why my kids weren't sent?! We were low income.

This just all falls in line with the something for nothing society we are developing. This *poor me* and *I deserve* syndrom needs to change. We all had to grow up with the lesson of - if you want something you need to work for it... and we all turned out alright, didn't we?!

[Mr. Personality]

It's wrong to make things better for our kids? Let's face it school based art programs are terrible.

Making things better is a great thing. Making things better for your child and making people pay for it - that`s another story.

Go ahead and enroll your kids. Just don`t send a bill to the govt.

Or in this case - dear govt, stop paying people`s bills.

One could argue it's a preventative measure to keep future crime rates lower.

[econovan64]

Now it seems I will be helping to pay for everybody else's kids' art lessons.

And the beauty is you won't be helping families who have no hope of paying for their children's art classes - only paying back families who ware well off enough to afford them in the first place. Excellent!

This is par for the Harper Govt. and BC Liberals as well. People who voted for them deserve these perks don't ya think. People who didn't vote for them missed the gravy train, again.

[grammafreddy]

One could argue it's a preventative measure to keep future crime rates lower.

One could TRY to argue that but I doubt it has anything to do with it.

Anyone who is a low income earner will be paying for this but probably not able to take advantage of it because they haven't got the bucks up front to pay for their kids to take the lessons or to buy the equipment, ballet clothes, musical instrument, uniforms, paints and canvasses, etc. How fair is that?

[grammafreddy]

So you're syaing, "I didn't get this when I was a kid, why should they"?
It's wrong to make things better for our kids? Let's face it school based art programs are terrible.
Any type of lessons should only be for rich kids, like it was in the good ol' days?

Not at all. You are overreacting.

Soooo .......... whose kids are you wanting to make things better for? The poor kids whose parents can't afford these things?
Such is not the case with this tax credit. This is a program for the ones who CAN afford to pay, not the ones who CAN'T afford it.

School-based art programs aren't terrible - maybe the attitude of the student is terrible. But at least they are far fairer than this tax credit is. EVERY CHILD gets the opportunity to take arts-based programs equally in the public school system - not just the rich kid.

Yes, it is wrong to make things better for your kids if you are using taxpayers' money to do it. Use your own money, not mine, to pay for private instruction.

[Mr. Personality]

School-based art programs aren't terrible

It's been a looooooooooooooooong time since you were in school, hasn't it.

[Captain Awesome]

One could argue it's a preventative measure to keep future crime rates lower.

Sure.

One can argue that anything we do is for the sake of the children. One can argue we should do everything and anything to beautify our children`s life. One can argue that children should become the holy grail of our existence and from now on anything we should be go through "- OMG, think of the children!!!" prism of thinking.

But the reality is that we're babying our children to the extreme as is, and that there are millions of dollars of grants, help, and services available to them right now, unprecedented to anything previous generations had. Paying anymore while our govt is broke is simply insane. Sure, children are precious, and their future is important. But their future isn't going to get all better just because they have a fancy arts class as opposed to just going outside for a walk or grabbing a camera and making first steps in photography. Once you get the basics lined up, the future money being tossed into that giant pit has miserable return on investment - in business terms.

One can argue that the whole "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" hysteria is getting tiresome, really.