Renegade

Except of course if you gift your child money and it earns income. Still it is amusing to me that the Finance dept defines family income to exclude a child's income. The implication being that the definition of a family excludes the children. Not exactly. They are only obligated to report spouses income. Not share/pool. It is then used to calculate eligibility for benefits as we have previously discussed. Not so. The lower-income spouse is generally only awarded alimony to the extent that the spouse has made decisions within the marriage which negatively impacts the ability to earn income (for example giving up one's career to stay home with the kids). Further, a prenuptual agreement may eliminate alimony a a consideration completely. If a spouse earned a lower income before marriage, and then earned a similarly lower income during and after the marriage, in the absence of kids, that spouse is not entiled to a portion of the higher spouse's income. Depends upon your prenup doesn't it? If you agree to keep your financial incomes and assets separate as part of your agreement, there is no reason why your wife is entitled to 50%. How can you assure me that? Are you in the legal profession? Do you have cases to cite? Yes, you keep saying that The fact is you want the law to change from the status quo. That means that what is included in pooled income is also up for debate. Refering to the current definition to support your position when you are proposing changes is meaningless. I'd like to understand from where you have derived this principle that support obligations = pooled income. Is this something you have deduced yourself or are you citing this as a legal principle?

I, on the other hand, have advocated consistancy in how the income-producing unit is determined. It doesn't matter to me if it is "individual" or "family" so long as it is consistant. What I find amusing about the Dept of Finance's definition is they don' t consider children to be part of the family. It doesn't matter how often it happens. It is the principle of how it is treated when it happens that it at issue. You are making a vast generalization. It is up to the individual arrangement between spouses on whether they are obligated to share income. Some couple may pool their income, some may sign prenuptual contracts keeping their income separate. In other families, cultural norms dictate that working children at home are obligated to contribute to the family income and expenses. Well, I don't see how you can make the generalization that money will be pooled within family members when the spouses earn it, but will not be pooled when the children earn it. Is your position the same as the position of the Finance Dept that essentially children are not part of the family?

You are pointing out inequities in the tax system. I agree they are there. Tax-splitting isn't the only way to fix them as it just creates others. You SHOULD be allowed to pay your wife $8000/child to look after the kids. This would put a parent with a stay-at home spouse on par with an individual. Do they actually define "family" in the context of a tax-return? I've only seen definitions of "dependants" and "spouse" and what constitutes an "arms-length" relationship. Even your proposal doesn't tax based upon family income, even by your definition of family. Let say the child earned the bulk of the income in one particular family. The child's income would be taxed individually and not part of the family pool.

A flat-tax would need to mean more than simply reducing the number of tiers to 1. It would also mean the elimination of deductions. The ultra-rich can sheild much of their income through structures designed to minimize or avoid tax, so while they see some beneift they would also lose many deductions. I'm not an expert on the American constitution but I don't recall that it says anything about ensuring that wealth would not be concentrated, nor do I think it addressed the issue of estate taxes. That is left for elected governments to decide and change if they so choose. While I agree with reducing the number of tax tiers, personally I disagree that the tax rate should be based upon a division of income for "necessities" and "luxuries". Such a determination is fraught with problems. The cost of "necessities" such as housing varies greatly and so it would be impossible to draw such a uniform line. I guess, I don't see why the rest of the taxpayers should have to subsidize your decision to incur additional costs (ie kids). If you wish to do so, and the government gives you any beneifts, it should be considered a bonus. It should never have been introduced for pensioners and it shouldn't be introduced generally unless it is part of a substantial tax reform that includes all family types including individuals.

The answer to the question "is it better..." is a matter of perspective. Certainly from the perspective of those who benefit, it is better, from those who don't get any tax cut,it is worse. As to your question as to when will this ever be addressed, it may never be addressed, but IMV the proper way to address it is by introducing a flat-rate income tax. Actually the number of kids don't factor in into the income-splitting proposal. It is primarily for splitting income between spouses so to have an apples to apples comparison, you should be comparing an individual (say with a $100K income) to a couple where one earner earns all the income (say $100K) to a couple where each earns $50K. In each case the total family income is $100K. Should they have the same tax liability? IMV, yes. Afterall each family faces large fixed costs for housing, food, transportation. In my experience, the incremental costs for a couple are very small over that of an individual. If you are going to argue that kids are the reason for distributing the tax benefits, then it would be more effective to give a deduction for each child, rather than splitting income between spouses.

I disagree with your view of what rights are, but even if we accept your premise, that rights are fought for and won through struggle, I can't see how you can then claim rights which you had no part in struggling for or winning. The battles you speak of occured many hundreds of years ago and was not fought by you. The only claim you have to those "rights" won is a possibly tenous one of having inherited DNA from those who actually fought the battle. Either of the actions you suggest are clearly illegal. It would seem to undermine your position to advocate illegal actions while at the same time accusing the government of being totalatarian for performing illegal actions. You didn't answer my question. What other kinds of rights are there (if any)? If the provinces and federal government were protecting "human rights", why did they do so whithout the struggle by the people you claim is necessary when rights are won? If English speaking Canadians resent "being treated like fools by our federal government", there is a fairly simple remedy: They can elect a govenment which respects their wishes. They control the majority of the voting population. If the Charter was rammed down their throat, why have they not exercised their democratic power and elected a government which has recinded or amended the Charter? The fact that it doesn't seem to be an election issue indicates that English Canadians don't feel the resentment you seem to believe. Ok, so what specific law was broken? I don't mean an interpretation of abuse by you,I mean quote the Act or Statute. Even if this is true, it is not illegal. Once in power a government can LEGALLY do what it wishes (as long as it doesn't violate existing laws). There is no LEGAL requirement that once in power it must follow the will of Canadian citizens. It may for example adopt legislation which it feels is in the best interest of the country, despite what the population thinks. The population's only recourse is to replacethe government in the next election. OK then, you are free to use the Charter to mount a challenge to the government's policy of bilingualism in the public service. Have you done so?

Pat, I agree with you 100% on this. The government should either use family income as the measure for both benefits and tax, or individual income. It is not a credible to use them inconsistantly.

This report, while informative only presents a partial picture. It only looks at the percentage of families which would benefit. Individuals are not considered "families". Ask the question another way. What percentage of taxpayers would benefit? I expect the answer is substantially less than those quoted. It is also not clear if the report includes the effect of existing income-splitting providions (eg equivalent-to-spouse deductions, spousal RRSP contributions) From the article quoted in the report: link Whatever source you want to use, only a subset of taxpayers benefit. Why is that better than a general tax reduction where 100% of taxpayers benefit? You quote at length what the current definition of family is and that it won't be changed. I don't dispute that at all, but that is exactly why I am against this proposal. It only benefits those within the subset the govenment considers a "family" and doesn't provide the same benefits for people in alternative arrangments. For example an individual for example is not considered a family of one and accorded the same tax reduction benefit. The justification for this proposal seems to be that all families regardless of distribution of income between members should pay the same tax. What I am saying is that all families regardless of distribution of income and regardless of the make-up of the family should pay the same tax. IOW, an individual making $60,000 should be considered a income-unit, the same as two spouses each earning $30,000 are an income unit, and each should pay the same amount of tax. That would be the logical conclusion of the justification provided. Anything else is a half-measure and shouldn't be supported.

I would say that municipal governments are more concerned about use of space rather than homelessness. IOW, if the homelessness could be trucked somewhere so that they didn't intefere with the use of public's space, it would also solve the municipal government's problem but not necessarily cure homelessness. It somewhat depends on how you see homelessness. Personally I don't see homelessness as a problem. I see it as a symptom of a problem. That problem being that people are unable or unwilling to improve their economic cirmcumstances. I woudl actually say that the greater ability to effect the choices an individual has is at the federal level. For example it can encourage people to move to more economically viable areas.

As you can see Pat, everyone has their own pet proposal on how to spend the surplus. It is not clear that this income-splitting proposal from Garth is anything more than his personal pet proposal.

This is a great "motherhood and apple-pie" statement, but I'm not really sure what it means. If I understand you correctly you view the "winning" of rights as a struggle and dynamic. ie we have a different sets of rights than we had in the past, and we may have yet a dfiferent set in the future. Are battles you speak of, physical battles, court battles, or what? In our modern society, how do you see these battles being fought? Do you mean by armed struggle or something else? Finally, is it your view that there is only one kind of rights? (ie what you seem to be describing are what is commonly called "civil rights"). Do you distinguish civil rights from individual rights or human rights? I guess it depends upon how you define success. Regardless, I think it is doubtful that the success is based simply on a single cause. If in your view, the struggle for rights is dyanmic as you seem to indicate, and that rights are based upon struggles with the "powers that be". It would then seem logical that when the "powers that be" demonstrate strength, they have the ability to retract previously ganted rigths. (witness the Patriot Act as an example). Are you sayng that the Canadian government acted illegally? If not then they followed the "inherited" British system you seem proud of. If their actons are not illegal, what justification do you have to call the actions "COWARDLY" or characterize the government as "totalitarian"?

Certainly an interesting statement for an anarchist to make!! Why should they be concerned?

You're probably right. People tend to only support proposals which benefit them, and justfy them after the fact for "equity" and "fairness" reasons. This one, despite satisifiying the "equity" and "fairness" concerns raised, would not be suppored because couple don't benefit. 1. Can you cite sources for your numbers? 2. Is it 30% of families or 30% of the population in each of your examples. Further is it 30% of the tax-paying population? This is why I ask for a cite fo your numbers. 3. Even if I accept your numbers as is, that 60% benefit, it doesn't really matter. The proposal as is, is nothing but a tax-shift from that 60% to the 40% rest of the tax-base. Why is that worthy of support? You are making a leap in logic I don't follow. Why is the support relationship between people when they split up or no longer live under the same roof, relevant justification to give people a tax break? If two people have no support obligations toward each other (eg via a pre-marital agreement) does that mean they should not qualify for the tax break. Help me understand your logic as I'm not seeing it. You have not even shown that this definition is universal as you have previously claimed.

And is that good or bad? Is the aim to encourage a parent to stay with the kids? What is the aim? If there is a surplus now, the question is why a portion of that surplus should be directed at a small subset of the taxpaying base. There are many other options other than making any change. For example it could be directed at a general rate cut, or debt reduction.

The status quo also means no pooled income for tax purposes. If they want to stand by the principle of pooled income then they should undertake it fully not in half measures, desipite the extent of the change required. Sorry, I'm not following you. I don't see the relevance of "living under the same roof".

I have a better idea. How about we just add the two spouses income and then tax them at the same rate as individuals. That too would give all families with the same income the same tax status/liability. On this I agree. If it is the right concept it should be implemented across the board and not just targeted as a select group such as pensioners. However, as proposed now it is simply a shift of the tax burden from couples to individuals.

Actually my question was not in the context of what the CCRA interprets. The CCRA has narrow interpretation guidelines and those guidelines are subject to change. For example the definition of spouse was extended to include same sex spouses. What we are discussing are changes to taxation policy so the determination of who it applies to, is also up for discussion. Well I guess it depends what you mean by financial obligation. I understood the justification for using family income as the basis, was because there was shared income and shared costs, not because there was a mutual obligation. Two people who buy a house together also share a financial obligation. They may or may not pool their income, subject to their own arrangment. Two spouses may have pre-nuptial arrangments which separate their incomes and assets, and release each other from any financial obligation toward each other. I'm not seeing a clear connection of why there needs to be a mutual financial obligation in order to be entitled to a tax break. Further, if I undertake to take on a financial obligation toward my destitute parents, does that mean, in your view, we qualify as a "family" are can now be taxed as one income unit? I don't dispute that. As I said we are talking about policy changes from what is currently defined. Can you please point me to the universal definition of family? Our country has recently recognized same-sex spouses as family, many countries do not. Many religions practice polygamy and all spouses are recognized as part of the family. Some cutures have a communal lifestyle where all the commune is considered a family. Yet others consider aging parents who reside with them to be part of the family. So I'd be very interested in the basis for your conclusion that there is a universal definition for family.

There was no arrogance directed in the post. It was simply an observation. There was no malice intended in using the words "fundamental disconnect", nor is it anything I'm "accusing" you of. I simply mean that the view you express on rights doesn't seem to be te same as most others. I make no judgement on which is right and which is wrong. As for telling you what rights I am taking about, I discussed with you at length many post back in this very thread. Apparently you have a short memory on the issue. I didn't make up the wikipedia article. If you actually did some research on views on rights you will see it is very representative of a consensus view. I'd like to understand what is your view on rights. Is the only rights you have are the ones the government gives you?

Why use a restrictive definition of family? Why are two siblings living together not a family?

The whole issue of income-splitting is all about giving a targeted group a tax break. It has got nothing to do with "fairness". As a country we should decide whether we want the individual unit for measuring income to be the family or it shoudl be the individual. If we decide the family, then even singles should be free to decide who is included in their family.

Leafless, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in your view of rights and that of most people. While some "rights" are accorded by governmet decree, many are inherent and independant of government and don't require the holder to struggle to earn those rights. Inalienable Rights

No, there is nothing morally reprehensible about it. We use euphemisms all the time as our way of dealing with an event which we would rather avoid facing head on. We do so not just for animals, but for our own deaths as well. ("passed-away", "passed on", "departed", "gone to a better place"...etc)

This is exactly what I'm saying. We are justifiying investment decisions without solid data backing up if that investment is better spent elsewhere or in fact returned to the taxpayer. I'm not saying I know where the funds are best invested, however when definitive statements are made such as children are the obvious investment choice, I'd like to understand how that conclusion was reached.

Why is a shrinking economy a problem if the population base is also shrinking? If the economy shrinks slower than the populaton shrinks, doesn't that still indicate people's economic output still increases? If the argument is for subsidizing children, then it has to be compared to other alternatives such as imported labour. Further, the net benefit of children must be looked at in totality. Sure the children will generate economic value, and thus taxes, but children will also cost to educate and for various beneifts. In addition, children add to the destruction of the environment. What I'm saying that I'd like to see some proof of the "obvious" and "proven" that children are a net benefit.

I'd be intrested to know how you prove this. How for example is a child provide more economic beneift than imported labour.