carepov

It is a mistake to add the two because the second (16%) is already included in the first (64%). Did you attend public school?

Do you have any specific concerns about the studies or methodologies? Can you please provide some links to support these claims?

hmmm...In the US, 64 % said that religious instruction was an important reason and 16% said that it was the most important reason. Where do you get 70% from? Also, your own link seems to refute your post that I originally responded to: "It is wrong to assume that all homeschoolers are religious (or that all religious homeschoolers are extremists)..."

You are misinformed about homeschooling: "homeschooling produces successful adults who are actively involved in their communities and who continue to value education for themselves and their children" https://www.hslda.org/research/ray2003/HomeschoolingGrowsUp.pdf "homeschool students are scoring well above their public school peers on standardized tests." http://www.hslda.org/docs/study/ray2009/2009_Ray_StudyFINAL.pdf These people do not seem to fit your description of homeschoolers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeschooled_people What are your homeschooling beliefs based on?

I've been to Istanbul (1998) and Hong Kong (2003), coincidently both during Christmas. Both places were great, but Istanbul was way more interesting. Also, I remember the warm hospitality of the locals. I also spent time in Cappadocia and Olympos. Turkey (1998) was #2 on my list of my best travel experiences, ahead of many other great places, but behind Israel where I flew to immediately after... ahh the memories... How much time do you have to travel?

The questions about how to tax people with or without kids are not touched by the proposed income splitting change. By raising these questions you are comparing apples to oranges. People with more disposable income should pay more tax. This is why a progressive tax system, and things like deductions for children and northern living allowance are fair. When you compare two families, one making 0 + 80 k another making 40 + 40 k and all else is equal, the two families have the same amount of disposable income and should therefore pay the same amount of income taxes. First, this is plan is not a "tax break" it is a partial elimination of an unfair tax burden. There are families with a sole earner making 50-100 k. These families are not wealthy and do not deserve to be unfairly taxed. I also challenged your claim about this bill helping wealthy families. Who makes over 100 k? AFAIK, these are mostly self-employed professionals or business owners. These families are already splitting their income! Not only is the spouse the "office manager", "earning" 50 k per year, they are splitting income with their kids. Never mind the transfer of investements and rental income. Besides, the same principle applies: why should a family that makes 0 + 200 k pay many thousands more than one that makes 100 + 100k, all else equal? This bill will help families that cannot otherwise split their income, and therefore it will mostly help those that choose to live off one employment income, 50-100 k. I agree that this does nothing for poor people, which is good because lazy moochers get enough handouts already.

You got me. One point for you. Moving on, 1. Income splitting partially recitifies the unfair over-taxtation of families one income earner compared to otherwise similar families with two incomes: Why should my family, with gross revenue of ~$80,000 pay ~$25,000 in income tax when my neighbor's family also makes ~$80,000 and pays ~$20,000? The only difference is that my family's income is from one person, while the other family has two earners. 2. If it were up to me, I would pair the introduction of income splitting with an increased tax rate for the wealthy making the change revenue-neutral. Would that be OK with you?

I agree that most people "basically like living amongst their own kind", however, to me, in this context "living" means a small group of people: family, close friends and some acquaintances. Certainly in Canada one can choose to live all their leisure/social time within "their own kind". Newcomers are not displacing any "traditional Canadian culture" they are adding to it. Who cares about the cultural touchstones of strangers?

Why spew this divisive rhetoric? First of all, some people choose to get married and have kids and have one person work at home to raise the kids, run the household, etc... No credible person that I know of has suggested that this is the choice everyone should make. Families will not select or rule out this option based on $2000 per year. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with living life this way? Second, the CRA makes no distinction between couples that live common-law or those that are married.

Don't forget France's nuclear power generation...

DId you notice that I used the word "many"? I suggest that you re-reading my post. If it were up to me, I would pair the introduction of income splitting with an increased tax rate for the wealthy making the change revenue-neutral. Would that be OK with you? Also, you and other critics don't seem to realize that most wealthy families already split their income and this policy will not benefit them.

Perhaps you are not understanding what marriage/partnership means to many Canadians. In many households, there are no separate accounts, everything that one person owns and makes is shared between the couple. The partnership is like a business or a corporation. Taxing each individual separately makes no sense, it would be like asking separate departments (sales, operations, accounting, etc..) to fill in their own tax returns.

The system has never been fair - and it never will be perfectly fair. Income splitting partially corrects an unfairness. There are many other improvements needed, especially help for the poor and single parents.

To be fair, people should pay income tax based on their disposable income. Giving deduction for dependands is fair. Housolds where all is equal (income, dependants, etc...) should pay the same income tax regardless if the income comes from one or two earners.

Since when? "Canada climbed from its lower rankings of sixth and seventh in 2011 and 2010 after coming through the financial crisis relatively unscathed, the institute’s report said" http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/prosperity-index-ranks-canada-5th-in-world-1.2821919

I know. The system would be more fair if families paid income tax. Correct. I never though of this before. All else being equal, a single parent would not deduct the spousal amount ~10 k and therefore pay about $2,000 more than a couple with kids. Unless I am missing something this is very unfair, even now and should be rectified. Currently, all families with kids that make 80,000 per year: 2 earners (40 + 40) pay ~ $20 K in taxes 1 earner (80 + 0) pay ~ $24 k in taxes 1 earner (single parent: 80) pays ~ $26 k in taxes

What? Are you saying that parents that choose to stay at home are slaves? This policy will not affect the decision to have one or two people working. It will reduce the unfairness of taxing those families that choose to have one income earner.

Of course it is not fair. A fair system would see families with equivalent incomes pay equivalent income taxes.

It looks like Canada's doing quite well: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/prosperity-index-ranks-canada-5th-in-world-1.2821919

IMO, every family (with or without kids) should file one single tax return. There should be separate tax brackets for individuals and families.

I disagree. There are certainly many families with a sole income earner making ~ 50-100 k. These are not wealthy families. And it is not fair that these families pay thousands more in taxes than similar families with dual incomes. I suspect that this policy does little to help wealthy families as most already split their income without this new policy. Business owners and professionals simply "hire" their spouses (and children) and pay them a salary. They also split income by having the lower-earning spouse claim all investment income. I agree that this does not do much to help struggling families (although some struggling families will benefit) but this policy makes our tax system fairer.

Disproportionate? Really? Disproportionate to Kenya or Lebanon?

IMO, Canada has the best immigration system in the world. Can you think of a country that has a better one? I do not think "open and generous" best describes our system. Immigrants are already selected based on their probability of successfully integrating and contributing to our society. Our system is tolerant and successful. If I understand your suggestion correctly, you would deny applicants from certain countries. I think that this policy would harm our reputation - obviously with those countries that are on the banned list. Also, Even if the policy were not racist, such a policy would certainly be called racist and more people would view Canada as a racist society.

Japan is a homogeneous society that is declining in its influence and headed for demographic disaster. Thanks to our multicultural society, Canada has a major edge in international business. Icelend is not a good comparisson as it is too small.

Harper has successfully bought my vote. Why should my family, with gross revenue of ~$80,000 pay ~$25,000 in income tax when my neighbor's family also makes ~$80,000 and pays ~$20,000? The only difference is that my family's income is from one person, while the other family has two earners. I will gladly vote Liberal if they promise to keep this "income splitting" policy.