Saturn

Mr. Turner was kind enough to post the report mentioned earlier in the other thread on income-splitting. Here it is: http://www.garth.ca/news/garth-turner-inco...ecember2006.pdf Non-elderly couples who will benefit from income-splitting WITH children INCOME.....Number(in thousands).Proportion..Average tax savings <$30K..................96......................31%..............$215 30-60K...............455.......................65%.............$369 60-90K...............733......................87%..............$900 90+K.................972.......................77%............$1,362 Total.................2,257.....................73%.............$963 Total Cost to the federal gov't $2,172 million WITHOUT children INCOME....Number(in thousands)....Proportion..Average tax savings <$30K................173.......................37%.............$194 30-60K...............585.......................71%.............$412 60-90K...............760.......................86%..............$920 90+K..................831......................74%...........$1,342 Total.................2,350.....................71%.............$$889 Total Cost to the federal gov't $2,090 million What should be noted here is that these numbers do NOT account for any behavioural changes due to income-splitting and that they are an estimate for the 2007 year. Now if you look at the numbers, what you'd notice is that the tax savings due to income-splitting will be roughly the same for couples WITH children and couples WITHOUT children. The number of couples in both groups is roughly the same, the overall proportion of couples who will benefit is roughly the same, even in each income group. The average tax saving are also roughly the same and so it the cost to the federal treasury. Overall, the main conclusion here is that the likelihood of benefiting from income-splitting and the amount of the benefit is roughly independent of whether a couple has or does not have children. You'll also notice that only a third of couples with under $30K in income will benefit vs roughly 80% of couples in the $60+K groups. This is of course because most of the couples in the under 30K group already benefit from almost complete income-splitting through the spousal tax credit (which will be wiped off by income-splitting). Note too that single parents won't benefit at all, which means that close to half of all families with children won't benefit from this at all. Now the argument in favour of income-splitting is that it will benefit families with children with lower incomes and a stay-at-home parent. The numbers though show that there is very little to support this argument. In fact, the likelihood of benefiting and the amount of the benefit appear to be almost unaffected by the presence or absence of children and the families with lowest incomes are by far least likely to benefit from income-splitting. This may seem unintuitive at first but here are a couple of explanations why the numbers differ from what many people would expect: 1) The couples with lowest incomes already benefit from income-splitting through the spousal amount, so this new form of income-splitting will replace the old one resulting in no net benefit for most of these couples. 2) The majority of the benefits will go to higher income earners as demonstrated by the numbers. These are typically workers in their prime income-earning years - the late 40s and 50s, many of whose kids have grown up and left home already. In conclusion, only about half of families with children will benefit. Families with the lowest incomes are least likely to benefit. Families without children are more likely to benefit than families with children. Income-splitting is a tax cut that will disproportionately benefit couples with widely differing incomes, independent of the presence of children. It leaves out single-parent families, other unattached individuals, and two-income earner couples earning similar incomes, who won't benefit at all.

To save money or to create a shortage?

I have found my views to be quite consistant. It's one thing to argue against my points, but to just dismiss them because they are wrong to you, without even giving a reason why... that's something else. I don't know why you bother engaging in debate if your going to just wholesale dismiss everything others say without giving a counter argument. You first said that you shouldn't be paying for other people's kids and then you argued in favour of "childcare" plans that will give parents (and others) tax breaks that you will pay for. You argued that welfare should be nixed because Alberta is experiencing a labour shortage as unemployment rate is near 3% and then you go on defending another type of handout that will put workers out of the labour market because with unemployment at 6.8% this handout will have no impact. You said that the government shouldn't redistribute wealth through taxation then you argued that the government should finance the debts of people who don't know how to manage their finances, because it can borrow at lower rates, through taxation. This btw is one of the most ridiculous proposals I've heard in a long time and I'm not sure that even the Communist party will go for that. Overall, you are making it very difficult to take your arguments seriously. You jump all over the place and make it nearly impossible for others to argue for or against your position because your position is unclear and changes from day to day.

Wow. I find the comments above extremely distasteful. Is this sort of overt bigotry normally tolerated here? Or is everybody except me a victim of Zionist Mind Control? Saturn is an ultra leftist, so to his mind it is impossible for him to be a bigot. Obviously, he doesn't like Jews, but he'll probably tell you he's being very reasonable in that, and not a bigot at all. Probably some of his best friends are Jews, right? There we go. Just pointing out the fact that the majority of Canadian media is owned or controlled by Jews makes one an anti-semite. Why Argus? Is owning media some sort of a crime in your eyes? Do you find that embarrassing somehow?

It's an awful reflection on our education system when a graduate level economist can't refute the points of some accountant quack and resorts to personal attacks instead. What was your Master's Thesis on Saturn? How to debate without using facts in relation to economics? Geoff, this was a general observation, not a personal attack against you in particular. Secondly, have neither the time, nor the desire to refute your points because for one, I don't think that we speak the same language and two, you've made up your mind without looking at the facts and in cases like this the discussion typically turns into trying to dispel religious myths or beliefs or something equally impossible. However, something that even an accounting quack can benefit from is being a little more consistent in your views instead of turning 180 degrees from one day to the next, watching the direction of an argument and checking the validity of your arguments instead of just making an assumption and stating it as if somehow has to reflect reality because your observations/beliefs dictate so.

Are you an accountant or economist? Do you know how much it will cost? I certainly don't. How can you claim it won't lead to a deficit when most economists aren't even sure? Well, no one has a crystal ball to accurately predict how much it will cost. Of course, the cost will depend on the exact details of the income-splitting plan. Having worked with income and tax data a lot (but not used it specifically to estimate the cost of "complete" income-splitting) my estimate of the cost everything else remaining the same is roughly $5 billion annually. Accounting for behavioural changes (people deciding to work less or quit altogether due to income-splitting) puts my estimate somewhere between $5 and $8 billion. Garth Turner, the greatest (open) proponent of income-splitting in Parliament and the guy whose government buried the country under the largest peacetime debt, in typical conservative fashion called me crazy and uneducated for that estimate and stated that a study he had commissioned had estimated the cost at $1.5 billion. The article I quoted earlier said that a study commissioned by him (whether it's the same study or a different one) put the cost at $5 billion. I would love to take a look at this study but I doubt that I'll get a chance. And then there is another 1% drop in the GST at $5 billion and lots of military spending in Afghanistan and for equipment, and additional spending for the environment and given the record of using the most optimistic scenarios for revenues and the cost of programs of the Mulroney/Harris crowd running the this government, I think that there is a fair chance that the feds are headed for some deficit spending. Not that they will admit to it even when they are in the red and everyone knows it.

What? A government functionary can take as good care of children as a loving mother? Animals in zoos aren't treated that way. Ya, we should shut down schools 'cause they are full of evil government functionaries who treat kids worse than animals in zoos. Have you ever considered checking on whether kids who attend daycares are any worse off than kids who are (day)cared for by a parent? Of course you haven't.

I have a general question for the members here: Where do you get your facts? Is it from the media, forums and blogs, friends and relatives, or do you just make them up as you go? I don't mean to sound disrespectful or condescending, I'm just genuinely curious about your sources.

. Ah, why bother! You've learned good fiscal and economic policy and the real facts from National Post journalists (or thought you did) and urban myths and you'll keep repeating your beliefs about reality like a broken record no matter what. I find it fascinating how myths and falsehoods make their way around and I find it pretty awkward that some religiously worship them.

The sources are in the article provided. If you are not rich, then you would have saved less from the GST cut than you lost from Harper's increase in income tax rates.

Of course you can prefer to deny reality but the reality is that indeed a significant shift of wealth has occurred from the bottom 2 quintiles to the top 2 quintiles of the wealth distribution and from the under 35 age group to the over 45 age group in Canada over the last 2 decades. Not that anyone here cares about reality but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

Yes, the National Post's owner, Mr. David Asper, went campaigning with Mr. Harper in the last election. Of course, this implies that his paper (which is ran on a very short leash) is fair and balanced.

I am talking big picture, geoff, but you clearly need glasses for nearsightedness. You ought to shut up about the big picture because you don't have the slightest clue about the driving force behind modern economic success - specialization. If we all sat at home, raised our own kids and grew our own food, we'd have the economy and living standards of Canadians 100-200 years ago. If you had any clue about the opportunity costs of keeping 5 workers at home, when 1 could provide the same service, you wouldn't be writing nonsense that frankly makes you look about as bright as a black hole.

The government has an enormous debt that Conservatives piled up by overestimating revenues and underestimating the cost of handout programs. Until Conservatives learn to stop overestimating the benefits of tax cuts and underestimating the costs of vote-buying, we will all be paying 20+ cents on every tax dollar in interest and 10+ cents on every tax dollar on spouses who like to sit home because working is not worth their time. Do you really think that you've made some sort of a great discovery that economic output will double if taxes are cut in half? Have you ever considered the possibility that the impact of taxes on the economy has been studied by many experts and that tax cuts have never been found to lead to economic growth of proportions you imagine will transpire? If economic output were a linear function of tax cuts, don't you imagine that someone (besides you) would have figured that out already? No? You better run to get your Nobel prize in economics then!

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity.

Canadians' finances are a disaster because they like living on credit and don't have a clue how to manage their finances and live within their means. Why do you go to your doctor and why do you want a military if "government employees" don't provide meaningful services? Having women sit home to care for a preschooler or two when an early childhood educator can take care of 8 is a waste that takes away resources from the economy. It's like bus drivers who drive busses that can carry only 5 passengers at a time. But of course you'll never contest government handouts unless it's welfare for poor single moms, in which case you'll cry foul at the top of your lungs and you'll demand that they be forced to move to Alberta to take minimum wage jobs because their is a labour shortage. And obviously you missed the fact that income-splitting has nothing to do with childcare as moms with school-aged children and couples without children will benefit equally. Single parents and their kids won't get a thing. Did you miss that part or are you proving my point that the Conservatives can pass a vote buying plan for a childcare plan?

Here is the Conservatives' only hope, imo, to win the next election: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....efe&k=19184&p=1 Here is the biggest vote buyer that Conservatives can and may very well try to pull in the next election campaign. They will call it a measure to "fairly compensate stay-at-home parents for raising their children", to "right the injustice they've suffered by not having their work recognized up until now" and to give "middle-income Canadians well-deserved money to raise their children the best way possible". In reality, the Conservative income-splitting plan will have very little to do with parenting as single parents won't benefit from it and couples with no children will benefit from it. The plan will have very little to do with giving the middle class resources to raise their children the best way possible as the majority of the tax breaks will benefit upper and middle-upper income families (with and without children), who can clearly afford for forgo one income. The Conservatives will promise single-income couples thousands of dollars in tax savings. They will promise unattached individuals, single parents and dual-income couples that they will not have to pay for any of it. They will severely underestimate the cost of income-splitting and will claim that the surplus will cover it. A lot of spin and false claims should keep everyone convinced that income-splitting will benefit many but nobody will have to pay for it. Given that roughly a third of couples are single-income couples, income-splitting may be the single issue that could deliver enough votes for a majority. In addition, the activists behind income-splitting at the same old socially conservative organizations that want to keep women out of the workforce. Undoubtedly, giving women incentives to stay home will achieve just that and socially conservative families, where women already stay home, will be major beneficiaries of the plan. The so-con crowd will be thrilled. They didn't get a ban on gay marriage but this is the next best thing. And they will probably try to spin it as somehow benefiting the economy by "giving Canadian back more of their hard earned tax dollars because they know how to spend it best". Never mind that most Canadians' finances are a disaster and that giving people incentives to stay home at times of labour shortages is just plain stupid.

ROFLOL! Those who produced 20 pages of bashing Little Mosque on the Prairie before it even aired are now criticizing others for not having a sense of humour!

Don't fool yourself, if most media did not fully support Harper, he would have never made it to the PMs chair. Asper of CanWest went campaigning with Harper in the last election, not with Martin, and all major papers and TV channels were on Harper's side (with The Star and the CBC being the only ones that did not endorse him).

Right, throwing a million people out of their homes and land and stuffing them into refugee camps is moral values. Great values you have, Argus. In most people's value systems, that's called "ethnic cleansing". And if they are p.o.'d about it, well, they are just religious fanatics opposed to democracy and freedom. Next thing you'll be praising Slobodan for trying the same in Kosovo.

But the Jewish community has 100 times the resources the Muslim community does and the Jewish community owns most of the media in Canada. Clearly being to the Jews good side would be much more beneficial to the Conservatives than being on the Muslims' side or being neutral.

Sounds about as what one can expect from the CPC: Reintroduce all the old, do-nothing, Liberal programs to fix the environment, to keep Easterners happy. Continue subsidizing oil and gas to keep Westerners happy. Hand out beer and popcorn money to seniors and parents to keep them happy. Then the above will somehow result in a strong economy. Don't ask how and why, just trust us that they will.

But you are the first to scream in support of forcing people to have children against their wishes, no? Do you read anything I have to say? That's not at all my position on the abortion issue. I read about you being a practicing Catholic and about you opposing the evils of gay marriage and abortion, which was nothing but a murder. That's the general stance of Conservative supporters: Force people to have unwanted children but don't make us pay a penny for these children because children are their parents' responsibility, not ours. As usual, Conservatives are completely inconsistent in their opinions.

I don't deny they have a bias. I dispute its overall influence. What bias do they have? The bias that they don't endorse every action of Harper's and don't splash "Why You Should Vote Conservative" all over the TV screen?

All the big newspapers endorsed Harper except the Star. And people seriously overestimate the CBC National News influence. They often are not even in the top 10. They are not even the top rated national news. And they don't endorse candidates. Indeed, all the big newspapers endorsed Harper (except The Star). CanWest's owners (David Asper) even went on the campaign trail with Harper. All the Jewish media (except the CBC and the Star) endorsed Harper for his pro-Israeli stance (and the GST cut which would be beneficial to media corporations unlike Martin's personal income tax cut). The Jewish media came out with headlines like "Why You Should Vote Conservative" the weekend before the election and then they go after the CBC for not being biased enough. Even Larry Zolf on the CBC went from criticizing Harper for his many acts of hypocrisy to nearly worshiping him after Harper's government became the first to openly support Israel against the Palestinians. And then you wonder why MacKay meets with all foreign ministers on his Middle East trip except the Palestinian minister, whom he openly snubs. It's a very mutually beneficial relationship the Conservatives have with the Jewish media. The Conservatives support the Jewish position and the media, lead by CanWest, get to ask all the questions at Harper's press conferences and endorse him between and during election campaigns.