Pat Coghlan

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/17/germany.merkel.multiculturalism/index.html?hpt=T2

Tip: If you like shows that aren't archived as podcasts (e.g. Lowell Green), pick up a copy of Replay A/V and record the stream on your PC for later download to your iPod etc.

I agree almost 100% with this statement...although I disagree with the amount of tax incentive that would be needed. An extra $500/month of after-tax income would tip the balance for MANY families to keep a spouse at home. I'd be happy with ANY tax incentive to encourage more families to have a spouse stay home. Can you think of ONE tax advantage that has been given to families that use an at-home spouse to look after their kids in the past 25 years? ONE? Forget tax ADVANTAGES; the government doesn't even want to tax families with at at-home spouse THE SAME as their dual-income counterparts. No, in fact they pretty much always pay more...up to $5K-$9K more, depending on income. The government is hell bent on treating everyone as an individual in all aspects of the tax system...unless you try to apply for 50% of available child tax benefits as an INDIVIDUAL who happens to be married. In that case, you are forced to combine your income with your spouse's and apply as a FAMILY. Government policy is not about increasing the birthrate. It's about keeping both parents in the workforce and handing out childcare goodies to capture working women's vote. The remaining 30% of families with an at-home spouse can go to hell and be happy with their $100 "beer and popcorn" extravagance for each under-6 child.

You're assuming that a family with 3+ kids has the time and energy to also keep 2 full-time jobs...even with flexible hours etc. It won't work. We have 5 kids, so I know what I'm talking about...and my wife is working part-time, after being at home for 12 years. If you want larger families, you need to help families have a spouse stay home...possibly for years. That means, for starters, stop taxing the wage earner essentially the same rates as a single person with zero dependents. Show me 1,000 families with both spouses in the workforce, and I will show you 973 families with 2 kids or less.

Many European countries have great child care subsidies, but they also have lots of DIFs (dual-income families) and therefore low birth rates. It's very difficult to have 2 spouses in the workforce and also have more than 1-2 kids. If you ever want higher birthrates, you have to make it possible for more families to have a spouse at home...at least until all the kids are in school.

Just saw this today: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nation...article1292044/ I wonder if benefits for stay-at-home parents of twins will be doubled also. Oh, I forgot. Double zero is still ZERO.

It's very simple. Families with 2 spouses in the workforce will rarely produce more than 2 kids. If you want a higher birthrate, you have to make it easier for families to have a spouse at home. In Canada, we continue to tax individuals, yet we qualify families for benefit payments based on their FAMILY income. If you want to even attempt towards creating a more tax-friendly environment for families with children, you start by either creating a joint tax return - as they have in the US - or allow each spouse to claim 50% of available benefits based solely on his/her individual income...which for stay-at-home parents would be zero. Actually, I'd go a bit further and ask the government to at least take a position on whether they want larger families or not. That would make it much easier to judge whether tax policy is in line with stated objectives...which currently do not exist. If nothing changes, then please don't complain when you try to sell your home in 20-25 years and only get a fraction of what it is worth today.

Surely though, not having asked for status at the consolate/embassy is surely going to work against you when you try to claim status AFTER arriving in Canada. We already turn claimants back at the US border and tell them to apply from outside Canada.

Just curious. Does having a visa pretty much kill off one's case for claiming refugee status (i.e. is there a "I'm not a refugee" tick box on the visa)?

I did my part (5 kids), but if more kids is the objective, Canada's tax policy needs to change so that more families can have a spouse at home. Unless that happens, nothing will change.

What to do about the fact that, at current rates of birth and immigration, 45% of Canada's population will be over 65 in less than 40 years? http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/...html?id=1753221 Hint: Immigration isn't going to solve this problem.

We have to artificially pump up yet another government number for political purposes only? http://www.ottawacitizen.com/StatsCan+agai...2259/story.html

Lack of income to split.

Well, she pretty much stayed at home her whole life and raised 3 sons (lawyer, neurologist and chemist PhD) on her husband's salary which I'm sure was always fairly low (accountant in a small firm). What I praise about the US system is the way they tax families, i.e., where total income and number of dependents is the same, tax liability is the same.

I relative of mine - who has spent her entire life living (55+ years) and paying taxes in the US - just asked me about applying for Canadian citizenship. She said a 'lot' of people they know are doing this. Not only Canada, but Italy, New Zealand...I'd say G8. She also said that they're worried because their 401K has lost over 50% of its value, and is still falling. Putting 2 and 2 together, clearly she - and others - are looking for a place to retire with more financial and health care security. From what I've read, she can indeed apply. Her mother was a Canadian citizen, and since she is first-generation, a recent change to immigration policy will allow her to do exactly that.

Hey, if the government wants to ignore family status and simply treat everyone as an individual, then simply allow each spouse to claim 50% of the benefits. That's fine too. What's not fine is to force families to pool their incomes so that eligibility for benefits can be determined, yet prevent income from being pooled for tax purposes. Which is it going to be?

The spousal amount is constant, regardless of family income. The credit is not affected by family income...unless you don't have enough taxable income to use the entire credit. Ditto for equivalent-to-spouse credit, which creates a virtual spouse where none exists. What you *will* hear from Flaherty is that it's fair to tax individuals but provide tax credits to families, based on their combined incomes. Total BS. That's why I no longer care WHO wins elections any more. Doesn't make a bit of difference to the average family.

The only reason families are taxed differently is because family income isn't taxed, only individual income. If the government doesn't want to recognize family income for tax purposes, then stop recognizing it for benefit calculations. If the government WANTS both spouses in the workforce, they should state that as an objective somewhere.

Now you're thinking like me. I'd like to see just 2 tax brackets. All income below a certain threshold (varies, depending on number of family members) would be deemed non-discretionary (needed for food/shelter/clothing) and taxed at one rate, while all income above the threshold would be taxed at a slightly higher rate. Period. Very little wiggle room for politicians to fiddle with rates, but then, they might not like this plan for exactly that reason. There are reasons, but I'm not sure if you'd agree with them (encourage formation of family units etc., occupy 1 residence vs 2, produce children etc.).

While families with a 50/50 split pay the *least* taxes, your split doesn't have to be 100/0 to be disadvantaged. You pay more taxes if your split is *anything* other than a nice 50/50. A family with a $80K and a $20K income pays a lot more tax than a family with two $50K ones, yet they incur all the additional (non-deductible) expenses as the dual-$50K income family. I will make a note of the fact that you agree that treatment of income for benefit and taxation purposes should be the same but, as per the title of this thread, this is not achievable without significant tax reform.

I am not motivated purely by self interest. I will benefit a lot LESS today from such a change, than 8 years ago. Back then, my wife was at home with our 5 kids (all under-16), I had a 6-figure salary, I paid virtually the same taxes as a single person with zero dependents and $8,000 MORE in taxes than families with the same income but split between both spouses. Today, my eldest is in 2nd year at Queens and working to pay much of her own way, my 2nd oldest just started her first part-time job, my wife works 20 hours per week and our youngest (twins) will be 9 this year. Our tax *penalty* vs families with a 50/50 income split is has dropped by about 50%. So, we managed to raise our kids without daycare. We could not do it now on my (lower) salary, but I would like to see as many families as possible have the same opportunity. If the government doesn't want to treat all *families* the same for tax purposes, then do the complete job and let each spouse claim 50% of available benefit payments. They can't just sit there and maintain the status quo. Well, they can, but any party that does so cannot expect any support from me, financial or otherwise.

I wouldn't treat the single parent the *same* as a 2-parent family with the same aggregate income. You couldn't anyway, given all the other variables (alimony, child support etc.). That's for another discussion. I would like to see all 2-parent families with the same total income have the same tax liability. Perhaps one way to handle it is as I've said before - there should be only 2 tax brackets per family class (single, single-parent, two-parent, couples etc.). If there were only 2 tax brackets, much of the unfairness that you are concerned about would vanish. As per the subject of this thread, we need REFORM, not more FIDDLING with tax rates.

Well, look at Molly's post above. Both spouses are thrown into the same income "pot" for benefits, but taxed as individuals. Her income could be zero, yet their family could receive zero benefits if her husband's income is high. The government should come clean and either treat EVERYONE as an individual, or treat all families in similar circumstances the same. What we have is a system that treats everyone as an individual for tax purposes, but refuses to let each INDIVIDUAL claim 50% of available benefits. You have to first be lumped into an income "pot" with your spouse. Can you think of a reason why two familes with the same total income should receive identical benefits, yet have a $5,000 difference in tax liability? Before you answer, keep in mind that ALL pensioners couples have the same tax liability. Not so for families with young children.

I've been watching various tax cuts implemented over the past 20 years. As a CPC supporter, I'd have to say Paul Martin's re-jigging of tax brackets and indexing them to inflation had more impact than most other "fiddling" with tax cuts. Now, it's time to move to US-style joint tax returns, instead of just more fiddling. Pensioners have it, and it's time ALL families with the same income pay the same taxes, where all else is the same (number of spouses and children). If they don't do THAT, or, if they want to continue ignoring family status and try to treat everyone like an individual, then allow each spouse to claim 50% of available benefits based solely on his/her income...which may be zero.