Bryan

No, but apparently someone needs to explain growth to you. The "whole" is not one static quantity. Proportion is irrelevant, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more.

It absolutely is. RT's journalism is high standard. Claims to the contrary are sheer ignorance.

That's not my nation.

True. Obama didn't fail at all. He successfully slung a huge pile of obvious manure, and people bought it, twice. The failures are the ones who believed him and voted for him.

So you WANT to pay higher taxes?

It also assumes that it means anything. Someone else having a lot does not in any way mean I have less.

An RT link is at least slightly more credible than a CBC or Toronto Star one. That's not saying much though.

We certainly have a long way to go, but there's more transparency now than there has ever been in our history. It's the extra transparency that gives us glimpses into things we never knew anything at all about that makes us feel like there's more secrecy. Before we were blissfully unaware of what we didn't know, now we know a little bit about a lot more things -- just enough to make us want to know more.

Don't kid yourself. An awful lot of people have no interest at all in compassion or inclusiveness.

The UCCB and the fitness credit increases are part of the same plan. So is the increased tax deduction for child care expenses. Single parents can fully take advantage of those.

$75K/yr is still a lot of money if people lived within their means. They don't. People spend what they have, no matter how much it is, THEN wonder why they live paycheque to paycheque.

That's ONE of the things that allows income splitting.

Nothing in that article refutes what I said. It did, however, contain a link to even more ways that people can already split their incomes for tax savings.

You should take your own advice.

What I told you is an absolute fact of the tax code that many people already take advantage of. Where is it that you think the new plan is changing that?

It's hardly insight, you're the one who said it wasn't so. Besides that, they still will be paying more, just in a way that is more fair so that households making the same income will pay the same in tax. I just told you two ways that they effectively can. A lot of single parents do this. If you know single parents who aren't getting these benefits, they really need to get their taxes done by someone who knows what they're doing.

I didn't say they had an advantage, I said they're paying less in tax than the two income family. If A = 1 @ $80K, and B = 2 @ $80K + $40K, B is paying more total tax on those individual incomes.

Your statement that "nothing changes" for single parents is pure fiction -- there are still other parts of the new tax plan that absolutely do provide benefit for single parents. Besides that, single parents already can split their income to realize tax savings by claiming a dependant as equivalent to spouse. They can also hire a dependant to do things, and claim those expenses -- in some cases even realizing income splitting benefits that way. There is already a lot of tax relief in place for single parents. If whomever is preparing their returns knows what they are doing, they should be.

You know that hyper-partisan hyperbole you mentioned? This is a good example of that. No one is being punished. Nobody's current deductions or credits are being taken away.

Single parents with one income get benefit from some of the new tax changes too. Do they get as much as two income families? No, because they are already paying less in tax. This is about making the taxes we pay more fair, not about just giving something to everyone.

It sure is: http://o.canada.com/news/two-liberal-mps-kicked-out-of-caucus-amid-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct

I know a lot of families who either have only one income, or the wife only works part time. None of them are wealthy by any stretch. The vast majority of the people this will help are not well off at all. It's a tax break for people who really need it. And that's a problem. This plan take steps in the direction of rectifying that.

You're halfway there. Yes, I do live in a place with public insurance, which is why I made the comparison to EI which is also public insurance. The part you're still wrong about is "everyone" paying my claims. Only those who pay for the insurance fund the claims, just like every other kind of insurance. Which is exactly what I said. People who 'have a job' work for someone else, as opposed to self-employed people who are running their own business.

None of those things ever happen here. As long as your claims are legitimate, nothing about your coverage or payments changes.

Your world must be very small. There certainly are many very good teachers, but there are at least as many truly abysmal ones.