Federal Tax Reform: A Serious CTF Proposal

[Renegade]

The government apparently feels the need to level the tax playing field for single-parent families. Perhaps you're familiar with the equivalent-to-spouse exemption. Like, what the hell is that?

Actually it is not called "equivalent-to-spouse" anymore. It is called "amount for eligible dependant" and that similar deduction is also available to families where it is predominantly one adult earning. So if you think that is sufficient, why are you advocating for income splitting? If it were up to me I'd get rid of the "amount for eligible dependant" or spousal amount.

Also, the biggest "need" the government feels is to pander to its voting base, which is how we got this mess of a system to begin with, so forgive me if I am not moved by what the governmet "feels the need" for.

Okay, how about this. Every "family" gets a $10K exemption per family member, and all families pay the same tax on their combined incomes?

In my case, there are 7 in our family, so the first $70K of our income would be tax-exempt. We would not expect any other benefit payments or deductions.

You apparently want the same rules for all types of families, so how about that? Sign me up.

Why should each family member get an exemption? Why should anyone get any exemption at all? You choose how big a family to have. Why should the rest of the taxpayers support your choices by providing you an exemption.

I'd give you a low-rate flat tax, no exemption for size of family. Still want to sign up?

Edited February 6, 2008 by Renegade

[Hydraboss]

I think what we need is a single earner exemption.

$100,000 tax exemption for a non-working spouse

$25,000 taxable surcharge for every non-working child (regardless of age)

That would mean that the first $50,000 I earn would be tax free (because my wife would quit her job of course and I have two kids).

Sign me up.

Now Pat (if his wife didn't work) would have to pay extra tax on a surcharge of $25,000.

If his wife works, then he would have to pay extra tax on a surcharge of $125,000.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. Sign him up.

Still think it's okay to treat different family structures by different tax rules?

[Pat Coghlan]

Actually it is not called "equivalent-to-spouse" anymore. It is called "amount for eligible dependant" and that similar deduction is also available to families where it is predominantly one adult earning. So if you think that is sufficient, why are you advocating for income splitting? If it were up to me I'd get rid of the "amount for eligible dependant" or spousal amount.

Also, the biggest "need" the government feels is to pander to its voting base, which is how we got this mess of a system to begin with, so forgive me if I am not moved by what the governmet "feels the need" for.

Why should each family member get an exemption? Why should anyone get any exemption at all? You choose how big a family to have. Why should the rest of the taxpayers support your choices by providing you an exemption.

I'd give you a low-rate flat tax, no exemption for size of family. Still want to sign up?

You want to treat a single taxpayer the same as someone who has several family members to support, by the sound of it.

We almost have that right now. If the primary income earner's salary is high enough, all benefit payments are clawed back and you're left with only the spousal exemption, which apparently you'd like to do away with also.

In order to get to your ideal tax world (will never happen, btw) you'd also have to elminate the very generous deduction (not even a credit) for daycare expenses. Good luck with that one.

[Pat Coghlan]

I think what we need is a single earner exemption.

$100,000 tax exemption for a non-working spouse

$25,000 taxable surcharge for every non-working child (regardless of age)

That would mean that the first $50,000 I earn would be tax free (because my wife would quit her job of course and I have two kids).

Sign me up.

Now Pat (if his wife didn't work) would have to pay extra tax on a surcharge of $25,000.

If his wife works, then he would have to pay extra tax on a surcharge of $125,000.

Sounds perfectly fair to me. Sign him up.

Still think it's okay to treat different family structures by different tax rules?

Where the rules make sense, yes. Yours don't.

I'm in favour of a system based on ability to pay. In other words, the same logic that tax-delivered benefit payments are based on (family income and # of dependents). Not sure what yours is based on.

The problem with the current system is that we only look at family income for benefit eligibility, not tax liability. If you're going to use individual income to calculate tax liability, then let each spouse claim 50% of available benefits, based solely on his/her income.

[Pliny]

I'm in favour of a system based on ability to pay. In other words, the same logic that tax-delivered benefit payments are based on (family income and # of dependents). Not sure what yours is based on.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. - Karl Marx.

[Renegade]

You want to treat a single taxpayer the same as someone who has several family members to support, by the sound of it.

Yes that is the logical extension of taxing family income. The "Family" becomes the income earning unit not matter how large or small that family is. Of course with a flat-tax no exemption system, the distinction between taxing family income or individual income becomes moot.

We almost have that right now. If the primary income earner's salary is high enough, all benefit payments are clawed back and you're left with only the spousal exemption, which apparently you'd like to do away with also.

In order to get to your ideal tax world (will never happen, btw) you'd also have to elminate the very generous deduction (not even a credit) for daycare expenses. Good luck with that one.

Yes virtually all deductions should be eliminated in the ideal world. They only serve to distort behaviour and complicate the tax system. Yes I agree, it will likely never happen because I said the government is motivated by pandering to gain votes, not by what makes sense.

I'm in favour of a system based on ability to pay.

In many ways you don't have that now. Does someone living where housing cost are high get a tax break? Does someone with a high car pament qualify for a deduction? In fact it is the young who (in general) have the most difficulty making ends meet (because of mortgages, young kids, student loans, etc) yet it is the old that we give a tax break to. Why? votes.

Personally, if we are going to tax income at all, it should be based upon ability to earn rather than ability to pay. The first is way more measurable than the latter, and trying to do the latter causes behaviour where income is disguised or hidden to avoid taxes.

[Pat Coghlan]

In many ways you don't have that now. Does someone living where housing cost are high get a tax break? Does someone with a high car pament qualify for a deduction? In fact it is the young who (in general) have the most difficulty making ends meet (because of mortgages, young kids, student loans, etc) yet it is the old that we give a tax break to. Why? votes.

The old didn't really receive much in the way of tax breaks in the past. Are you referring to the new pension-splitting provision?

[mcqueen625]

Barbara Yaffe wrote an intelligent column about tax reform:Link

So what of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation proposal? Here's a link to their press release.

What's involved?

The CTF wants to simplify federal taxation and reduce federal income taxes from four rates to two rates. Sadly, the phrase "flat tax" has come to mean "single rate" or "simple tax" or even "no cheating".

Flat rate, two rates or four rates - who cares.

The CTF has a very smart proposal. The CTF proposes that the federal government raise the personal exemption to $15,000 and then remove most of the tax deductions we now have. For example, the CTF wants to eliminate the following deductions:

These deductions merely complicate our tax forms and make life difficult for taxpayers. They are forms of vote-buying and social-engineering. (The government tries to induce good behaviour through the tax system.) And note: Many of the tax deductions cited are due to the Harper government.

Under the CTF proposal, what deductions would be allowed in addition to the $15,000 personal exemption?

No deductions for union fees, moving expenses, northern residency, textbooks, tuition fees. (If I were the CTF, I'd take away the senior credit. Why should older people pay less tax than younger people? Most older people are richer anyway.)

Critically, the CTF argues that the tax system is not the way to correct for injustices in society. If we - as a society - want to help certain people, then we should tax everyone and help those who need help. We should not use the tax system as away to help people. If we do so, this is an invitation to people to fudge their income declarations. Let people try rather to fudge their subsidy claims. The onus is on them, not the tax collector.

In the same sense, the CTF suggestion simplifies the lives of many Canadians and the CRA. Many Canadians would not have to pay any federal income tax at all. If we eliminated payroll taxes such as CPP/EI, then the federal government would need to know nothing about them. Employers could pay them over or under the table because there would be no difference.

If the federal government adopted the CTF's proposal, it would be a revolution in Quebec. Thanks to Bernard Landry, the Quebec income tax form is already more complicated than the federal tax form. The CTF proposal would make the difference more stark - the federal form would be simpler and fewer people would bother. Does this matter?

Some people - including me - have argued that a measure of a civilized society is whether people pay taxes. For some, we should all pay taxes because then we all have a stake in the system. IMHO, paying taxes is not a reminder to everyone that government is a collective enterprise and we are all entitled to government services. IMHO, poor people should not pay tax at all. The measure of a civilized society is whether those who should pay taxes indeed pay their tax. The measure of a society is how the majority treats the minority.

Sorry for my Canada rant.

----

On CBC Radio, I have heard nothing about this CTF proposal. Instead, CBC Radio news has gone into detail about the Gaza strip and Egyptian and Israeli embargoes. The CBC pays to have a (unilingual anglophone) reporter abroad full time reporting about Palestinian affairs. But the CBC has no one reporting about an intelligent proposal to change Canada's federal tax system.

We pay $1 billion every year for Radio-Canada/CBC. English-Canadians are very poorly served.

It is quite obvious from your comments that you have not bothered to visit the hundreds of food banks and soup kitchens across Canada lately to observe the many seniors and working poor who are forced to use these agencies so they don't wind up starving to death. Your contention that everyone should pay taxes is naive at best , and fais to realize that many people already have to make a choice of paying the power bill, buying nedded medications or puuting food on teh tabel. No just socienty should allow that to happen. The federal government made a commitment about 20 years ago to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, yet the number of people living in poverty has increased significantly since that time. The only people who seem insulated from the effects of this are the affluent who care only about themselves.

Maybe we should start firing some of these useless overpaid executives, and put the money they are paid into the pay envelopes of the people within those company's who actually do the work.

Now as far as the CBC is concerned, I agree with you, and since they want the benefits of selling commercial airtime, they should be made to either go commercial-free similar to PBS, and operate solely with subscriber donations, and they should be totally cut off from taxpayer's money.

[mcqueen625]

Geoffery: "Diminishing returns, not monetary policy. Both Brazil and China actively fight inflation."

What does that mean, when the reality is that inflation really has no affect on teh affluent, because they in many cases get to write-off their expenses, while most Canadians are not afforded that option, and are taxed on our incomes with virtually no deductions beyond the personal exemption?

Of course China at least fight inflation, it's called communism where all people work for the state for low or starvation wages, using children in many cases. My family has decided since the junk coming into North America from China is either tainted or downright dangerous, that we will check the labels, and if it is made in China, it stays on the store shelves.

[Renegade]

The old didn't really receive much in the way of tax breaks in the past. Are you referring to the new pension-splitting provision?

No, even before there was pension splitting there was the "age amount" and "Pension income amount" (Schedule 1)

[Hydraboss]

Where the rules make sense, yes. Yours don't.

I'm in favour of a system based on ability to pay. In other words, the same logic that tax-delivered benefit payments are based on (family income and # of dependents). Not sure what yours is based on.

The problem with the current system is that we only look at family income for benefit eligibility, not tax liability. If you're going to use individual income to calculate tax liability, then let each spouse claim 50% of available benefits, based solely on his/her income.

Pat, my imaginary rules make every bit as much sense as yours. The difference is that you favor tax rules that favor you. I believe in fairness across the board (I would end up paying substantially more as a result of my tax scheme).

Ability to pay is socialism. Pliny nailed the quote.

[Pat Coghlan]

Pat, my imaginary rules make every bit as much sense as yours. The difference is that you favor tax rules that favor you. I believe in fairness across the board (I would end up paying substantially more as a result of my tax scheme).

Come on, get serious.

"My" rules simply require the same tax burden on all families with the same income, allowing for reasonable deductions. You don't have to look far to find "my" rules. This is what happens in the US where, unlike in Canada, a family with 3 kids and a $100K aggregate income is NOT taxed like a single person with a $100K income AND all such families have identical tax liabilities which, naturally, are lower than those of single filers.

BTW, before you attack the US system, keep in mind that the joint filing provision provides LESS of an advantage to joint filers vis-a-vis single filers than the new pension-splitting scheme in Canada.

When you claw back virtually all the benefit payments and have only a spousal exemption (in Canada), the $100K family pays pretty much the same taxes as a single person which, according to you, is desirable.

Watch what happens as people catch on to the big tax break (pension splitting) now afforded to pensioners as of the 2007 tax year. This has made the playing field very uneven. Rather than eliminate it, I would not be surprised to see some form of joint tax return introduced in Canada. If not this year, quite likely within 3-4 years.

[Hydraboss]

When you introduce cockeyed schemes like pension splitting, it only confuses matters further. The current tax system allows for far too many exemptions for this and that. You want tax breaks for families. Seniors want tax breaks for seniors. Politicians get 1/3 of their income tax free.

It's all BS.

If a family has one earner making $100,000 then they should pay X tax.

If a family has four earners making $100,000 combined then they should pay X tax (not Y or Z).

If a family has a combined income of $200,000 then they should pay X x 2 tax.

Simple.

You have failed to explain why families or anyone else deserves more of a free ride than a single person. It is the income that is supposed to be taxed, not the individual.

[Pat Coghlan]

When you introduce cockeyed schemes like pension splitting, it only confuses matters further. The current tax system allows for far too many exemptions for this and that. You want tax breaks for families. Seniors want tax breaks for seniors. Politicians get 1/3 of their income tax free.

It's all BS.

If a family has one earner making $100,000 then they should pay X tax.

If a family has four earners making $100,000 combined then they should pay X tax (not Y or Z).

If a family has a combined income of $200,000 then they should pay X x 2 tax.

Simple.

You have failed to explain why families or anyone else deserves more of a free ride than a single person. It is the income that is supposed to be taxed, not the individual.

Because, unlike a big house or a car, you can't simply run away from your dependents. Ask any divorce lawyer. If I have a bunch of kids and you have none, and our incomes are the same, there are other people (dependents) who have a claim on my income, while your income is 100% yours. You can't just "ignore" the fact that a good portion is earmarked (legally) for the support of those dependents and therefore cannot ignore the fact that I don't have as much available to fork over to the tax man. If the government levies a $40K tax on your income and mine, my family may not have enough money left over for food, shelter, clothing and transportation. We simply don't have the same ability to pay.

Is there a country on the planet in which the tax system treats a family like a single person?

Your "simple" example assumes that there is no consideration given to the number of family members (no exemptions, deductions etc.) and a flat tax. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think this applies anywhere on planet earth today.

Wouldn't "what's found on earth" form a reasonable framework for a discussion of tax reforms?

[Renegade]

Because, unlike a big house or a car, you can't simply run away from your dependents. Ask any divorce lawyer. If I have a bunch of kids and you have none, and our incomes are the same, there are other people (dependents) who have a claim on my income, while your income is 100% yours. You can't just "ignore" the fact that a good portion is earmarked (legally) for the support of those dependents and therefore cannot ignore the fact that I don't have as much available to fork over to the tax man. If the government levies a $40K tax on your income and mine, my family may not have enough money left over for food, shelter, clothing and transportation. We simply don't have the same ability to pay.

So Pat, did the government or some other entitiy hoist those dependants on you and force that financial responsibility on you or did you choose to have dependants of your own free will?

[Pat Coghlan]

So Pat, did the government or some other entitiy hoist those dependants on you and force that financial responsibility on you or did you choose to have dependants of your own free will?

Pretty much. They're here, and I have to support them.

From a tax point of view, we should just overlook them, at treat me like a single person, right? First, show me a country on the planet that does so. If you're going to take a position, it would help if you can find at least one other country that shares your view.

Governments have tried to take children out of the tax system, but they're still here despite their best efforts (replacing deductions with credits etc.).

I'd be happy if the government would just be consistent, and look at tax liability the same way they look at benefit eligibility (based on family income).

[White Doors]

It is quite obvious from your comments that you have not bothered to visit the hundreds of food banks and soup kitchens across Canada lately to observe the many seniors and working poor who are forced to use these agencies so they don't wind up starving to death. Your contention that everyone should pay taxes is naive at best , and fais to realize that many people already have to make a choice of paying the power bill, buying nedded medications or puuting food on teh tabel. No just socienty should allow that to happen. The federal government made a commitment about 20 years ago to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000, yet the number of people living in poverty has increased significantly since that time. The only people who seem insulated from the effects of this are the affluent who care only about themselves.

Maybe we should start firing some of these useless overpaid executives, and put the money they are paid into the pay envelopes of the people within those company's who actually do the work.

Now as far as the CBC is concerned, I agree with you, and since they want the benefits of selling commercial airtime, they should be made to either go commercial-free similar to PBS, and operate solely with subscriber donations, and they should be totally cut off from taxpayer's money.

Your assertions, while almost making me cry and feel ashamed, are simply not true - poverty has seen real, significant improvement in the last 10 years.

[Pliny]

Because, unlike a big house or a car, you can't simply run away from your dependents. Ask any divorce lawyer. If I have a bunch of kids and you have none, and our incomes are the same, there are other people (dependents) who have a claim on my income, while your income is 100% yours. You can't just "ignore" the fact that a good portion is earmarked (legally) for the support of those dependents and therefore cannot ignore the fact that I don't have as much available to fork over to the tax man. If the government levies a $40K tax on your income and mine, my family may not have enough money left over for food, shelter, clothing and transportation. We simply don't have the same ability to pay.

Should have thought of that before you took on the responsibility. The family did have preference and even baby bonuses when population frowth was encouraged.

Is there a country on the planet in which the tax system treats a family like a single person?

Lichtenstein.

Your "simple" example assumes that there is no consideration given to the number of family members (no exemptions, deductions etc.) and a flat tax. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I don't think this applies anywhere on planet earth today.

Lichtenstein

Wouldn't "what's found on earth" form a reasonable framework for a discussion of tax reforms?

Not necessarily and especially not if it is an artificial framework. Should we keep our present use of oil in transportation because it is "what's found on earth"?

Pat, your initial assumption that government is there to guide us to prosperity or level the playing field is what is in error. It is primarily there to be the agency of government and remain the agency of government. It's policies, plans and objectives have this primary consideration above all others. It is necessary for it to appear benevolent, self-effacing and altruisitic. It is the only constant.

[Renegade]

Pretty much. They're here, and I have to support them.

Yes, they're here, you chose to have them, and YOU have to support them. So why do you feel that other taxpayers should share in the responsiblilty you undertook by providing a deduction which offloads some of that cost from you?

From a tax point of view, we should just overlook them, at treat me like a single person, right?

IMV yes. You chose to have them, you should get to pay for them.

First, show me a country on the planet that does so. If you're going to take a position, it would help if you can find at least one other country that shares your view.

Frankly I'm not an expert in what other countries tax regimes are doing nor is it relevant. Most democratic government create tax laws, not based upon what can be logically justified, but by what it takes to keep them in power and cater to their voting base.

If you want to base your argument upon the basis of what is "fair", explain why it is "fair" that other taxpayers should pay for your kids, not what other countries do. There are several countries that have no income taxes at all, should I base an argument for no income tax in Canada simply because some other country does so?

I'd be happy if the government would just be consistent, and look at tax liability the same way they look at benefit eligibility (based on family income).

I think this is a fair ask, and I would generally agree subject to the caveats I have already pointed out.

[Renegade]

Maybe we should start firing some of these useless overpaid executives, and put the money they are paid into the pay envelopes of the people within those company's who actually do the work.

"we" can fire some of these useless overpaid executives by buying enough shareholder equity to control the company. Go do so, then you can fire away at will.

[Renegade]

*duplicate

Edited February 7, 2008 by Renegade

[Pat Coghlan]

Yes, they're here, you chose to have them, and YOU have to support them. So why do you feel that other taxpayers should share in the responsiblilty you undertook by providing a deduction which offloads some of that cost from you?

IMV yes. You chose to have them, you should get to pay for them.

Well, everybody's entitled to an opinion. In this case, you are in the minority and the changes you'd like to see are much more radical.

Isn't what you're suggesting analogous to the following. Imagine 17th century Huron Indians returning to their long houses after a few days out hunting in the snow and returning with food. You and I both put in the same amount of effort to hunt and kill a few deer etc. However, I have a wife and 3 small children while you are unmarried without a family.

Tell me, how do you think that primitive society would divide up the food between you and I?

Frankly I'm not an expert in what other countries tax regimes are doing nor is it relevant. Most democratic government create tax laws, not based upon what can be logically justified, but by what it takes to keep them in power and cater to their voting base.

If you want to base your argument upon the basis of what is "fair", explain why it is "fair" that other taxpayers should pay for your kids, not what other countries do. There are several countries that have no income taxes at all, should I base an argument for no income tax in Canada simply because some other country does so?

I think this is a fair ask, and I would generally agree subject to the caveats I have already pointed out.

You have a tendency to describe my situation (family/dependents) as somehow the exception, rather than the norm. It is the latter. Most people (who also vote, BTW) have families at some point and are in favour of taking the number of family members into consideration when calculating tax liability.

I rather doubt that things will change radically over the next decade or two, especially along the lines you are suggesting

I think the system should not completely disadvantage singles (as does pure 50/50 pension splitting), and would prefer to see a tax structure based on a number of well-defined family classes with only 2 tax rates. I think if we could even get that far, we'd both be happier. You'll never get a system that ignores reality (dependents) and should, for now, be prepared to at least take some baby steps towards a system that is more fair to everyone, not just couples with a nice 50/50 split in their incomes - who benefit the most under the current system.

[Renegade]

Well, everybody's entitled to an opinion. In this case, you are in the minority and the changes you'd like to see are much more radical.

Of course I do, as do you. However I have backed up my opinion with justificaiton. You have not, except to state that my opinion is in the minorty. Because I'm in the minority doesn't make me "wrong".

Isn't what you're suggesting analogous to the following. Imagine 17th century Huron Indians returning to their long houses after a few days out hunting in the snow and returning with food. You and I both put in the same amount of effort to hunt and kill a few deer etc. However, I have a wife and 3 small children while you are unmarried without a family.

Tell me, how do you think that primitive society would divide up the food between you and I?

Really I have no idea, and I don't see how you do either. In any case, what a primitive society would do is irrelevant. Many primiitve societies supported slavery, should we then take that as a endorsement that slavery is "right".

If you think it is "fair" explain why directly. What any other country or society does is irrelevant.

You have a tendency to describe my situation (family/dependents) as somehow the exception, rather than the norm. It is the latter. Most people (who also vote, BTW) have families at some point and are in favour of taking the number of family members into consideration when calculating tax liability.

Actually I never said that your situation is the exception. Yes I understand that most people who are in your situation would favour taking the number of family members into consideration, not because it is "fair" but because it is in their self-interest to do so.

I rather doubt that things will change radically over the next decade or two, especially along the lines you are suggesting

You may be right. Most governments don't have the guts to make changes based upon principle, and most voting masses are easily convinced that what is in their self-interest is "fair".

I think the system should not completely disadvantage singles (as does pure 50/50 pension splitting), and would prefer to see a tax structure based on a number of well-defined family classes with only 2 tax rates.

The contridicatory part of your proposal is that you on one hand you think income assessment should be based upon the family unit, yet on the other hand you propose the deductions should be based upon the individual.

Edited February 7, 2008 by Renegade

[Hydraboss]

Pretty much. They're here, and I have to support them.

From a tax point of view, we should just overlook them, at treat me like a single person, right? First, show me a country on the planet that does so. If you're going to take a position, it would help if you can find at least one other country that shares your view.

Governments have tried to take children out of the tax system, but they're still here despite their best efforts (replacing deductions with credits etc.).

I'd be happy if the government would just be consistent, and look at tax liability the same way they look at benefit eligibility (based on family income).

Pat, let's get something straight. The government, and society in general, did not have intercourse with your wife/significant other. You did.

The government, and society in general, did not force you into a large mortgage. The government, and society in general, does not force you to do anything more than feed, cloth and shelter your dependants.

You said it yourself very clearly, "They're here, and I have to support them."

Your dependants are not my responsibility to pay for. No doubt if the government announced that there would be a tax exemption of $50,000 per child retroactive to 1990, you would cheer quite loudly. Would that make it fair? Not even close, but you'd accept the cash just the same (as would any reasonable person). That is self-interest at work.

What you're proposing has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. As for what ancient indians would have done to split up food rations...who cares? Were they a Canadian democracy? Did they have a secret ballot to elect the chief? If they had a different culture, then it would stand to reason that they would have different social standards.

You have still not given any reason why a flat tax is unfair. Please do so.

[Pat Coghlan]

Of course I do, as do you. However I have backed up my opinion with justificaiton. You have not, except to state that my opinion is in the minorty. Because I'm in the minority doesn't make me "wrong".

Your opinion is the only justification offered. You are not able to back it up with examples of what other western democratic countries have implemented.

I have a different opinion which believes that the number of dependents should factor into the calculation of tax liability, and this is exactly what most western democratic countries have done - although Canada does one of the poorest jobs.

Does it not follow that if an opinion has merit, it would make its way into policy???

Really I have no idea, and I don't see how you do either. In any case, what a primitive society would do is irrelevant. Many primiitve societies supported slavery, should we then take that as a endorsement that slavery is "right".

Well, I wasn't there in the 17th century, but I'd wager that hunter A (with a family) would be allocated more rations than hunter B (no family). The tribe had a vested interest in the survival of every member.

If you think it is "fair" explain why directly. What any other country or society does is irrelevant.

A good/fair idea has a much better chance of being adopted as policy than an unfair/bad idea. I would put most - but not all - government policies in the former category, else how did they get there???

Actually I never said that your situation is the exception. Yes I understand that most people who are in your situation would favour taking the number of family members into consideration, not because it is "fair" but because it is in their self-interest to do so.

It's also the fair thing to do. Often, this can only be realized after having been in the situation yourself. Anyone who has raised young children understands the financial and time demands that are involved. Those who haven't or don't plan do, don't. Perfectly understandable.

It's self-interest if it applies only to you. It's common interest when it's something that will affect just about everyone, as is the case for parenthood.

You may be right. Most governments don't have the guts to make changes based upon principle, and most voting masses are easily convinced that what is in their self-interest is "fair".

The contridicatory part of your proposal is that you on one hand you think income assessment should be based upon the family unit, yet on the other hand you propose the deductions should be based upon the individual.

Eh? Where did I say that?

If you're going to tax family income then, of course, deductions would also apply to family income.