"Robin Hood in Reverse"

[cybercoma]

Harper recently announced an interesting election promise that at first sounds wonderful: income-splitting for families. David Macdonald's aritcle on the CCPA website indicates otherwise:

The poorest quarter of all Canadian families, which make $50,000 a year or less, share 0% of the total benefit and will see an average benefit of $20 a year. Put another way, those half a million Canadian families that are stretched the most would see essentially no benefit from this proposal.

Read more: http://federalelectionblog.ca/2011/04/01/real-numbers-behind-income-splitting/

What's everyone's take on this plan?

Edited April 1, 2011 by cybercoma

[M.Dancer]

Harper recently announced an interesting election promise that at first sounds wonderful: income-splitting for families. David Macdonald's aritcle on the CCPA website indicates otherwise:

What's everyone's take on this plan?

It works for me. My income is twice that of my wife's.

It would seem that he middle class receive the most...about time...

Edited April 1, 2011 by M.Dancer

[Bonam]

It would seem that he middle class receive the most...about time...

Indeed, a tax change that helps the middle class will be most welcome.

As for families that earn less than $50,000 in income, they already pay close to zero tax if that is two incomes, and if it's just one income, they still pay very low tax after all the deductions they can make for kids, tax deductible expenses, etc.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

Indeed, a tax change that helps the middle class will be most welcome.

As for families that earn less than $50,000 in income, they already pay close to zero tax if that is two incomes, and if it's just one income, they still pay very low tax after all the deductions they can make for kids, tax deductible expenses, etc.

We always hear complaints that tax cuts are unfair because those who pay no tax or next to no tax don't get them....

[cybercoma]

I'm not quite sure how this helps the "middle class", considering 68% of Canadian families with children 18 and younger, that is those families that make $100,000/year only receive 39% of the benefit. On the other hand the top 32% of Canadian families, those making more than $100,000/year receive 61% of the benfit. Don't you think it should be the other way around, with the lowest income earners, those that are truly stretched-thin, receiving the majority of the benfit?

[Bonam]

I'm not quite sure how this helps the "middle class", considering 68% of Canadian families with children 18 and younger, that is those families that make $100,000/year only receive 39% of the benefit. On the other hand the top 32% of Canadian families, those making more than $100,000/year receive 61% of the benfit. Don't you think it should be the other way around, with the lowest income earners, those that are truly stretched-thin, receiving the majority of the benfit?

No, because the lowest income earners already pay no or very little tax. It is mathematically impossible for them to get the majority of the benefit since they already pay such a tiny tiny portion of the overall taxes.

As for how it helps the middle class... a family earning 100k/year is still middle class, and so is a family earning 200k/year or for that matter even 300k/year. My dad makes about 150k/year and my parents still barely pay their mortgage on a townhouse in Vancouver. They are certainly still middle class, "barely scraping by". And they will certainly see some nice benefit from this type of tax cut (my mom doesn't work anymore).

In expensive Canadian cities, your income needs to be up close to the seven digit range before you are anywhere close to transitioning to something besides the middle class. The upper class is only like the top 2-5% of families if even that.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[M.Dancer]

I'm not quite sure how this helps the "middle class", considering 68% of Canadian families with children 18 and younger, that is those families that make $100,000/year only receive 39% of the benefit. On the other hand the top 32% of Canadian families, those making more than $100,000/year receive 61% of the benfit. Don't you think it should be the other way around, with the lowest income earners, those that are truly stretched-thin, receiving the majority of the benfit?

Because there are more middle class families that benefit than the other higher segments combined and since it is their money which is not being taxed, it is hardly Robin Hood in reverse. The lowest group pay little or no taxes.

Edited April 1, 2011 by M.Dancer

[cybercoma]

As for how it helps the middle class... a family earning 100k/year is still middle class, and so is a family earning 200k/year or for that matter even 300k/year.

This is just baffling, considering 50% of Canadian households had incomes lower than $63,900 in 2008. Your notion that $300,000 per year is still middle class is simply wrong.

I do take your point that the lowest income earners pay the least amount of taxes, so it only makes sense that they get less. That's precisely the point though, isn't it? Why is Harper proposing a subsidy for the top earning families in the country, while giving nothing to the lowest income earners? If it's so difficult to scrape by on $200,000 per year, how hard must it be for the other 90% of Canadians (or more) that make less than that? This is being sold as helping Canadian families that are stretched thin, but 2/3 of Canadian families get little to no benefit out of this deal. It's only the top 1/3 of families that benefit and those aren't the ones that are truly "stretched thin".

[Shady]

So middle class Canadians keeping more of their own money, is "Robin Hood in Reverse."

[guyser]

Why reinvent the wheel?

There is a child tax benefit that exists now that could be increased to cover this, and it would be more equitable since it would include single parent families. This plays to only the families with mom and dad.

Besides the child tax benefits mostly the middle and low income since it is geared to salary.

Edited April 1, 2011 by guyser

[Bonam]

This is just baffling, considering 50% of Canadian households had incomes lower than $63,900 in 2008. Your notion that $300,000 per year is still middle class is simply wrong.

I can't quickly find anything Canadian but here are the common US models of social/economic class (I'm sure BC2004 will point and laugh):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class#US_models

Note, "upper middle class" describes the people I am talking about, particularly look at the middle column. To be in the upper class: "Top-level executives, celebrities, heirs; income of $500,000+ common. Ivy league education common." The upper class represents about 1% of the population. $300,000 is still upper middle class. In Canada since incomes are lower $300k is probably borderline.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[Bonam]

There is a child tax benefit that exists now that could be increased to cover this, and it would be more equitable since it would include single parent families. This plays to only the families with mom and dad.

And what is so freaking wrong about a tax change that actually benefits the good, functional, families in our society for once instead of subsidizing dysfunction and divorce?

Edited April 1, 2011 by Bonam

[GWiz]

My take? Who cares, no one will ever see it since it would only apply, maybe, once a "balanced budget" is achieved...

Certainly not if a Harper led CPC take budgets for an astounding $30,000,000,000.00 ($30 BILLION) DEFICIT which ends up as a record $56,000,000,000.00 ($56 BILLION) a "mere" budget DEFICIT "error" of $26,000,000,000.00 ($26 BILLION)...

If Harper were to get the chance to implement his proposed $30,000,000,000.00 ($30 BILLION) deficit budget this time I wonder how big an "error" we'd be subject to this time around?

[Keepitsimple]

Harper recently announced an interesting election promise that at first sounds wonderful: income-splitting for families. David Macdonald's aritcle on the CCPA website indicates otherwise:

What's everyone's take on this plan?

Family incomes of $50,000 hardly pay any tax to begin with. It's not a handout nor is it an entitlement. It's mainly for the true middle class that DOES pay taxes....now they'll get some back. Seems fair to me.

[cybercoma]

And what is so freaking wrong about a tax change that actually benefits the good, functional, families in our society for once instead of subsidizing dysfunction and divorce?

Wow.

[cybercoma]

Family incomes of $50,000 hardly pay any tax to begin with. It's not a handout nor is it an entitlement. It's mainly for the true middle class that DOES pay taxes....now they'll get some back. Seems fair to me.

That's fine, but let's not market it as a way for helping out those that are hurting the most. It doesn't. It benefits only those that already make a decent living or better.

[M.Dancer]

That's fine, but let's not market it as a way for helping out those that are hurting the most.

It isn't being marketed that way.

http://www.conservative.ca/press/news_releases/harper_announces_the_family_tax_cut

[Moonbox]

That's fine, but let's not market it as a way for helping out those that are hurting the most. It doesn't. It benefits only those that already make a decent living or better.

So, like Bonam said, the people in functional families doing more than monkey work. That sounds great to me. I don't think Harper's really interested in courting the welfare vote.

[cybercoma]

Good for them for not putting the "stretched thin" wording into their official release on the website.

However, the fact remains that Harpers plan does more for the top income earners in the country than anyone else. I'm not sure it's the Canadian families that make over $100,000 per year that need the extra help.

[M.Dancer]

Good for them for not putting the "stretched thin" wording into their official release on the website.

However, the fact remains that Harpers plan does more for the top income earners in the country than anyone else. I'm not sure it's the Canadian families that make over $100,000 per year that need the extra help.

Yes , the opponents have been caterwauling that it doesn't help the low income earners..tax breaks don't and that's a fact.

Another fact is, as a middle income earner, my family will.

The opponents would like to see increased welfare, etc etc etc...conservatives would rather see them working.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yes , the opponents have been caterwauling that it doesn't help the low income earners..tax breaks don't and that's a fact.

Another fact is, as a middle income earner, my family will.

The opponents would like to see increased welfare, etc etc etc...conservatives would rather see them working.

I wish the Liberals would grab a brain and get on board with this.

[ToadBrother]

It works for me. My income is twice that of my wife's.

It would seem that he middle class receive the most...about time...

And when will it be? Oh yes, four years or so.

It's a meaningless promise.

[guyser]

And what is so freaking wrong about a tax change that actually benefits the good, functional, families in our society for once instead of subsidizing dysfunction and divorce?

Dumbest thing you've ever posted and normally you are on the ball.

Single parent families are dysfunction and divorced? Why not actually benfit the good functional families of all, singlke parent or not?

I understand that the income splitting works for some of us here, but the child tax benefits covers all of us on a sliding scale and is more equitable

[TimG]

I understand that the income splitting works for some of us here, but the child tax benefits covers all of us on a sliding scale and is more equitable

The current system grants upto $7000 of tax credits for people who pay for daycare. This income splitting schema balances that subsidy. I think it makes the system more equitable. Edited April 1, 2011 by TimG

[M.Dancer]

And when will it be? Oh yes, four years or so.

It's a meaningless promise.

True..mush like Liberal Day care promises have been..a promise made is a debt unpaid