Splitting Incomes, Splitting Conservtaives or Splitting Hairs

[carepov]

Except for circumstances in which one person cannot work--which is not, I don't think, the matter we're discussing here--they make a choice to be a single-income family.

The family of lower-income earners does not, or not as clearly, have the same choice.

Are you opposed to a progressive tax system? Or do you think it should only apply to people without families...that having a family should erase the tax-paying difference?

Yes, all families make all kinds of choices, in career/income/working hours and how they spend it, what's your point?

In the end, families that have equal income should pay an equal amount of income tax.

I am in favour of a progressive tax system. The system should be based on the family (household) not the individual.

The way it is now, some families earn more money yet pay less taxes than other families that earn less money - don't you think that this is unfair?

[bleeding heart]

Your third sentence answers my question....and I concede it is a strong point.

[Wilber]

Seems any taxation is always seen as being unfair to some group.

[Wilber]

I am in favour of a progressive tax system. The system should be based on the family (household) not the individual.

That would just drive more lower and mid income families into a higher tax bracket.

Edited February 18, 2014 by Wilber

[carepov]

That would just drive more lower and mid income families into a higher tax bracket.

Not if tax brackets were doubled.

[Wilber]

Not if tax brackets were doubled.

OK but government has to get revenue from somewhere. Who pays?

[carepov]

OK but government has to get revenue from somewhere. Who pays?

A combination of a reduced surplus and spending cuts should make up for the revenue loss. If more revenue is needed then the GST should be raised, perhaps taxes should be raised on the rich. While we are at it, let's put in a carbon tax and offset revenue with a reduction in the payroll tax.

[Bonam]

I'm not sure that there is any justification for taxing families less than individuals, other than as an overt means of social engineering. Perhaps the social engineering in this case is desirable, that is, a desire to encourage people to live in family units. But unless that is the specific and acknowledged goal, I don't think there's any fairness in saying that someone who earns $70k and lives by themselves should pay more in tax than someone who earns $70k and has a stay at home partner (and yes I know that's already the case regardless of this tax proposal).

[bleeding heart]

My concession to carepov's point aside, Bonam has made a very interesting point.

It's not that, necessarily, it is bad to tax individuals at a higher rate than families. But it is certainly arguable as to whether this is the way things should go, and whether a totally free and open social choice is to be a rewarding factor. Something doesn't smell right. It really can be argued that it is a form of social engineering. I suppose the same can be argued for any number of tax rules, breaks, and incentives...but that argument doesn't matter so much, because I think each discrete case should be looked at, well, discretely, as far as possible.

Further, does "family" include broken families....which are fast becoming not only normal, but an actual majority? And in these cases, how does alimony and child support work into the equation?

At any rate, as Bonam says--assuming we desire an open, honest, transparent system in which things are done for the reasons stated--if social engineering is the incentive for proposed differences in tax rates, shouldn't that be openly asserted?

[carepov]

I'm not sure that there is any justification for taxing families less than individuals, other than as an overt means of social engineering. Perhaps the social engineering in this case is desirable, that is, a desire to encourage people to live in family units. But unless that is the specific and acknowledged goal, I don't think there's any fairness in saying that someone who earns $70k and lives by themselves should pay more in tax than someone who earns $70k and has a stay at home partner (and yes I know that's already the case regardless of this tax proposal).

Income splitting is not about social engineering, it is about fairness.

In your example the unmarried person earning $70k has way more disposable income and therefore it is only fair that they pay more taxes than a couple that earns $35k per person, n'est pas? It is only fair that people are taxed based on their disposable income; isn't that the main point of a progressive tax system?

A marriage (including commom law) is akin to a business partnership or a corporation. One partner is "earning the income" (delivering product and services) and the other may not be bringing in money (managing the books, human resources, cleaning the shop/office...). Both partners are working equally hard and profits are equally split. Couples should file a single tax return just like a corporation.

[Wilber]

Unless you go to a flat tax with no deductions or exemptions, all taxation is social engineering and encourages some behaviours and discourages others,

[bleeding heart]

Perhaps so...I'd go further, and say that a flat tax is also a type of social engineering.

[Wilber]

Perhaps so...I'd go further, and say that a flat tax is also a type of social engineering.

No, it just blindly treats everyone the same regardless of their needs or circumstances.

[carepov]

My concession to carepov's point aside, Bonam has made a very interesting point.

It's not that, necessarily, it is bad to tax individuals at a higher rate than families. But it is certainly arguable as to whether this is the way things should go, and whether a totally free and open social choice is to be a rewarding factor. Something doesn't smell right. It really can be argued that it is a form of social engineering. I suppose the same can be argued for any number of tax rules, breaks, and incentives...but that argument doesn't matter so much, because I think each discrete case should be looked at, well, discretely, as far as possible.

At any rate, as Bonam says--assuming we desire an open, honest, transparent system in which things are done for the reasons stated--if social engineering is the incentive for proposed differences in tax rates, shouldn't that be openly asserted?

First of all, here in Canada, the incentive of any governement policy is political expediancy.

While there are notable exceptions, I call BS on most claims that a certain goverment policy in Canada is "social engineering". Do you realy think that people really factor in government policy when they decide to have children or how many children they want?

How many families today in Canada would like to have one partner stay at home but are a few thousand dollers per year short, and therefore, without income splitting both need to work? My guess is it is a very small number. And, of these families, how many spend more than a few thousand dollars per year on luxuries that if they chose to forego they could really live of one income if they chose to?

Further, does "family" include broken families....which are fast becoming not only normal, but an actual majority? And in these cases, how does alimony and child support work into the equation?

Perhaps a better term is "household". Income splitting would have no impact on the staus quo for separated families. I may be wrong, but my underdtanding is that alimony paid reduces your taxable income and alimony received is taxable income. Child support is non-taxable.

Edited February 19, 2014 by carepov

[jacee]

Further, does "family" include broken families...

Can we dispense with this archaic and insulting term, please?

[bleeding heart]

Certainly. I should have at least added another set of quotation marks.

[The_Squid]

Can we dispense with this archaic and insulting term, please?

the term family is archaic and insulting?

[bleeding heart]

Carepov,

No, I don't think people generally factor in government policy, consciously, in terms of having children and so on. That doesn't mean that governments don't apply tax rules out of ideological concerns and beliefs....which IS "political expediency," as you aptly put it.

Look at it this way: I have little doubt that any number of Conservative politicians have never taken issue with same sex marriage....but they have nevertheless tended to talk and act on the pretence....out of political expediency. Similarly, there are doubtless some more left-leaning politicans who didn't much like the idea...but voiced public support, because of the same expediency.

[bleeding heart]

Squid,

I'm assuming it was "broken families" to which jacee objected.

[carepov]

Carepov,

No, I don't think people generally factor in government policy, consciously, in terms of having children and so on. That doesn't mean that governments don't apply tax rules out of ideological concerns and beliefs....which IS "political expediency," as you aptly put it.

Look at it this way: I have little doubt that any number of Conservative politicians have never taken issue with same sex marriage....but they have nevertheless tended to talk and act on the pretence....out of political expediency. Similarly, there are doubtless some more left-leaning politicans who didn't much like the idea...but voiced public support, because of the same expediency.

I agree. And for these reasons I think that we ordinary people need to educate ourselves so that progress/justice and political expediancy are more likely to point in the same direction.

Edited February 19, 2014 by carepov

[bleeding heart]

Hear, hear.

[The_Squid]

Squid,

I'm assuming it was "broken families" to which jacee objected.

What's the new term? Busted families? Shattered families? Non-together families?

[bleeding heart]

I suppose the term "broken" can be taken as a benign metaphor...but it usually isn't. It has connotations. For better than half of all family units.

Hell, my divorce was one of the best things to ever happen to me...and my children grew up just fine.

If that's broken, don't nobody fix it!