Harper's Transfer of My Taxes to Other Peoples' Kids/Wives

[scribblet]

............

I see where the problem is. You haven't a god damned clue what you're talking about.

And you do ? get a grip

Meanwhile, those against equalizing taxes for single income people and don't want to help families, want us to pay billions for a day care program that will only benefit 10%... maybe you need to get a clue.

[scribblet]

IMO, every family (with or without kids) should file one single tax return. There should be separate tax brackets for individuals and families.

The U.S. has had joint filing for decades, I see this as a step towards this in Canada.

[Topaz]

Come on people, the Tories couldn't use the "gun registry" did that, so they HAD to come up with something to use to sucker the voters, give it in one hand and after the election take it back in the other. Many of the MP's would be the ones benefitting, just like many things they put into those huge Budget Bills that Canadians don't know about like when they talk about "small businesses" yeah most of them have small businesses.

[carepov]

Families don't pay income tax. Individuals pay income tax.

I know. The system would be more fair if families paid income tax.

Income splitting is giving an unfair discount to those who are married and have children. Why should a single person with kids making $80,000 per year be taxed more than a married person making $80,000? What you guys keep ignoring is that there is no such thing as family income tax. It's called personal income tax for a reason.

Correct. I never though of this before. All else being equal, a single parent would not deduct the spousal amount ~10 k and therefore pay about $2,000 more than a couple with kids. Unless I am missing something this is very unfair, even now and should be rectified.

Currently, all families with kids that make 80,000 per year:

2 earners (40 + 40) pay ~ $20 K in taxes

1 earner (80 + 0) pay ~ $24 k in taxes

1 earner (single parent: 80) pays ~ $26 k in taxes

Edited November 4, 2014 by carepov

[The_Squid]

I know. The system would be more fair if families paid income tax.

Correct. I never though of this before. All else being equal, a single parent would not deduct the spousal amount ~10 k and therefore pay about $2,000 more than a couple with kids. Unless I am missing something this is very unfair, even now and should be rectified.

Currently, all families with kids that make 80,000 per year:

2 earners (40 + 40) pay ~ $20 K in taxes

1 earner (80 + 0) pay ~ $24 k in taxes

1 earner (single parent: 80) pays ~ $26 k in taxes

Why is it more fair that my neighbour pays less personal income tax than I do just because he/she is married and has kids?

[Michael Hardner]

Why is it more fair that my neighbour pays less personal income tax than I do just because he/she is married and has kids?

Why should I pay more income tax because you drive on roads, or use healthcare, or enjoy the Pride parade ?

Can we make it all pay-as-you go ? Perhaps with wristbands ?

This is called a user pay society and the costs of maintaining get expensive.

[Argus]

I'm saying it takes some serious Orwellian cognitive dissonance to make an argument that this fixes inequality in any way.

It was not designed to fix overall inequality, ie, between the haves and have nots, but the inequality in how much families with the same amount of income pay in taxes.

[The_Squid]

Why should I pay more income tax because you drive on roads, or use healthcare, or enjoy the Pride parade ?

Can we make it all pay-as-you go ? Perhaps with wristbands ?

This is called a user pay society and the costs of maintaining get expensive.

and what am I using that a married person is not that I have to pay more taxes for?

What does your statement have to do with my question about fairness?

[Michael Hardner]

and what am I using that a married person is not that I have to pay more taxes for?

I don't know... the list of potential services is huge.

The CBC, airplanes, RRSP credits, vaccinations...

What does your statement have to do with my question about fairness?

Just because you don't use a service, it doesn't make the system 'unfair'. Nobody could use all the services, at least I hope not.

[The_Squid]

I don't know... the list of potential services is huge.

The CBC, airplanes, RRSP credits, vaccinations...

Just because you don't use a service, it doesn't make the system 'unfair'. Nobody could use all the services, at least I hope not.

Who said anything about services? I asked why it is more fair, which was the poster's position.

[carepov]

Why is it more fair that my neighbour pays less personal income tax than I do just because he/she is married and has kids?

To be fair, people should pay income tax based on their disposable income. Giving deduction for dependands is fair.

Housolds where all is equal (income, dependants, etc...) should pay the same income tax regardless if the income comes from one or two earners.

[The_Squid]

To be fair, people should pay income tax based on their disposable income. Giving deduction for dependands is fair.

Housolds where all is equal (income, dependants, etc...) should pay the same income tax regardless if the income comes from one or two earners.

That's never been the case. It is personal income tax. It is never based on "disposable income", but on earned income.

[Michael Hardner]

Who said anything about services? I asked why it is more fair, which was the poster's position.

You did. You asked "what am I using ?". People use services.

[The_Squid]

You did. You asked "what am I using ?". People use services.

You are making no sense.

[Michael Hardner]

You are making no sense.

Maybe I'm not following. I'm saying that people use different services. Families use schools, people without children don't. People with cars use the roads more. The system isn't set up as 100% user pay. That's all.

[cybercoma]

And you do ? get a grip

Meanwhile, those against equalizing taxes for single income people and don't want to help families, want us to pay billions for a day care program that will only benefit 10%... maybe you need to get a clue.

i think I already demonstrated that this is wrong.

[Bryan]

The only people this plan benefits are those who are wealthy enough to have a stay-at-home parent (93% of the time the mother) who takes care of the children. It's a tax break for the stereotypical white picket fence crowd.

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.

Families don't pay income tax. Individuals pay income tax.

And that's a problem. This plan take steps in the direction of rectifying that.

[Topaz]

Hopefully, this will help with all the confusion on the subject and it seem the rich are the ones coming out ahead. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/income-splitting-wont-help-parents-who-really-need-a-tax-break/article21382476/

[eyeball]

The Harper government’s parental income splitting plan is designed in such a way that guarantees it will only make a difference to the richest Canadians. By design, it cannot help those who need assistance with child care the most.

Like I said, red meat for the base - tender well marbled prime rib in this case.

[Moonbox]

That's never been the case. It is personal income tax. It is never based on "disposable income", but on earned income.

Having kids just gives you tax credits. It makes it more affordable for people to have kids. I can assure you the tax credits don't make much of a dent in the cost of raising a child.

I take it you'd prefer more immigrants and refugees getting citizenship instead?

Edited November 5, 2014 by Moonbox

[cybercoma]

Hopefully, this will help with all the confusion on the subject and it seem the rich are the ones coming out ahead. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/income-splitting-wont-help-parents-who-really-need-a-tax-break/article21382476/

So the law professor at Queens made all the same arguments I made in this thread already. Apparently the facts about this plan don't really matter. It's Conservative legislation, so the Conservatives on the forum, save for hitops, think it's gold.

Here's the most important point in that entire article:

When now-Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and former justice Claire L’Heureux-Dube ruled on a similar type of parental income splitting law in the 1990s (child support splitting), they each concluded that it violates the equality provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in numerous ways, because it did not help those it was intended to help, and actually undermined the important goal of supporting women to become financially independent. They found that because the biggest benefits went to those with the highest incomes, and placed heavier burdens on those with lower incomes, it did not really do what it pretended to do – help parents raise their children.

They shot down child support splitting and this income splitting law is even more unjust than that one. If the Conservatives pass this law, it will be yet another in a long line of garbage legislation that violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives are incapable of governing without trampling on people's rights.

Edited November 5, 2014 by cybercoma

[Keepitsimple]

So the law professor at Queens made all the same arguments I made in this thread already. Apparently the facts about this plan don't really matter. It's Conservative legislation, so the Conservatives on the forum, save for hitops, think it's gold.

Here's the most important point in that entire article:

They shot down child support splitting and this income splitting law is even more unjust than that one. If the Conservatives pass this law, it will be yet another in a long line of garbage legislation that violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives are incapable of governing without trampling on people's rights.

If that's the most important point - then the whole article is out to lunch. Splitting Child Support payments after a family breaks up is totally unrelated to provided benefits to a family to raise their children.

[carepov]

That's never been the case. It is personal income tax. It is never based on "disposable income", but on earned income.

The system has never been fair - and it never will be perfectly fair. Income splitting partially corrects an unfairness. There are many other improvements needed, especially help for the poor and single parents.

[cybercoma]

If that's the most important point - then the whole article is out to lunch. Splitting Child Support payments after a family breaks up is totally unrelated to provided benefits to a family to raise their children.

I guess the legal expert has no idea what she's talking about then, eh? Maybe you should actually read the article before saying the author is out to lunch. If you did read the article, you might want to take a step back and understand what's being said in it.

[carepov]

So the law professor at Queens made all the same arguments I made in this thread already. Apparently the facts about this plan don't really matter. It's Conservative legislation, so the Conservatives on the forum, save for hitops, think it's gold.

Here's the most important point in that entire article:

They shot down child support splitting and this income splitting law is even more unjust than that one. If the Conservatives pass this law, it will be yet another in a long line of garbage legislation that violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Conservatives are incapable of governing without trampling on people's rights.

Perhaps you are not understanding what marriage/partnership means to many Canadians. In many households, there are no separate accounts, everything that one person owns and makes is shared between the couple. The partnership is like a business or a corporation. Taxing each individual separately makes no sense, it would be like asking separate departments (sales, operations, accounting, etc..) to fill in their own tax returns.