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

[TimG]

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.

She is out to lunch. The judgement says exactly the opposite of what she claimed. McLachlin and Dube were the **dissenting** judges. Try reading the judgement she referred to.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1266/index.do

Edited November 5, 2014 by TimG

[eyeball]

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.

This notion that everyone lives in a family that's just like something from 24 Sussex Drive or Leave it to Beaver is as quaint as it is irrelevant. Extending a tax break to families or individuals based on whether they match this model is ideologically astute though. I can see why it would have strong appeal amongst much of the right-wing it keeps tilting the playing field towards the rich while sticking it to the great unwashed. A real twofer.

Of course it also puts Harper on another collision course with the Charter which is something he seems to have a real fetish for.

[Argus]

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

Why is paying based on income even considered fair by your? Why should I pay three times more than you simply because I make three times more money? Do I use three times more services? Nope. So that's really no more fair. I have to pay taxes on my investment income. Why? I mean, you take your disposable income and go for a trip to Hawaii. I take mine and buy stocks. Why am I then taxed again because I'm making wider use of my disposable income? Fair? Not especially. Does it concern you? Not apparently.

There is a national interest in helping and encouraging people to have and raise children, so tax policy is designed to do this. You might not use the schools, as they say, but the kids who go there will be your doctor and lawyer one day, and will build the bridges and roads you use.

Edited November 5, 2014 by Argus

[carepov]

This notion that everyone lives in a family that's just like something from 24 Sussex Drive or Leave it to Beaver is as quaint as it is irrelevant. Extending a tax break to families or individuals based on whether they match this model is ideologically astute though. I can see why it would have strong appeal amongst much of the right-wing it keeps tilting the playing field towards the rich while sticking it to the great unwashed. A real twofer.

Of course it also puts Harper on another collision course with the Charter which is something he seems to have a real fetish for.

DId you notice that I used the word "many"? I suggest that you re-reading my post.

If it were up to me, I would pair the introduction of income splitting with an increased tax rate for the wealthy making the change revenue-neutral. Would that be OK with you?

Also, you and other critics don't seem to realize that most wealthy families already split their income and this policy will not benefit them.

[jacee]

But when the election comes ,the elderly will not be voting for the NDP or the liberals.

You didn't read the link.

That has been true for the more conservative 'world war' generations.

It won't necessarily be true for the boomer/hippy generations, the new seniors ... and we are still a population 'bulge'.

eta ... And ... boomers were the Trudeau Sr generation.

.

Edited November 5, 2014 by jacee

[PIK]

You didn't read the link.

That has been true for the more conservative 'world war' generations.

It won't necessarily be true for the boomer/hippy generations, the new seniors ... and we are still a population 'bulge'.

eta ... And ... boomers were the Trudeau Sr generation.

.

And they have been paying off his debt ever since.

[cybercoma]

DId you notice that I used the word "many"?

Yeah. It's called a "weasel word."

[eyeball]

DId you notice that I used the word "many"?

Did you notice that I used the word irrelevant?

[cybercoma]

People need to get married and the woman needs to stay home and raise the kids. That's the way things SHOULD be. The government is just trying to create incentives so people stop with their immoral debauchery of women working and couples cohabiting without marriage.

[eyeball]

They should hike taxes on women's footwear and send the baby bonus cheques to the men.

[carepov]

People need to get married and the woman needs to stay home and raise the kids. That's the way things SHOULD be. The government is just trying to create incentives so people stop with their immoral debauchery of women working and couples cohabiting without marriage.

Why spew this divisive rhetoric?

First of all, some people choose to get married and have kids and have one person work at home to raise the kids, run the household, etc... No credible person that I know of has suggested that this is the choice everyone should make. Families will not select or rule out this option based on $2000 per year. Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with living life this way?

Second, the CRA makes no distinction between couples that live common-law or those that are married.

Edited November 6, 2014 by carepov

[Michael Hardner]

People need to get married and the woman needs to stay home and raise the kids. That's the way things SHOULD be. The government is just trying to create incentives so people stop with their immoral debauchery of women working and couples cohabiting without marriage.

I think you wanted to use the <SARCASM> tag here - am I correct ?

[Argus]

People need to get married and the woman needs to stay home and raise the kids. That's the way things SHOULD be. The government is just trying to create incentives so people stop with their immoral debauchery of women working and couples cohabiting without marriage.

This act wasn't all that funny the first time you did it...

[Argus]

Why spew this divisive rhetoric?

He is trolling.

[Argus]

I think you wanted to use the <SARCASM> tag here - am I correct ?

Actually, by the definition of the term, he is trolling.

You might want to look up that definition. I get the feeling you may not be as familiar with it as you ought to be.

[Michael Hardner]

I think it's possible to be sarcastic without trolling but I will ask Charles. Let's move back to the discussion on the thread.

[Topaz]

Perhaps to counter Harper move on income splitting, the NDP or the Liberals should come out with policy to workers up to 50,000 yearly, you will NOT pay income tax, up from the 20,000 level. Since there's more 50,000 tax payers, more votes for the party and beat the Tories at they know game.

[cybercoma]

Actually, by the definition of the term, he is trolling.

Actually, by definition, I'm being sarcastic to put out how ridiculous the defence of this policy is.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Enough said. Move on.

Ch. A.

[Argus]

Actually, by definition, I'm being sarcastic to put out how ridiculous the defence of this policy is.

Since most of us know you and your politics you can get away with it. But you know very well if you posted that anywhere else, or under another ID people would take it seriously. Someone did even here.

[cybercoma]

Since most of us know you and your politics you can get away with it. But you know very well if you posted that anywhere else, or under another ID people would take it seriously. Someone did even here.

It's pretty sad that such hyperbole would be taken seriously.

[carepov]

It's pretty sad that such hyperbole would be taken seriously.

You got me. One point for you.

Moving on,

1. Income splitting partially recitifies the unfair over-taxtation of families one income earner compared to otherwise similar families with two incomes:

Why should my family, with gross revenue of ~$80,000 pay ~$25,000 in income tax when my neighbor's family also makes ~$80,000 and pays ~$20,000? The only difference is that my family's income is from one person, while the other family has two earners.

2. If it were up to me, I would pair the introduction of income splitting with an increased tax rate for the wealthy making the change revenue-neutral. Would that be OK with you?

[cybercoma]

You got me. One point for you.

I mean no offence. I thought it was obvious sarcasm, but I guess that raises an important point about politics and online political dialogue these days. Hyperbole is par for the course. I don't know if it's from posturing due to so many people falling for the middle ground fallacy or what. However, political discourse is more divisive and extreme than it ever has been. And it's not even political discourse, when people talk about nearly anything it's always "the best" or "the worst" or "amazing" or "terrible" etc. You can't be satirical or sarcastic these days because those positions are actually held by people. Hyperbole is unrecognizable from real arguments put forward by some people. And that's what I'm saying is sad. It's the mistake that's sad; it's that political dialogue has become so hyperbolic that a statement that is as sarcastic as I can muster can be misconstrued for an actual position.

[cybercoma]

If it were up to me, I would pair the introduction of income splitting with an increased tax rate for the wealthy making the change revenue-neutral. Would that be OK with you?

That would make things even worse because it would even further punish those who make a different lifestyle choice than the Harper-approved marriage and kids. Why should a single person making $80,000 be penalized for not being married and having kids? I guess there's an argument to be made that procreation should be encouraged to help grow the population and the economy without relying so heavily on immigration, but what about infertile couples? What about people who just don't want to have kids? What about people who simply don't want to marry that lifestyle is not for them?

The tax plan simply doesn't address the issue it claims to address. It's salient feature is that it gives a tax break to a very specific kind of family: one with a primary bread winner, someone who makes very little or no money, and kids. If the point is to help with the costs of raising kids, then why is it disproportionately benefitting those who are already most able to provide? It does nothing for those living in poverty. Nothing for those with similar incomes (typically similar low incomes). It does nothing for single parents trying to raise kids on their own. It's utterly useless as a tool to help the kids who actually need the help. It does nothing to help the parents who actually need the help either.

That's why we need a plan like the NDP has offered. We need something to make childcare affordable, so those struggling to hold a job and take care of their kids have more of an opportunity to work full-time hours and hold meaningful jobs. More importantly, the NDP's childcare plan doesn't just benefit single parents or parents living in poverty. It's a universal plan that subsidizes the cost of childcare for everyone. It gets more people back into the workforce which increases government revenues and grows the economy. It's a vastly superior plan to the Conservative plan that just redistributes taxpayers' dollars to the wealthiest Canadians.

[TimG]

That would make things even worse because it would even further punish those who make a different lifestyle choice than the Harper-approved marriage and kids.

You completely missed the point. The current tax regime punishes households who make the choice to have a single income earner. Note that eligibility for benefits like the GST credit is base on household income so a fair system would calculate taxes AND benefits based on household income. Why are you so keen on preserving this unfairness? Why do you try to pretend this discrimination does not exist?

Why should a single person making $80,000 be penalized for not being married and having kids?

Why should a household with one earner making 80K pay more than a household with 2 earners making 40K? Perhaps the solution is to make taxation based on household income the norm rather than perpetuating the unfairness in the current system. But that would be expensive so a compromise would partially rectify the unfairness for households with kids. Not perfect but more fair than what we have now.

That's why we need a plan like the NDP has offered. We need something to make childcare affordable, so those struggling to hold a job and take care of their kids have more of an opportunity to work full-time hours and hold meaningful jobs.

Except its does not work that way in the real world because there will never be enough places to meet the demand which means many of the places will go to well off families with the right connections.

You have never answered my previous query: why are you ok with a plan that will give >12K per year subsidy to well off families but have a problem with a plan that gives a measly 2K tax break? Seems to me the Conservative plan does a much better job of spreading the money around as much as possible and is therefore much much fairer.

Edited November 7, 2014 by TimG