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

[Argus]

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.

I don't think many people here, other than one or two, could be said to routinely ascribe to that sort of all or nothing political ideology. I personally don't sense a lot of enthusiasm for any of our political leaders here (again, with one or two exceptions). I see those people on TV cheering wildly for this or that leader and I just shake my head. I don't like ANY of them. Were I down south, I still wouldn't like any of them. I like some of what some parties want or say or do and I dislike others they do or say. In that sense I think most Canadians are "in the middle".

[cybercoma]

the Conservative plan does a much better job of spreading the money around as much as possible and is therefore much much fairer.

No rational person could interpret this law in this way and that's why I don't respond to your posts most of the time. Even conservative supporters themselves can see how this plan benefits next to no one. You need to suspend all rational thinking to make a statement like I've quoted here.

[cybercoma]

I don't think many people here, other than one or two, could be said to routinely ascribe to that sort of all or nothing political ideology. I personally don't sense a lot of enthusiasm for any of our political leaders here (again, with one or two exceptions). I see those people on TV cheering wildly for this or that leader and I just shake my head. I don't like ANY of them. Were I down south, I still wouldn't like any of them. I like some of what some parties want or say or do and I dislike others they do or say. In that sense I think most Canadians are "in the middle".

I completely agree with you, except that it's more than just two posters but not much more. It's probably less than 6.

[TimG]

No rational person could interpret this law in this way.

I presented a rational argument above for this interpretation above - which you ignored. I suspect it is because you are simply incapable of understanding ideas that do not conform to your prejudices. It is common problem with left wingers.

And I repeat: 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?

The fact that you refuse to answer that simple question shows how you are not really interested in a rational discussion of ideas and simply expect people accept your ideology as truth.

Edited November 7, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I read your post and it was complete nonsense. Also I've answered your question already and made my reasoning clear. If you're having trouble understanding what I've written, try having someone read it to you.

[TimG]

I read your post and it was complete nonsense.

ROTFL. My logic is sound and you obviously are unable to come up with a coherent response.

You have not answered the question because you have not actually addressed my criticism of the NDP plan: that limited space due to budget constraints will invariably mean that the benefits go to well off and well connected people. This makes it a much less "fair" use of money. Now if the NDP plan was means tested then it might actually accomplish the goal that you claim - but that is not the plan. The plan, as it stands, is a massive give away to well off couples that don't really need the money.

[cybercoma]

So your fabricated future designed to bash the NDP for something that isn't even remotely a given is your definition of sound logic? Christ. Do you even own a dictionary?

[carepov]

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 questions about how to tax people with or without kids are not touched by the proposed income splitting change. By raising these questions you are comparing apples to oranges. People with more disposable income should pay more tax. This is why a progressive tax system, and things like deductions for children and northern living allowance are fair. When you compare two families, one making 0 + 80 k another making 40 + 40 k and all else is equal, the two families have the same amount of disposable income and should therefore pay the same amount of income taxes.

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.

First, this is plan is not a "tax break" it is a partial elimination of an unfair tax burden. There are families with a sole earner making 50-100 k. These families are not wealthy and do not deserve to be unfairly taxed.

I also challenged your claim about this bill helping wealthy families. Who makes over 100 k? AFAIK, these are mostly self-employed professionals or business owners. These families are already splitting their income! Not only is the spouse the "office manager", "earning" 50 k per year, they are splitting income with their kids. Never mind the transfer of investements and rental income. Besides, the same principle applies: why should a family that makes 0 + 200 k pay many thousands more than one that makes 100 + 100k, all else equal?

This bill will help families that cannot otherwise split their income, and therefore it will mostly help those that choose to live off one employment income, 50-100 k.

I agree that this does nothing for poor people, which is good because lazy moochers get enough handouts already.

Edited November 7, 2014 by carepov

[TimG]

So your fabricated future designed to bash the NDP for something that isn't even remotely a given is your definition of sound logic? Christ. Do you even own a dictionary?

Are you really so trapped in your ideological delusions that you cannot comprehend the real world consequences of the policies you favour can be quite different from what the proponents claim? Do understand the idea that just because someone says that someone will achieve some objective that does not mean it is true? Are you completely unaware of the stats on Quebec's program that show that

Families in the top 25 per cent of annual earnings are nearly twice as likely to have a child in Quebec’s $7-a-day program, compared to families in the bottom quarter. In other words, the province is spending billions per year to make life easier for its wealthiest citizens. This makes no sense, particularly in an era of fiscal restraint.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/quebecs-plan-to-end-7-a-day-daycare-is-a-breakthrough-for-economic-fairness-and-common-sense/

The only one here with logic and comprehension problems is you. Why don't you take off your ideological blinders.

[eyeball]

I agree that this does nothing for poor people, which is good because lazy moochers get enough handouts already.

He said with a chunk of bloody raw red meat clenched between his teeth.

[cybercoma]

Are you really so trapped in your ideological delusions that you cannot comprehend the real world consequences of the policies you favour can be quite different from what the proponents claim? Do understand the idea that just because someone says that someone will achieve some objective that does not mean it is true? Are you completely unaware of the stats on Quebec's program that show that

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/quebecs-plan-to-end-7-a-day-daycare-is-a-breakthrough-for-economic-fairness-and-common-sense/

The only one here with logic and comprehension problems is you. Why don't you take off your ideological blinders.

Is the program available to everyone?

[cybercoma]

He said with a chunk of bloody raw red meat clenched between his teeth.

About sums it up, right?

[On Guard for Thee]

This program, like other of Harper's, is such a blatantly transparent attempt to put money in the pockets of those in the tax brackets who vote for him.Single parents with one income are not those people.

[Bryan]

This program, like other of Harper's, is such a blatantly transparent attempt to put money in the pockets of those in the tax brackets who vote for him.Single parents with one income are not those people.

Single parents with one income get benefit from some of the new tax changes too. Do they get as much as two income families? No, because they are already paying less in tax. This is about making the taxes we pay more fair, not about just giving something to everyone.

[Bryan]

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 know that hyper-partisan hyperbole you mentioned? This is a good example of that.

No one is being punished. Nobody's current deductions or credits are being taken away.

[On Guard for Thee]

Single parents with one income get benefit from some of the new tax changes too. Do they get as much as two income families? No, because they are already paying less in tax. This is about making the taxes we pay more fair, not about just giving something to everyone.

The single parent will continue to get the allowance that was already in place. They will gain nothing from the income splitting. There are no 2 incomes to split, get it? The ongoing BS you hear from Harper and co. is the millions who will benefit from this new program. All they are doing is including those single parents for whom nothing changes. It may sound good if you don't understand well enough to see through that BS.

[The_Squid]

Single parents with one income get benefit from some of the new tax changes too. Do they get as much as two income families? No, because they are already paying less in tax. This is about making the taxes we pay more fair, not about just giving something to everyone.

How do you figure that?

Single parents making $80k do not pay less tax than married people where one makes $80k.

[Bryan]

The single parent will continue to get the allowance that was already in place. They will gain nothing from the income splitting. There are no 2 incomes to split, get it? The ongoing BS you hear from Harper and co. is the millions who will benefit from this new program. All they are doing is including those single parents for whom nothing changes. It may sound good if you don't understand well enough to see through that BS.

Your statement that "nothing changes" for single parents is pure fiction -- there are still other parts of the new tax plan that absolutely do provide benefit for single parents.

Besides that, single parents already can split their income to realize tax savings by claiming a dependant as equivalent to spouse. They can also hire a dependant to do things, and claim those expenses -- in some cases even realizing income splitting benefits that way. There is already a lot of tax relief in place for single parents.

Single parents making $80k do not pay less tax than married people where one makes $80k.

If whomever is preparing their returns knows what they are doing, they should be.

[The_Squid]

If whomever is preparing their returns knows what they are doing, they should be.

Really? If two people working at the same job both have kids, but one is single, the single person has no additional tax advantages that I know of. Please explain.

[Bryan]

Really? If two people working at the same job both have kids, but one is single, the single person has no additional tax advantages that I know of. Please explain.

I didn't say they had an advantage, I said they're paying less in tax than the two income family. If A = 1 @ $80K, and B = 2 @ $80K + $40K, B is paying more total tax on those individual incomes.

[The_Squid]

People pay less tax if they make less money! That's quite the insight. LOL. They should be paying more.... They make significantly more!

Now, under Harper's plan they will be paying less tax! It's bad tax policy, as was stated by the former finance minster.

[On Guard for Thee]

Your statement that "nothing changes" for single parents is pure fiction -- there are still other parts of the new tax plan that absolutely do provide benefit for single parents.

Besides that, single parents already can split their income to realize tax savings by claiming a dependant as equivalent to spouse. They can also hire a dependant to do things, and claim those expenses -- in some cases even realizing income splitting benefits that way. There is already a lot of tax relief in place for single parents.

If whomever is preparing their returns knows what they are doing, they should be.

You need to study the plan more. A single parent cannot split their income with their kid which is what you seem to be saying.

[Bryan]

People pay less tax if they make less money! That's quite the insight. LOL. They should be paying more.... They make significantly more!

It's hardly insight, you're the one who said it wasn't so.

Besides that, they still will be paying more, just in a way that is more fair so that households making the same income will pay the same in tax.

You need to study the plan more. A single parent cannot split their income with their kid which is what you seem to be saying.

I just told you two ways that they effectively can. A lot of single parents do this. If you know single parents who aren't getting these benefits, they really need to get their taxes done by someone who knows what they're doing.

[On Guard for Thee]

It's hardly insight, you're the one who said it wasn't so.

Besides that, they still will be paying more, just in a way that is more fair so that households making the same income will pay the same in tax.

I just told you two ways that they effectively can. A lot of single parents do this. If you know single parents who aren't getting these benefits, they really need to get their taxes done by someone who knows what they're doing.

Except what you told me is wrong. Like I said, study the plan.

[Bryan]

Except what you told me is wrong. Like I said, study the plan.

What I told you is an absolute fact of the tax code that many people already take advantage of. Where is it that you think the new plan is changing that?