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

[On Guard for Thee]

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?

Claiming a dependent is not income splitting. Like I say, study up a bit.

[Bryan]

Claiming a dependent is not income splitting. Like I say, study up a bit.

You should take your own advice.

[On Guard for Thee]

You should take your own advice.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/income-splitting-what-it-is-and-who-benefits-1.2818396

[Bryan]

Nothing in that article refutes what I said. It did, however, contain a link to even more ways that people can already split their incomes for tax savings.

[On Guard for Thee]

Do you still think you can income split with your child?

[TimG]

Claiming a dependent is not income splitting. Like I say, study up a bit.

Dependent gives you a tax credit. Under the conservative plan having a spouse taking care of your kids gives you a tax credit. If the latter is income splitting then so is the former.

Study up a bit.

[On Guard for Thee]

Dependent gives you a tax credit. Under the conservative plan having a spouse taking care of your kids gives you a tax credit. If the latter is income splitting then so is the former.

Study up a bit.

Having a spouse taking care of the kids allows income splitting. Read up a bit is right!

[Bryan]

That's ONE of the things that allows income splitting.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's ONE of the things that allows income splitting.

Right. If you're by your lonesome raising your kid, not much help from this "new" plan. Harper has an outdated view of what families are.

[Bryan]

Right. If you're by your lonesome raising your kid, not much help from this "new" plan. Harper has an outdated view of what families are.

The UCCB and the fitness credit increases are part of the same plan. So is the increased tax deduction for child care expenses. Single parents can fully take advantage of those.

[hitops]

That is a little confusing. I guess you also are against public edcuation, where complete strangers with no children pay for the bulk of your childrens education right now. And health care too? Yet a $2000 cap is not enough money for you?

Could everybody please note that poor people/people in low income households don't really pay much or any taxes now and won't under this new legislation either?

Correct, I favor having as few subsidies as possible. Having children is in virtually all cases, a choice. You either choose to conceive, or choose to not use birth control before becoming sexually active, or choose not to use it right after (morning after pill), or choose not to abort, etc. There are virtually zero incidents where a woman is both raped AND ALSO forcibly prevented from using birth control.

I believe you pay for your own choices. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to take the $320/mo for my kids, I'd be stupid not to, but I fully support getting rid of it for everyone. I would also get rid of all childcare subsidies, mortgage subsidies (CMHC), sports subsidies, corporate subsidies, etc. I'd keep universal heath care because I believe there's a reasonable economic argument for it, although I'd allow two-tier.

[Bryan]

I'm happy to take the $320/mo for my kids, I'd be stupid not to, but I fully support getting rid of it for everyone. I would also get rid of all childcare subsidies, mortgage subsidies (CMHC), sports subsidies, corporate subsidies, etc.

So you WANT to pay higher taxes?

[hitops]

It's called fulfilling an election promise. Last campaign, they said they'd do it before the next election (once the deficit was gone), they won the election, and they did what they promised to do. We should only be so lucky if other parties (national and regional) actually considered their election platforms as actual promises.

Agreed.

All of it is a good idea. It's never a bad idea to give people their own money back, especially those who are stretched the thinnest -- working families.

Then just give people their money back, fairly and evenly. Don't pick winners where some people get their money back and others don't. A much simpler method would be to get rid of the benefit, and just lower the overall tax rate.

Our entire country is set up on the idea that that those who can help out those who cannot. That's what happens with health care, school taxes, welfare, disability, etc, etc. They are all good ideas as long as they are managed well. Gradually extending things like tax credits and income splitting certainly complicate the tax code, but they also allow for managing the costs and benefits to the overall budget and economy. Especially with respect to the child care benefit, this is the way it absolutely should be done -- gradually increase it as the budget allows, as opposed to the plans that both the NDP and the LIberals have proposed where they want to build out a national day care program that would be a tremendous expense.

It's not a dichotomy with either everything or nothing. There has to be a point where it doesn't make sense. Having kids is a choice, and having both parents (or the only parent) work is also a choice, getting divorced so you only have yourself as breadwinner is a choice. We should not be in the business of accommodating people's lifestyle choices with tax dollars. We should provide things that are absolutely necessary and which the consequences of not doing so are unavoidable.

If $2000 isn't very much to you, feel free to give yours to a young family in your area that could really use it.

I give far, FAR more than that every year both voluntarily and through government mandate.

[hitops]

So you WANT to pay higher taxes?

You're confused. If you get rid of all the subsidies, that brings in more money to government, not less. It allows for lower taxes, not higher.

Edited November 10, 2014 by hitops

[Argus]

Correct, I favor having as few subsidies as possible. Having children is in virtually all cases,

Government's use tax policy to encourage actions they feel are in the better interests of the overall community, and disoucrage those which they feel are not in the overall interest of the community. Clearly, the government feels it is good for Canada to help and encourage people to have children.

Not difficult to figure out why that would be, either.

[hitops]

Government's use tax policy to encourage actions they feel are in the better interests of the overall community, and disoucrage those which they feel are not in the overall interest of the community. Clearly, the government feels it is good for Canada to help and encourage people to have children.

Not difficult to figure out why that would be, either.

Presumably the government favors jobs being created (we hear this constantly, daily, from all parties), yet they continue to support a payroll tax, a tax which is directly and specifically levied upon the creation and provision of a job. So I don't quite buy that argument.

Regardless, allowing the maximum prosperity to occur for people is the best way to encourage them to have children (I'm talking about those who plan their children, those who just pop them out every year on the reserve will do so no matter what policy you have). If you lower the tax rate overall, people take home more money. That means they can be more comfortable on one income and have (in most cases) mom stay home, or it would allow daycare to charge less. If one parents works and takes home a little more, or if both can work half-time (or something) but take home a little high percentage, that goes a long way. Certainly a few percentage points can make a much larger difference than a few hundred bucks. And direct parent-kid time has no price, and no babysitter or daycare can some close to compensating for that.

Government constantly scrambles to address problems of it's own creation. It causes goods and services (housing is best current example) to become very expensive, and therefore wants to take more money from people to try to subsidies them in different ways. It makes regulations that create difficulty and expense for individuals and businesses, and then decides to contribute tax breaks and/or subsidies to address that. It runs a mortgage-guarantee operation that has succeeding to blowing home prices to the stratosphere, and then needs to spend money on affordable housing, etc. But it's not an even exchange, because tons of pure waste is introduced simply in operating the system.

Edited November 10, 2014 by hitops

[jbg]

Harper's last trick, I reckon, is something to split the NDP/Trudeau Jnr vote. To win this difficult contract, as in bridge, Harper needs a good split.

Exactly as Chretien split the Campbell/Reform/Bloc vote. What else is a Canadian politician going to do? Urge the opposition to unite?

[On Guard for Thee]

The more Harper keeps shooting himself in the foot by getting caught fudging budget the numbers, screwing vets, openly contradicting his own ministers, and looking completely inept in QP, the less JT will need Mulcair to help him oust the cons. But either way, it's time to oust them.

[Smallc]

You're the only person I've heard accusing them of fudging budget numbers. In fact, in all but one year, they've been better than their estimates. The only reason that the budget numbers are worse than before are ( A ), a massive unexpected (by anyone) plunge in oil prices, and ( B ) the introduction of some massive tax measures eating up about 2/3 of all surpluses going forward.

[On Guard for Thee]

You're the only person I've heard accusing them of fudging budget numbers. In fact, in all but one year, they've been better than their estimates. The only reason that the budget numbers are worse than before are ( A ), a massive unexpected (by anyone) plunge in oil prices, and ( B ) the introduction of some massive tax measures eating up about 2/3 of all surpluses going forward.

Perhaps you haven't heard about the 200 million spread over 6 years which actually turns out to be 50 years, or one of the reasons for Harper's contempt finding when he failed to produce the numbers (the hidden ones) on the F 35. Of course then there's In/Out... shall I go on?

[Smallc]

Perhaps you haven't heard about the 200 million spread over 6 years which actually turns out to be 50 years, or one of the reasons for Harper's contempt finding when he failed to produce the numbers (the hidden ones) on the F 35. Of course then there's In/Out... shall I go on?

You mean all of those things that no one seems to care about because the first two aren't scandals (the first is an example of accounting the way you claim to want it done, and the second is example of how procurements were always costed in the past) and the last one is just not serious enough for people to care about at all? Those things?

[On Guard for Thee]

You mean all of those things that no one seems to care about because the first two aren't scandals (the first is an example of accounting the way you claim to want it done, and the second is example of how procurements were always costed in the past) and the last one is just not serious enough for people to care about at all? Those things?

Both the Liberals and the NDP are calling for Fantino's resignation. I doubt they would do that if they didn't know a LOT of people care. Screwing vets around is probably the dumbest thing any political party could do in this country and Harper has done it in spades.

[Smallc]

I don't think anyone likes Fantino.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't think anyone likes Fantino.

I'm sure Harper would like to ditch him but he can't. Too close to election time for more failing ministers.

[jacee]

You mean all of those things that no one seems to care about because the first two aren't scandals (the first is an example of accounting the way you claim to want it done, and the second is example of how procurements were always costed in the past) and the last one is just not serious enough for people to care about at all? Those things?

Fraud is serious.

People care.

.