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

[Moonbox]

The point is that they're taxes aren't "might be low" but are in a great many cases already precisely zero. Unless you want the government just giving them money directly ("negative tax"), these people aren't gonna benefit from any kind of tax break, period.

Except that this is categorically false. People earning ~$18000 or less (I can't remember right now) may get their income tax credited back, but these are part-time workers who aren't even earning a living wage. Anyone beyond that IS paying income tax.

[DFCaper]

Harper has successfully bought my vote.

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.

I will gladly vote Liberal if they promise to keep this "income splitting" policy.

I don't understand why people are so upset as well. Income stacking would be the fairest tax system, yet discouraged the creation of family units and be too complex. I could see childless couples being upset as the pay more than there fair share if thier family unit has a large deference in incomes.

To me this is a partial fix to an unfair tax system. My spouse makes far less than I do, but our finances are equally shared. Not sure why that is offensive to voters on the left.

[peoples advocate]

I don't know where all you people read these studies but I hope you know that what ever you read you have to take with a grain of salt. They will only allow studies that are favorable to them , or ones that are put out by lobbies groups that get funding from the Government.

Studies can be done by twenty different companies and you get twenty results The true determining factor is truth and facts which none of us are entitled to under this or previous gov'ts.

Times need to change in gov't as it is everywhere else and the lords we elect have to look after us serfs.

[August1991]

Mulcair had a difficult time during question period the other day trying to come up with a well reasoned attack.

But Mulcair had a solid proposal. There is good economic research to support the idea that state-financed day care is self-financing because it means women can work outside the home (rather than care for their own kids at home) and given various costs, these working women pay for the state-financed day care system.

So, Mulcair has a good point.

Meanwhile, I don't know what Trudeau Jnr thinks about all this. But Harper has succeeded in raising Mulcair's profile - and dividing the Left.

Edited November 4, 2014 by August1991

[On Guard for Thee]

I think it is a very good point. Mulcair has claimed his program on daycare will return 1.75 for each dollar spent for the very reasons you point out. It remains to be proven but it makes more sense to me than shoveling money toward families that don't really need it and away from those who do.

[eyeball]

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.

So what about the households up and down the street that have no kids? Why shouldn't they get anything?

[eyeball]

My spouse makes far less than I do, but our finances are equally shared. Not sure why that is offensive to voters on the left.

That's how it works out in our leftist household to so your bewilderment does seem to be a bit of a mystery alright.

[August1991]

So what about the households up and down the street that have no kids? Why shouldn't they get anything?

The households either had kids, or they will benefit from kids. eyeball, what would the world be if it never had kids?

... It remains to be proven but it makes more sense to me than shoveling money toward families that don't really need it and away from those who do.

It has "been proven" by a "peer-approved" paper. This is the research on which Mulcair is basing his policy.

Link

"Nous estimons qu’en 2008 la disponibilité de services de garde à contribution réduite au Québec a incité près de 70 000 mères de plus à détenir un emploi qu’en l’absence d’un tel programme. Sur cette base, nous calculons que le revenu intérieur (PIB) du Québec a été majoré de 5 G$."

Edited November 4, 2014 by August1991

[eyeball]

The households either had kids, or they will benefit from kids. eyeball, what would the world be if it never had kids?

It would be different.

In the meantime, why shouldn't the childless households get to split their income like their neighbours?

[cybercoma]

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. Apparently Stephen Harper hasn't heard that families don't all look like that any more. In fact, very few do with the legal divorce rate fluctuating between 35-45% since the 1980s.

That's ok though. As long as he writes himself a tax break, so he can split his Prime Ministerial income with Laureen, who stays at home with kids and volunteers, I guess it's a good day. When you've got control of Parliament, you might as well write legislation that puts more money into your pockets. Who gives a crap about those who are struggling?

[Argus]

I think it is a very good point. Mulcair has claimed his program on daycare will return 1.75 for each dollar spent for the very reasons you point out. It remains to be proven but it makes more sense to me than shoveling money toward families that don't really need it and away from those who do.

How has Quebec's public daycare financing worked out? The province overflowing with money and looking to expand the program is it?

[carepov]

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. Apparently Stephen Harper hasn't heard that families don't all look like that any more. In fact, very few do with the legal divorce rate fluctuating between 35-45% since the 1980s.

That's ok though. As long as he writes himself a tax break, so he can split his Prime Ministerial income with Laureen, who stays at home with kids and volunteers, I guess it's a good day. When you've got control of Parliament, you might as well write legislation that puts more money into your pockets. Who gives a crap about those who are struggling?

I disagree. There are certainly many families with a sole income earner making ~ 50-100 k. These are not wealthy families. And it is not fair that these families pay thousands more in taxes than similar families with dual incomes.

I suspect that this policy does little to help wealthy families as most already split their income without this new policy. Business owners and professionals simply "hire" their spouses (and children) and pay them a salary. They also split income by having the lower-earning spouse claim all investment income.

I agree that this does not do much to help struggling families (although some struggling families will benefit) but this policy makes our tax system fairer.

[carepov]

So what about the households up and down the street that have no kids? Why shouldn't they get anything?

It would be different.

In the meantime, why shouldn't the childless households get to split their income like their neighbours?

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

[overthere]

It would be different.

In the meantime, why shouldn't the childless households get to split their income like their neighbours?

Because they have selfishly chosen to fail to support the Motherland by breeding.

sarcasm font

The only people this plan benefits are those who are wealthy enough to have a stay-at-home parent

Nope, dead wrong there. My wife stayed home, except for a bit of short term contract work, for the first few years with our 2 kids. I also took most of a year off a bit later, just before they started school. We were very definitiely not wealthy, just living payday to payday and barely getting by sometimes.

But it was a conscious choice, we thought it better that our kids were not raised by strangers at day cares. It was hard financially, and this income splitting would have given us a small shot of cash in the spring that we could have used.

But, no regrets, we knew what we were doing.

[scribblet]

It doesn't just benefit the wealthy, it's a positive step towards addressing inequality. Capping the benefit at 2K ensures that the wealthy don't benefit more and expanding the Child Care Benefit etc. benefits more people than the NDP day care plan would. We both worked full time and are middle income, we would have benefited from it some years, none in other years. Certainly the seniors income splitting is a major benefit to us now.

The working class can't afford the NDP's day care plan either, a plan which only benefit about 10% (no. of families with kids under 6) and cost all of us billions, even if expanded the spaces are limited.

I see this as a step towards joint filing for all couples as they have done in the U.S. for decades.

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/30/jack-m-mintz-family-friendly-tax-breaks-a-good-start/

[cybercoma]

I disagree. There are certainly many families with a sole income earner making ~ 50-100 k. These are not wealthy families. And it is not fair that these families pay thousands more in taxes than similar families with dual incomes.

Of course it's fair. It's not a household income tax. It's personal income tax. There's nothing unfair about it. And anyone making in that range makes more than 50% of the households in Canada anyway. I don't feel the least bit bad for them. Moreover, if the other spouse works at all and makes a relatively similar amount of money, they save absolutely nothing. I think the figure being tossed around is some 3-7% of families will benefit. That's it.

[cybercoma]

It doesn't just benefit the wealthy, it's a positive step towards addressing inequality.

How exactly does this address inequality? If anything it increases inequality, but making husbands less likely to want their stay-at-home wives to enter the workforce. Why? Because it would eliminate the benefit of income splitting for him. It also contributes to inequality by, yet again, reducing federal revenues for much needed programs that help people transition when the economic cycle hurts them.

But sure. Let's go with happiness is slavery.

[carepov]

Of course it's fair. It's not a household income tax. It's personal income tax. There's nothing unfair about it. And anyone making in that range makes more than 50% of the households in Canada anyway. I don't feel the least bit bad for them. Moreover, if the other spouse works at all and makes a relatively similar amount of money, they save absolutely nothing. I think the figure being tossed around is some 3-7% of families will benefit. That's it.

Of course it is not fair. A fair system would see families with equivalent incomes pay equivalent income taxes.

[carepov]

How exactly does this address inequality? If anything it increases inequality, but making husbands less likely to want their stay-at-home wives to enter the workforce. Why? Because it would eliminate the benefit of income splitting for him. It also contributes to inequality by, yet again, reducing federal revenues for much needed programs that help people transition when the economic cycle hurts them.

But sure. Let's go with happiness is slavery.

What? Are you saying that parents that choose to stay at home are slaves?

This policy will not affect the decision to have one or two people working. It will reduce the unfairness of taxing those families that choose to have one income earner.

[cybercoma]

Of course it is not fair. A fair system would see families with equivalent incomes pay equivalent income taxes.

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

[cybercoma]

What? Are you saying that parents that choose to stay at home are slaves?

This policy will not affect the decision to have one or two people working. It will reduce the unfairness of taxing those families that choose to have one income earner.

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

[scribblet]

How exactly does this address inequality? If anything it increases inequality, but making husbands less likely to want their stay-at-home wives to enter the workforce. Why? Because it would eliminate the benefit of income splitting for him. It also contributes to inequality by, yet again, reducing federal revenues for much needed programs that help people transition when the economic cycle hurts them.

But sure. Let's go with happiness is slavery

Now it's slavery... really, get a grip, the hyperbole is astounding, those types of comments do not lend any credibility to your argument. It certainly gives a woman more choices, I'm a woman but do not see it as 'slavery', I would've welcomed it in order to take another year or so off.

Income-splitting is about putting single income families on the same footing as two-income families. It levels the playing field as a family with a single earner making $70,000 a year pays 30 per cent more in taxes every year than a family with two partners making $35,000

http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/krzepkowski-mintz-income-splitting.pdf

Most of the anti income splitting responses here are disproportionate to what is actually happening. In fact, it is nothing but a fight to frame the gov’ts plan in a negative light in order to win votes for the opposition. It doesn’t matter if it helps middle or low income families, the point is to denigrate and frame the issue as being a negative measure, or simply as helping the ‘wealthy’. - and now 'slavery', get real.

Liberal Logic: Income splitting, isn't fair but forcing others to pay for daycare or other choices which only benefits a few is 'fair' - go figure.

I look forward to income splitting or filing joint returns for all people in the not too distant future.

Edited November 4, 2014 by scribblet

[Big Guy]

I believe that a "surplus" is our government admitting that it had collected too much in taxes and now owed that extra to those who overpaid. The fair way to make up for that "mistake" is to give back the money to those who originally paid in proportion to the amount they contributed. The government would not use this mistake for political gain - would it?

[cybercoma]

Now it's slavery... really, get a grip, the hyperbole is astounding, those types of comments do not lend any credibility to your argument.

I was referencing Orwell and you completely missed the point. I even explained it in the subsequent response to carepov.

It certainly gives a woman more choices, I'm a woman but do not see it as 'slavery', I would've welcomed it in order to take another year or so off.

How does it give them more choices? I said it would limit their opportunities and gave a concrete example. You're offering nothing to illustrate how it increases their choices. It certainly doesn't encourage them to stay home with the children because the saving from income splitting wouldn't be worth giving up an employment income. If they stay in the workforce and make anything even remotely close to their husband's income, then neither of them benefit. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think they have more choices as a result of this legislation, other than the fact that you would sooner punch yourself in the face than admit that any piece of Conservative legislation is garbage.

Income-splitting is about putting single income families on the same footing as two-income families.

It sure as hell isn't. 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.

It levels the playing field as a family with a single earner making $70,000 a year pays 30 per cent more in taxes every year than a family with two partners making $35,000

http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/sites/default/files/research/krzepkowski-mintz-income-splitting.pdf

So what? Two individuals making $70,000 per year are not going to be paying the same amount of income tax under the new plan either. The one who's married will pay far less because they made a lifestyle choice that the other did not. And even then, it's only the one who's married to someone that makes far less money than they do.

Most of the anti income splitting responses here are disproportionate to what is actually happening. In fact, it is nothing but a fight to frame the gov’ts plan in a negative light in order to win votes for the opposition. It doesn’t matter if it helps middle or low income families, the point is to denigrate and frame the issue as being a negative measure, or simply as helping the ‘wealthy’. - and now 'slavery', get real.

Or it's a crap policy for all of the reasons that have been mentioned and you wouldn't admit that even if it were true.

Liberal Logic: Income splitting, isn't fair but forcing others to pay for daycare or other choices which only benefits a few is 'fair' - go figure.

Of course it's fair. It benefits everyone by growing the economy. It allows more people the freedom to work and make money. People buy stuff with their money, which creates more jobs. People are also taxed on their earnings. More people working, means more revenues to support these programs and other federal programs that benefit others. It's pretty simple to see how subsidized childcare benefits everyone.

What's not so simple to see is how giving more money to people who already have money benefits the economy. It doesn't encourage a parent who stays home to enter the workforce. It doesn't benefit couples who make similar incomes. It doesn't benefit single parents. It doesn't benefit the working poor who can't afford childcare. It benefits people like Stephen Harper himself, who makes a very good salary and has a wife who stays at home with the kids when she's not volunteering. That's it.

You might be ok with the Prime Minister cutting federal revenues to give himself a tax break, but I'm not.

I look forward to income splitting or filing joint returns for all people in the not too distant future.

For all people.

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

Edited November 4, 2014 by cybercoma

[PIK]

Not so much anymore.

We're the boomers now, dug up our lawns & planted sustainable natural grasses and shrubs.

/seniors-rejecting-harper-and-tories-for-liberals-carp-poll/

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