The CPCs only hope of winning the next election

[Saturn]

Here is the Conservatives' only hope, imo, to win the next election:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story....efe&k=19184&p=1

Child care foes face off again

Some families with a stay-at-home parent say they should be able to split their incomes to reduce taxes. Opponents say the plan, which would cost the treasury billions, would mostly benefit the upper classes.

If one of the spouses earns $50,000, for instance, and the other stays home with the children, the income earner could assign a portion to the spouse at home. That would drop the primary income to a lower tax bracket and leave the family with more disposable income even after tax is paid by the second spouse.

The goal, says Mr. Turner, is to level the playing field between one-income families and two-income families. He says two working parents pay less in income tax because more individual deductions are available, though a 1999 parliamentary committee argued other costs for families with two working parents tip the scales the other way.

Below the surface are the forces that lined up in the debate over the Conservative child payments -- Real Women of Canada, Home By Choice, Kids First Canada and an entire division of like-minded activists.

...a sobering fact Mr. Turner himself discovered in a research paper he commissioned from the Library of Parliament. Though he calls the income-splitting scheme a tax reform for the middle class, the library document shows it is actually the upper -- maybe upper-upper -- classes that would benefit most

And that doesn't even take into account lone-parent families, the majority of whom are headed by a woman and many of whom live below the poverty line, says Martha Friendly, one of Ms. Landriault's staunchest opponents and co-ordinator of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto.

"Low-income single mothers, they don't get anything out of this," says Ms. Friendly, noting with apprehension that Mr. Turner's own research shows the move would take $5 billion out of federal revenues when it's combined with income-splitting for pensioners. "It's cutting taxes for people who have more money."

Mr. Turner says the option would have to be available to families with no children. That, opponents say, could make it even more attractive than the universal child payment for an election campaign, this year or next.

Who Would Benefit From Income-Splitting?

Research by the Library of Parliament done for MP Garth Turner shows:

- Families with children, one income:

Income Tax break

$30,000 - $60,000 $560

$60,000 - $90,000 $1,700

$90,000+ $3,300

- Families with children, two incomes (where one spouse makes 30-40% of the total income, the other 60-70%):

Family income Tax break

0-$30,000 $153

$30,000 - $60,000 $108

$60,000 - $90,000 $454

$90,000+ $442

- Families that would benefit:

972,000 families with incomes over $90,000.

733,000 families with incomes between $60,000 and $90,000.

455,000 families with incomes between $30,000 and $60,000.

Source: garth.ca

Here is the biggest vote buyer that Conservatives can and may very well try to pull in the next election campaign. They will call it a measure to "fairly compensate stay-at-home parents for raising their children", to "right the injustice they've suffered by not having their work recognized up until now" and to give "middle-income Canadians well-deserved money to raise their children the best way possible".

In reality, the Conservative income-splitting plan will have very little to do with parenting as single parents won't benefit from it and couples with no children will benefit from it. The plan will have very little to do with giving the middle class resources to raise their children the best way possible as the majority of the tax breaks will benefit upper and middle-upper income families (with and without children), who can clearly afford for forgo one income. The Conservatives will promise single-income couples thousands of dollars in tax savings. They will promise unattached individuals, single parents and dual-income couples that they will not have to pay for any of it. They will severely underestimate the cost of income-splitting and will claim that the surplus will cover it. A lot of spin and false claims should keep everyone convinced that income-splitting will benefit many but nobody will have to pay for it. Given that roughly a third of couples are single-income couples, income-splitting may be the single issue that could deliver enough votes for a majority.

In addition, the activists behind income-splitting at the same old socially conservative organizations that want to keep women out of the workforce. Undoubtedly, giving women incentives to stay home will achieve just that and socially conservative families, where women already stay home, will be major beneficiaries of the plan. The so-con crowd will be thrilled. They didn't get a ban on gay marriage but this is the next best thing.

And they will probably try to spin it as somehow benefiting the economy by "giving Canadian back more of their hard earned tax dollars because they know how to spend it best". Never mind that most Canadians' finances are a disaster and that giving people incentives to stay home at times of labour shortages is just plain stupid.

[geoffrey]

Maybe Canadian's finances are a disaster because the government believes in paying it's debt rather than Canadian's paying theirs?

More money back to Canadians would be a huge benefit to their standard of living.

I'll never protest a tax cut. Having a mom stay at home with her kids is actually ok for childcare... why pay a government employee more to do the same thing?

[tml12]

Maybe Canadian's finances are a disaster because the government believes in paying it's debt rather than Canadian's paying theirs?

More money back to Canadians would be a huge benefit to their standard of living.

I'll never protest a tax cut. Having a mom stay at home with her kids is actually ok for childcare... why pay a government employee more to do the same thing?

What I can't understand is the "socialist" children of families with big money.

They do not understand that the left will not bring the poor up but will bring the rich down.

I come from a relatively middle-class background. My family gives money to charity and various causes. We are very happy when we receive word that we have paid for individuals who do not have the means to be able to do something they could not have been able to do.

Charity does begin at home.

[jbg]

I'll never protest a tax cut. Having a mom stay at home with her kids is actually ok for childcare... why pay a government employee more to do the same thing?

Because then the government can have a huge beaurocracy of Francophone or bi-lingual and, oh yes, Liberal functionaries to administer it. Just leeting parents affordably raise their children takes the fun out of government, liberal-style.

[fellowtraveller]

Tempest in a teapot.

To curtail the wealthy gaining an 'unfair' advantage from income splitting, all the govt has to do is impose a ceiling on eligible total income.

No big deal, it is applied on other taxation issues.

[geoffrey]

Tempest in a teapot.

To curtail the wealthy gaining an 'unfair' advantage from income splitting, all the govt has to do is impose a ceiling on eligible total income.

No big deal, it is applied on other taxation issues.

Why? The government doesn't need the money, it has huge surpluses.

One day Canadians will get over their tax and spend mentality and then maybe we can have a competitive economy and standard of living. Until then, enjoy the second class country that ideology has created.

The rich deserve as much as a tax cut as anyone.

[Saturn]

Maybe Canadian's finances are a disaster because the government believes in paying it's debt rather than Canadian's paying theirs?

More money back to Canadians would be a huge benefit to their standard of living.

I'll never protest a tax cut. Having a mom stay at home with her kids is actually ok for childcare... why pay a government employee more to do the same thing?

Canadians' finances are a disaster because they like living on credit and don't have a clue how to manage their finances and live within their means.

Why do you go to your doctor and why do you want a military if "government employees" don't provide meaningful services? Having women sit home to care for a preschooler or two when an early childhood educator can take care of 8 is a waste that takes away resources from the economy. It's like bus drivers who drive busses that can carry only 5 passengers at a time. But of course you'll never contest government handouts unless it's welfare for poor single moms, in which case you'll cry foul at the top of your lungs and you'll demand that they be forced to move to Alberta to take minimum wage jobs because their is a labour shortage. And obviously you missed the fact that income-splitting has nothing to do with childcare as moms with school-aged children and couples without children will benefit equally. Single parents and their kids won't get a thing. Did you miss that part or are you proving my point that the Conservatives can pass a vote buying plan for a childcare plan?

[Saturn]

What I can't understand is the "socialist" children of families with big money.

They do not understand that the left will not bring the poor up but will bring the rich down.

I come from a relatively middle-class background. My family gives money to charity and various causes. We are very happy when we receive word that we have paid for individuals who do not have the means to be able to do something they could not have been able to do.

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity.

[geoffrey]

Canadians' finances are a disaster because they like living on credit and don't have a clue how to manage their finances and live within their means.

Absolutely. Same with everywhere else in the civilized world.

Why do you go to your doctor and why do you want a military if "government employees" don't provide meaningful services?

The doctor can easily be provided by private means, as it is nearly everywhere else in the world. I'm not a big military type.

Having women sit home to care for a preschooler or two when an early childhood educator can take care of 8 is a waste that takes away resources from the economy. It's like bus drivers who drive busses that can carry only 5 passengers at a time. But of course you'll never contest government handouts unless it's welfare for poor single moms, in which case you'll cry foul at the top of your lungs and you'll demand that they be forced to move to Alberta to take minimum wage jobs because their is a labour shortage. And obviously you missed the fact that income-splitting has nothing to do with childcare as moms with school-aged children and couples without children will benefit equally. Single parents and their kids won't get a thing. Did you miss that part or are you proving my point that the Conservatives can pass a vote buying plan for a childcare plan?

What's the cost of hiring an 'early childhood educator?' Likely more per child than the few thousand this tax cut will cost. Big picture Saturn, isn't that what you went to school for?

I'd prefer an across-the-board tax cut, but hey, any tax cuts are good. This one won't affect me personally, but hey, if it gives most families more money, great.

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity.

I would recommend that your family should have invested a little more in your education too. For an economist, you lack a grasp of the basic principles of your field. This plan might economically make more sense than creating another massive government beaurocracy in Canada... in fact, I suggest that it will.

Sure people will get left behind, but no more than those left behind with a massive child daytime warehouse or some silly $100 handout.

[Saturn]

Why? The government doesn't need the money, it has huge surpluses.

One day Canadians will get over their tax and spend mentality and then maybe we can have a competitive economy and standard of living. Until then, enjoy the second class country that ideology has created.

The government has an enormous debt that Conservatives piled up by overestimating revenues and underestimating the cost of handout programs. Until Conservatives learn to stop overestimating the benefits of tax cuts and underestimating the costs of vote-buying, we will all be paying 20+ cents on every tax dollar in interest and 10+ cents on every tax dollar on spouses who like to sit home because working is not worth their time.

Do you really think that you've made some sort of a great discovery that economic output will double if taxes are cut in half? Have you ever considered the possibility that the impact of taxes on the economy has been studied by many experts and that tax cuts have never been found to lead to economic growth of proportions you imagine will transpire? If economic output were a linear function of tax cuts, don't you imagine that someone (besides you) would have figured that out already? No? You better run to get your Nobel prize in economics then!

[Saturn]

What's the cost of hiring an 'early childhood educator?' Likely more per child than the few thousand this tax cut will cost. Big picture Saturn, isn't that what you went to school for?

I am talking big picture, geoff, but you clearly need glasses for nearsightedness. You ought to shut up about the big picture because you don't have the slightest clue about the driving force behind modern economic success - specialization. If we all sat at home, raised our own kids and grew our own food, we'd have the economy and living standards of Canadians 100-200 years ago. If you had any clue about the opportunity costs of keeping 5 workers at home, when 1 could provide the same service, you wouldn't be writing nonsense that frankly makes you look about as bright as a black hole.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I am talking big picture, geoff, but you clearly need glasses for nearsightedness. You ought to shut up about the big picture because you don't have the slightest clue about the driving force behind modern economic success - specialization. If we all sat at home, raised our own kids and grew our own food, we'd have the economy and living standards of Canadians 100-200 years ago. If you had any clue about the opportunity costs of keeping 5 workers at home, when 1 could provide the same service, you wouldn't be writing nonsense that frankly makes you look about as bright as a black hole.

Wow, there is a lot of anger there.

Are children really a commodity like any other in your mind?

That's really the only way your argument for specialization works in this case...

[tml12]

What I can't understand is the "socialist" children of families with big money.

They do not understand that the left will not bring the poor up but will bring the rich down.

I come from a relatively middle-class background. My family gives money to charity and various causes. We are very happy when we receive word that we have paid for individuals who do not have the means to be able to do something they could not have been able to do.

I can't understand how you can spin a tax cut for the wealthy under the false appearance of a childcare plan into a left-wing attack on the rich. Your family should have spent more on your education and less on charity.

Very funny there Saturn...your spinning Harper's tax cuts into "tax cuts for the rich." Any sources there? I sure am not rich and I've saved $$$ off Harper's GST cut (which would have otherwise been an unwanted donation to the Liberal party).

[tml12]

I am talking big picture, geoff, but you clearly need glasses for nearsightedness. You ought to shut up about the big picture because you don't have the slightest clue about the driving force behind modern economic success - specialization. If we all sat at home, raised our own kids and grew our own food, we'd have the economy and living standards of Canadians 100-200 years ago. If you had any clue about the opportunity costs of keeping 5 workers at home, when 1 could provide the same service, you wouldn't be writing nonsense that frankly makes you look about as bright as a black hole.

Wow, there is a lot of anger there.

Are children really a commodity like any other in your mind?

That's really the only way your argument for specialization works in this case...

This individual is clearly delusional and rabid in his attack on Conservatives that has absolutely no merit.

[geoffrey]

The government has an enormous debt that Conservatives piled up by overestimating revenues and underestimating the cost of handout programs. Until Conservatives learn to stop overestimating the benefits of tax cuts and underestimating the costs of vote-buying, we will all be paying 20+ cents on every tax dollar in interest and 10+ cents on every tax dollar on spouses who like to sit home because working is not worth their time.

Do you really think that you've made some sort of a great discovery that economic output will double if taxes are cut in half? Have you ever considered the possibility that the impact of taxes on the economy has been studied by many experts and that tax cuts have never been found to lead to economic growth of proportions you imagine will transpire? If economic output were a linear function of tax cuts, don't you imagine that someone (besides you) would have figured that out already? No? You better run to get your Nobel prize in economics then!

I'm not stating that tax cuts are going to create a great deal more economic output, that's not the basis of my argument. Obviously tax cuts will help competitiveness, but it's not the main concept.

My main argument is around standard of living and debt. It's simple to see who needs the money. The government has a large debt, but pays very little on it in essence. The current rate of a Canadian Savings Bond is 2.8%. When you can borrow money at that rate, I'll agree that the government should have more money to retire its debt.

Essientially, the government should issue as much debt as possible at that level. It's not hard to create a NPV project when your discount is 2.8% right... Essientially if the government could issue enough debt at 2.8% (I understand this rate would climb), it should do so and give more money to taxpayers to pay of their own debt.

The lowest mortgage rate possible at TD today is 6%. It's not hard to see it's benefical for people to pay off their 6% debt with 2.8% government lending. BASIC principles we're talking here Saturn.

There is obviously some real-world implications though, people will borrow more if they are making more, ect. ect.. And that's why I don't think the government should make tax cuts at the expense of accumulating more debt, it's not the right balance. But the government should not begin to retire principle on it's debt until consumer debt is paid off... it simply doesn't make sense.

I am talking big picture, geoff, but you clearly need glasses for nearsightedness. You ought to shut up about the big picture because you don't have the slightest clue about the driving force behind modern economic success - specialization. If we all sat at home, raised our own kids and grew our own food, we'd have the economy and living standards of Canadians 100-200 years ago. If you had any clue about the opportunity costs of keeping 5 workers at home, when 1 could provide the same service, you wouldn't be writing nonsense that frankly makes you look about as bright as a black hole.

The opportunity costs of these women working are void in an economy that has 6.8% unemployment. When everyone in the labour force is employed, then yes, you've got a point. Until then, nope. Cranking up the unemployment rate, while spending millions more on childcare is not a practical solution IMO.

I see where your coming from, unforunately you disregard the fact that jobs don't just appear because a woman is now available for it.

[Saturn]

Very funny there Saturn...your spinning Harper's tax cuts into "tax cuts for the rich." Any sources there? I sure am not rich and I've saved $$$ off Harper's GST cut (which would have otherwise been an unwanted donation to the Liberal party).

The sources are in the article provided. If you are not rich, then you would have saved less from the GST cut than you lost from Harper's increase in income tax rates.

[geoffrey]

The sources are in the article provided. If you are not rich, then you would have saved less from the GST cut than you lost from Harper's increase in income tax rates.

Saturn is correct, but only in this aspect.

Overall, personal income tax revenues as well as government spending increased by at least 2 times the rate of inflation. This is piss poor from a supposedly conservative government, and it's clearly not sustainable.

[tml12]

The sources are in the article provided. If you are not rich, then you would have saved less from the GST cut than you lost from Harper's increase in income tax rates.

Saturn is correct, but only in this aspect.

Overall, personal income tax revenues as well as government spending increased by at least 2 times the rate of inflation. This is piss poor from a supposedly conservative government, and it's clearly not sustainable.

Yes I agree with you geoffrey (you earned my respect awhile ago).

This and the income trusts were the busts so far for Canada's New Government (I am still voting for Harper though... )

[Saturn]

. Ah, why bother! You've learned good fiscal and economic policy and the real facts from National Post journalists (or thought you did) and urban myths and you'll keep repeating your beliefs about reality like a broken record no matter what. I find it fascinating how myths and falsehoods make their way around and I find it pretty awkward that some religiously worship them.

[jbg]

Having women sit home to care for a preschooler or two when an early childhood educator can take care of 8 is a waste that takes away resources from the economy. It's like bus drivers who drive busses that can carry only 5 passengers at a time.

What? A government functionary can take as good care of children as a loving mother? Animals in zoos aren't treated that way.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What? A government functionary can take as good care of children as a loving mother? Animals in zoos aren't treated that way.

Exactly. Children really shouldn't be treated as commodities.

[jdobbin]

I am worried about the costing out of this promise. It might not be as effective or as fair as a general tax cut.

I think while any tax cut will be popular, a deficit will not be.

[tml12]

. Ah, why bother! You've learned good fiscal and economic policy and the real facts from National Post journalists (or thought you did) and urban myths and you'll keep repeating your beliefs about reality like a broken record no matter what. I find it fascinating how myths and falsehoods make their way around and I find it pretty awkward that some religiously worship them.

I agree...Liberals myths include (but are not limited to): peacekeeping, multiculturalism, bilingualism, "kindler, gentler, nation," etc. You've learned good cultural policy and the "real" facts from the CBC (or thought you did).

I find it fascinating how these Liberal myths make their way around and how the left worships them.

[Saturn]

Having women sit home to care for a preschooler or two when an early childhood educator can take care of 8 is a waste that takes away resources from the economy. It's like bus drivers who drive busses that can carry only 5 passengers at a time.

What? A government functionary can take as good care of children as a loving mother? Animals in zoos aren't treated that way.

Ya, we should shut down schools 'cause they are full of evil government functionaries who treat kids worse than animals in zoos. Have you ever considered checking on whether kids who attend daycares are any worse off than kids who are (day)cared for by a parent? Of course you haven't.

[jbg]

Ya, we should shut down schools 'cause they are full of evil government functionaries who treat kids worse than animals in zoos. Have you ever considered checking on whether kids who attend daycares are any worse off than kids who are (day)cared for by a parent? Of course you haven't.

Are you a parent? Of course not.