I was asked today if I still believe in family income-splitting. If so, why? Do I support subjugating and penalizing women? Am I some Leave-it-to-Beaver prehistoric relic?
That was the thrust of the discussion Wednesday afternoon, as I was corralled by a couple of my female colleagues who were energized by meetings they’d just had, and eager to challenge me on my ongoing crusade. The arguments flew. Women, I was told, could find themselves holding a tax liability when a dominant male spouse forced them into declaring income on a personal tax return. And what about tax cuts – any tax cuts, in fact – which statistically favour men, who earn more on average than women? How could I possibly defend such a thing?
Barely recovered, I went into another meeting in the members’ lobby with three persuasive women from the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. They were targeting me as the leading advocate of a policy they think has horns. I tried to make the point that being able to swap income within a household would benefit millions of women, and make them financially stronger. It would put real value on the work stay-at-home caregivers provide, and the earned income would allow them to make EI contributions while socking money away into an RRSP, for future security.
But, I was told, this does nothing for single working women, for elderly single women, for women in poverty, single moms or any other woman who might not have a man to split income with. It will prevent women from re-entering the workforce. Worse, it would siphon off government money that should be used for social programs, like state-run child care. Worse still, this tax jiggery was nothing but a vote-sucking sop to the wealthy.
And I said, scraping myself off the cheap linoleum of the Liberal ghetto behind the curtains, you have a point. This is not a gender-based silver bullet reform which will help improve the lives of all women. But it’s a start. It improves the fairness of the system. It will help families. It will help a huge number of my constituents.
Giving families with kids the ability to share income will increase the equity between single and dual-income families earning equal amounts. It will allow more women to stay at home, if they want, and raise kids. It will not stop any woman from getting a job outside the home, since any couple could choose to income-split or file as individuals, in any tax year. It will increase family cash flow, and ease some of the rapidly-mounting pressures. It will hopefully end the painful decision many young couples have of choosing between over-priced real estate, or starting a family.
Income-splitting for families is a reform whose time has come, since it would recognize that this is how we earn and spend money – as families. And that could mean a mom, dad and kids, or an adult child and aged parent, or a single working mother. We could also set a reasonable income limit, so the proverbial bank president does not get to split income with her bon-bon eating spouse. And, at just over $2 billion a year for all Canadian families with kids under 16, it is affordable. Hell, more affordable than the $6 billion about to be spent on a 1% cut in the GST which most of us won’t notice.
Those were my arguments, made with clarity, force, conviction and every ounce of authoritative male charm that I could squeeze out.
Judging by the outcome, I may need more charm.
74 comments ↓
Judging by the outcome, I may need more charm.
posted by Garth Turner on 12.12.07 @ 10:57 pm
Instead of charm, better to stick with broad based tax measures that are inherently fair by their very definition.|
Good grief, not the “Leave it to Beaver” argument again. Garth, get it through you head that those days are gone. While the pic above of Wally and the Beaver may be cute, that is NOT today’s reality. We’re not in the 1950′s anymore. Either get with the times or be left behind.
Government needs to do things that will help families of the 21st century–that mainly means affordable, subsidized child care. It also means programs or tax advantages to help single people–single parents and single pensioners who have a very hard time managing a household on one income.
And how about married couples? I hear there still are some. — Garth
This may be the one and only time I agree with Garth.
Kudos to you Garth .. you do have a heart as you try to function within that soulless nesfaratu of a Liberal party.
Dion would send $5 Billion to China, India, Russia according to his Project Green plan for sham GHG Kyoto Carbon Credits, but apparently will not adopt your income-splitting for families. You are left to flog it on your own, even on this fine forum.
I will do you one better, and ask you to adopt it as your own REAL family income splitting tax plan. Here it is … are you ready for it??!!
Total family income should be divided between ALL members of the family .. mom, dad, kids .. and taxed at a substantially lower rate. Dad, mom, 3 kids with a family income of $100,000 should be taxed at $20,000 EACH .. and that would be true income splitting.
Canadians would be motivated to have more children because such a tax system would encourage family growth .. which Canada sorely needs.
So Garth .. just go all the way and give Canadian families what they really need .. more bang for the buck … you will be famous and very very popular ..!!
Mr Garth TurnerMP,
Anythink that helps all families, couples or single to keep more of there hard earned money to use for food shelter and clothing ect., is worth fighting for. The less kids in poverty the better.
Two links to video to get me into some trouble. Only for fun. I don’t actually believe what they suggest.
It’s only inforcing an outdated stereo type. Just thought I’d stur the pot a bit.
How women should act. 2:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ny8VXayKEY&feature=related
How a woman’s mind works. 1:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud6liZL0CCM&feature=related
Actually I find woman are much more interesting if they are intelegant, informed, critical thinkers,
independant, with an opion of there own!
Garth,
How about allowing interest deductions like the U.S. does?
Mortgages, car loans, (all loans actually), credit card interest?
What is the problem with not DOUBLE TAXING interest money? First the payee, then the payor are being taxed on the same money.
Then how about simplyfying our tax forms. They do one thing…Keep thousands of bureaucrats employed.
Since my wife and I are and for the most part always have been in the same tax bracket (and no, unhappily it was never the top bracket!) neither the pension splitting introduced by the Tories nor Garth’s proposed family income splitting are of any benefit to us. If we were in a position to profitably use them, I’m not sure I would be happy with the changes. They are strictly notional restatements of income for tax purposes. If my wife had a substantially higher income than me, I suspect I would prefer the old system of spousal RRSP’s and CPP splitting whereby to save the tax she would have to actually give me the money!
Changing the topic completely, question Garth. Could the HoC opposition introduce a motion to cancel Mark Carney’s appointment as Bank of Canada chairman, on the grounds that his answers, (or rather his non-answers) to questions from the Finance Committee were not acceptable? If so I suggest you do it. The NDP might have a hard time voting against it or abstaining when Mulcair was one of the questioners he stonewalled.
Regards
EhBC
I like the idea of income splitting but reality is that their are more unmarried than married people according to the last census. 51.5% are not married. Broad based tax measures are much fairer these days.
Income splitting would have been great a decade or two ago. As per usual governments moves at a snails pace.
And how about married couples? I hear there still are some. — Garth
Of course there are–and I am one of them. What I was saying, though, is that it is more difficult for single people to pay household expenses than for couples. Two people have a much greater earning capacity than one. If they are elderly, then they can’t work, but they would have two pensions (at least) to pay the bills; whereas an elderly widow (or widower) is left with scant resources to make ends meet.
I have empathy for these folks. Don’t you? The values that you espouse don’t seem to be Liberal values–are you sure your conversion is complete?
In the case of younger married folks, I see no reason why both can’t contribute to the family income. I don’t think taxpayers who work hard for their money should subsidize a family who can afford to have one spouse stay home.
“Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action”? I have a suspicion that one would be hard-pressed to formulate policy, tax or otherwise, that’d meet whatever it is they’re lobbying for. It appears any policy that isn’t tailored entirely to suit their worldview is simply not acceptable. Probably best to target a more broadly based audience!!!
Note to Garth
Even though we have our differences, to say the least, I’ve had some experiences with the more “passionate” types in advocacy so I congratulate you for at least trying to ‘splain what you’re pushing for to the folks.
Garth:
I’m with you 100% on income-splitting. I would like to see a family tax return too. Yes, it may not help everybody the same, but what does?
It’s one of the most sensible (too simple and sensible for many) things I’ve heard a Politician want to do. GO FOR IT!!!
And how about married couples? I hear there still are some. — Garth
By MJB on 12.12.07 11:17 pm
Marriage? Thats the past my man, no one gets married anymore! Best example: Gene Simmons.
The epitome of the new relationship. lol well maybe not. But even then, income splitting should be allowed, common law couples, as I recall you saying, will have those same rights as married couples.
I can certainly see the benefits of it. Bring it on, I’m all for it.
Oh and I think your charm is just right. Don’t let some ol’ladies get ya down.
Am I some Leave-it-to-Beaver prehistoric relic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11B9L2awVA
Schreiber more believable than Mulroney: poll
OTTAWA — A new poll suggests only one in 10 Canadians believe Brian Mulroney is telling the truth about his business relationship with German-Canadian arms broker Karlheinz Schreiber.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071212.wmulroney1212/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview
Goin’ down the road
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCcbUDBqVzo
Think about it…who gains by income splitting, the man or the woman? Because the man is normally the higher earner, the advantage, as usual, goes to males.
Read this link:
http://www.canadian-universities.net/News/Press-Releases/November_22_2006_New_income-splitting_benefit_subsidizes_unpaid_wor.html
Im my opinion, income averaging would be fairer. Women get ripped off by CPP when they stay home, and what you favour rips them off more by penalizing them for working outside the home.
Income spliting is elistist. Upper income brackets don’t appear to have a ceiling and profit the most. Families, married couples, don’t need women to be encouraged to stay home…they need equal opportunity and wage parity more than income splitting.
I’m not surprised the feminists didn’t agree with your assessment.
Dear MJB,
First, I love your initials!!!
Second, “affordable, subsidized child care” is a tax incentive that accomplishes one thing… It incents individuals to PREFER supporting the economy over supporting their kids.
That’s just bad policy for a NATION.
Now if you had said affordable, subsidized child care FOR SINGLE PARENTS in conjunction with income splitting for families… then I’d be with you.
That would be good policy for an enitre NATION of child-rearing individuals and families.
Second, people “who have a very hard time managing a household on one income” are already seen as a PRIORITY with the new Liberals, hence the “30% / 50% Poverty Reduction by 2012″ GUARANTEE… married people, commonlaw people, and yes, SINGLE PEOPLE.
I don’t know where Harper stands on this poverty elimination issue. Maybe he’ll cut the GST 1% more encouraging impoverished people to SPEND MORE???
As an advocate of single people’s issues MJB I hear where you are coming from, but you have to ask yourself if our country would be better off as a country made up entirely of single people, entirely of married people, or a healthy combination of both single and married people.
Right now the balance is already tipping heavily in favour of single people AND married people who ACT like single people, hence the almost 0% birth rate, and I personally think that we need some family tax incentives to encourage domestic child-rearing.
To say NOTHING of the ills we all see, and which you mentioned MJB, wrt to child-rearing in the 21st century.
Sincerely,
MB
I have commented against income-splitting on this blog before and been laughed at. I still think it is not for women. It is very ordered to “family values” which seems to dominate our government these days.
Right on Mr Fullard!!!!
I am tired of all the group specific tax cuts implemented by gov`ts.
These by their very nature are not fair to all .
They are usually targeted to vote getting & as a result leave out groups in the minority.
My wife & I both worked our whole lives , chose not to have children , own a modest house , pay the maximum in taxation & do not make a lot of noise about it (other than about income trust taxation).
We appear to be in this minority group that tends to receive very little tax relief.
I am sure there are other groups in a similar situation.
So why discriminate against people like us.
The only sure fire tax cut that will help everyone is one that will affect everyone–make an across the board cut rather than those group specific.
Everyone will thank you.
Dr Mike.
MJB,
You seem to be the one stuck in the 1950′s!
I’m a mom at home today in 2007 and believe me I don’t wear hooped skirts or bake home made bread daily. It’s cheaper to buy the damn loaf rather than to make it.
I’m home because I feel this is the best place for my children to be, other work because their children are better off in Grandma’s, neighborhood or center care. Whether you like it or not, how we raise our children is OUR business not yours.
As for Income Splitting, it is a family taxation not a tax break. When the family is treated like an group like the CTB and GST treat us then we should aslo be treated the same when it is time to pay the tax man.
It has already been proven that 80% of Canadians want this, I’d say it would be a majority government for anyone who offered it.
As for the feminists and their arguments, well.
This will NOT force me to be home a National Daycare system only allowing non-profit like Bill C303 will actually force me away from my children unless I marry RICH!
Income Splitting will not put me under my husbands thumb it will actually allow me to get out of under his thumb. I cannot get credit, pay bills or get a mortgage without my husbands consent thanks to the new privacy laws. I have not income, so with income splitting I will have an income and the government and banks will see me as a tax payer again instead of a non working dependent.
Another thing is this is not gender based. Just ask all the gay marriages and the dads at home.
I really don’t understand the new feminists of today. What they did way back when is something I can be proud of and tell my daughters about, but now how do I tell my daughters that the feminists of today are trying to put me back in the kitchen and shut me up like the 50′s.
Why is it if I leave my husband the courts will automatically split his income for me, but it is not allowed while we are married?
Garth, you have plenty of charm just use it on worthy people.
Garth, you are speaking for your constituents, which I judge from your description of your riding, would largely benefit from your ideas about income splitting. So your income splitting has merit for them and for many other Canadians.
However, from my perspective, increasing the level of exemption (income level before any income tax is paid) should be the first priority. I consider it close to criminal that we extract money from people living below the poverty line.
There is an additional argument for income splitting that you have not made. It is to treat salaried people equally with the self employed. In my field, which is agriculture, almost all farming couples (those not incorporated) report to tax as a partnership in order to split incomes. And yes, before someone jumps all over me, many women are full and active partners in farming enterprises. But this is not always the case.
Having Garth’s plan in place would eliminate the need for the whole bunch of the extra accounting expense and distortion of farm income statistics that result. People could simply report the farm business as one entity and then split the resulting net for tax calculation purposes.
So, I could support income splitting if it is included with a significant increase in the level of personal exemptions. Both should be a priority over cuts in either overall tax rates or to the GST.
Income splitting – at least as I understand how Garth has explained it – is of benefit to families where there is 1 primary money earner and 1 (not the same person) primary care giver.
This is a sizable and not very vocal chunk of the population – you don’t find these folks at demonstrations or on political blogs, you find them at school council meetings, churches, bowling alleys, hockey rinks, swimming pools, and the stores. They are incredibly busy people, and they (the brunt being borne by the primary care-givers) have been financially punished by the tax man for at least the last 30 years.
Why can’t we rectify this wrong too?
Garth:
As part of his perverse “Tax Fairness Planâ€, Jim Flaherty has already introduced income splitting for Seniors.
One small problem is however, that Flaherty’s income splitting for seniors only applies to the 30% of Canadians, like him, that has pension income, namely income paid by a pension plan. Plus you have to have a spouse, which means only 14% of seniors benefit from his bizarre idea of “tax fairnessâ€.
Meanwhile 70% of Canadians, and therefore 70% of seniors do not even belong to a pension plan, and are excluded from this discriminatory tax policy. Arguably, those seniors with pensions already have the better deal, as someone else is liable for providing them with retirement income. Income that can now be split with the effect of reducing their taxes. I estimate this is worth about $1,000 a month after tax to the Flaherty family.
As if hey need it.
Please tell me how this doesn’t run afoul og the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as follows:
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms holds:
Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination
see: http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2007/08/flahertys-fairness-runs-afoul-of.html
see: http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2007/05/self-benevolent-tax-policies-of-jim.html
Garth is right. As it stands today any family that decides the best thing for their kids is to have one of them stay home…are punished financially. Even with ‘today’s’ homosexual couples who often do have children the scenario is the same. There are many people who believe that an institution is not the best place to raise a young child and they WANT one parent to stay home and build a good one on one foundation with their little one. We need more parents to make that sacrifice for their children. No loving parent should be financially punished for doing what they think is best for their child.
Most single parents are of a lower income. That is a well known fact, therefore they do get all the tax breaks that this lower income gives them, the maximum child benefit and full dependent write-offs including day care deductions etc.
When a woman decides to have a child on her own she knows that she either has to work or go on welfare. I know one woman who recently had a baby, left her boyfriend and moved to the city. She of course receives child support payments from her boyfriend that she does not have to count as income. He has to still claim this money as income and pay taxes on it. She got 100% subsidised daycare when she returned to work. She also gets the child benefit and the 100 dollars per month subsidy from the government. Not too shabby.
When you have a couple who decide to have one person stay home, the person who gives up their ‘formal’ career to do so, works very hard in that home. It IS a career and one of the most important ones anyone can have.
Garth is right. Period. Leasa
Wow, what a family photo. For a moment, i thought it was the Mulroney family photo-op!
I don’t fully understand the problem? Families will have the choice to either file together or as individuals. The benifits are clear – especially for families with one ‘stay-at-home’ parent.
Garth, may I make a very strong suggestion. The next time any MP, Head of any action group and especially a professional journalist uses voice to shoot down your valid thoughts on tax reform. “Please lead them to that flight of stairs where Jean Cretien ran up, and ask them what is best way to get to the top” “”One step at a time”" and then tell them in case of Income Splitting the first step is a giant step! Should they contine ask them to climb the then come back and ask you again.
Quit shitting on the GST cut. I hope the government completely phases out this dishonest tax.
Just remember that the GST was implemented to get rid of our debt, since it never got used for that purpose it’s just a big lie. The sooner it goes away the better.
and oh yeah, I notice the cut EVERYTIME I BUY SOMETHING!
Harper’s priorities out of step with voters
Dec 13, 2007 04:30 AM
Haroon Siddiqui
Democratic deficit. It conjures up images of low voter turnout and the estrangement of the young from our political process. But a bigger deficit is the wide gap between what Canadians believe and what Stephen Harper does on a host of international issues, especially those involving George W. Bush.
Take climate change. Canadians give it top priority. Yet Environment Minister John Baird has been busy at the Bali conference siding with the U.S. in dodging European goals for cutting greenhouse gases.
A tight embrace of Bush’s policies, particularly on the seminal issue of Iraq, has caused much alienation between the electors and the elected in several Western nations
http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/285171
Canada lumped with U.S. at climate change talks
Updated Thu. Dec. 13 2007 7:38 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Critics at the Bali climate change conference are lumping Canada with the U.S., which they say is refusing to commit to deep emissions reductions, thereby hijacking the conference.
“There is a wrecking crew here in Bali, led by the Bush administration and its minions. Those minions continue to be the governments of Canada, Japan, Saudi Arabia and others,” said Jennifer Morgan, of the Climate Change Network speaking Wednesday.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071212/EU_US_Bali_071213/20071213?hub=TopStories
Government needs to do things that will help families of the 21st century–that mainly means affordable, subsidized child care. It also means programs or tax advantages to help single people–single parents and single pensioners who have a very hard time managing a household on one income.
And how about married couples? I hear there still are some. — Garth
By MJB on 12.12.07 11:17 pm
Ah welcome of to the world of taxation being used as a tool for scoail change, where every special interest group has its own agenda on how the tax system should be changed to assist their members.
When Reform proposed it, I thought they were nuts. But maybe its the one Reform policy that makes sense. Give everyone the same tax exemption, including the spousal exemption, at the poverty level or just above, and flat tax the rest. I;m sure the bean counters at the CRA could figure out the appropriate rate.
Then government can use targetted tax relief and we would be able to see what is what. The effect of any given measure would be the same for all who receive it as there would be only one tax bracket.
For an example why does someone paying in the highest tax bracket get a bigger chunk of money back thatn someone in the ower tax bracket for saving for retirement? Its bad enough that the latter have a harder time saving anyway.
To Sarah,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Your situation sounds an awful lot like the one my wife and I have chosen for our family – yes, we chose it TOGETHER, we decided TOGETHER that one parent should be at home and we decided TOGETHER that it would be her – not because she’s the woman, but because it just made sense for our situation. We are not rich and never will be. In fact, the people I work with, who make the same as me, are living the high life by comparison, because their (combined) incomes are double what ours is. But they all tell me how happy, and smart, and well-behaved, and well-adjusted, etc, etc, our child is. Good day care is essential for those who need it for whatever reason, but it’s only one child-rearing choice out of many. I only wish the people who say such nice things about my child didn’t also interpret our decision to have a parent at home as a negative judgment on their choice. Every family makes the best choice for themselves. This is our choice. We’d love to have income splitting so we could do even more for our child; we’re far from wealthy and spend about half of our (modest) monthly income on housing. But we wouldn’t go back and do things any differently.
Norfolk.
Finley not impressed by flue convoy
Farmers gift Six Nations with tobacco worth more than $1 million in tax revenue
By Jeff Helsdon STAFF WRITER
Wednesday December 12, 2007
Flue farmers had themselves a ‘convoy’ Monday as more than 200 vehicles took part in a protest travelling from the Delhi tobacco auction exchange to Six Nations to bring attention to the need for an exit package.
Taking more than 10 minutes to pass a single point, vehicles in the convoy were carrying tobacco worth an estimated $1 million in tax revenue. Some vehicles were flying Six Nations’ flags and bearing Ontario Landowner Association signs telling the government to back off.
Organizer John VanDaele, a tobacco farmer and president of the Oxford-Norfolk-Elgin (ONE) Landowners Association, presented the plan for the protest during a Friday night meeting in Langton.
VanDaele said farmers would continue to give their tobacco away until an exit plan is announced.
“It will continue until the government gives us an immediate compensation package,” he said. “If we don’t get a package, we will assume they want this to continue.”
VanDaele vowed the protests will escalate and the landowners’ association will move to a “Plan B” if an exit package doesn’t materialize.
He spoke highly of the partnership with Six Nations, saying it had made the rally possible.
“This product (tobacco) has no value to us,” he said. “It has value to the government. One bale is worth only $60 to us, but the government will lose over $1 million (collectively) on these bales today. At least our friends the Natives will put it to good use. The government doesn’t put it to good use, they steal from us.”
Besides the support from tobacco farmers, the Ontario Landowners Association, of which ONE is an affiliate, had a presence in the crowd.
“We need a buyout from the Ontario government and the McGuinty government is turning its back on you, the tobacco farmer,” OLA president Jack MacLaren told the crowd.
VanDaele spoke of the war the government declared on tobacco farmers and said it’s time for tobacco farmers to fight back, saying it’s despicable how farmers have been treated.
“This would be called torture in any other country,” he said. “It doesn’t leave scars, but causes anxiety and stress. That tears families apart and friends apart.”
“Your struggle is the same as our’s, but don’t wait as long as we did to stand up,” Clyde Powless of Six Nations said. “The government raped us of our land the same as you.”
Asked previously what would be done with the tobacco, Powless said that hadn’t been decided yet.
“My government will decide how it will be marketed,” he said.
Straffordville-area grower Frank Pihokker said he’s been approached by people he believes represent Native tobacco manufacturers, wanting to purchase his tobacco. He said many other growers were approached, but he and those he knows of turned the offers down.
Pihokker took part in Monday’s rally “Trying to bring some attention to the desperation our growers are in,” he said.
Aylmer-area farmer Rick Cerna said the government has a responsibility under the World Health Organization’s Tobacco Framework strategy to provide aid to growers.
“It’s not going to hurt,” he said of the protest. “We have to remind them they have an obligation to help farmers.”
Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant MPP Toby Barrett was in the crowd and a part of the rally. He was glad to see the destination of the convoy moved from Douglas Creek Estates (where the Caledonia standoff is) to Six Nations.
Barrett said he received many calls over the weekend from people concerned the rally was headed for Douglas Creek.
Haldimand-Norfolk MP and Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Diane Finley wasn’t as kind.
“Frankly, demonstrations like the one today aren’t helpful,” she said. “We’re trying to work in a collaborative manner with tobacco farmers as one voice and anything to the contrary is not good.”
Tobacco is a legal product but it’s understood it is illegal to transport tobacco without a permit and it can only be sold through the auction system. Even giving it away is technically illegal.
Tom McElhone, chairman of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers’ Marketing Board, said the board will assess if there will be measures taken against those who participated in the rally. He was unsure of the legal ramifications.
“The board will remain focused on its course and that is to get the issue resolved,” he said.
Although there was an OPP presence at the convoy, it was for safety reasons only.
“Just because of the mass of vehicles traveling the highway, we want to ensure safety is paramount,” Norfolk OPP Const. Mark Foster said.
© 2007 Tillsonburg News
So, I could support income splitting if it is included with a significant increase in the level of personal exemptions. Both should be a priority over cuts in either overall tax rates or to the GST.By Allan Chambers on 12.13.07 6:46 am
I agree there should be an increase in the level of personal exemptions, and also support income splitting. If this had been implemented when I was raising small children, I would have chosen to be a stay-at-home mom for the first 5 years of my children’s lives. Those years are touted by experts as being the most important in a child’s life.
I rent a small office in a school which has been converted to a day care, and I see hundreds of parents dropping off and picking up their small children each day. Some of the children are barely out of diapers. Usually it is the mom who does the dropping off and picking up. I’ve been there. When my youngest was in 1/2 day kindergarten, I came home at noon, fed the kids, dropped one off at school, and the other one at a daycare centre…did it in reverse every night, except I needed a sitter at the home for the older child until I got home. So the littlest one had two different institutions to go to in one day–different environment, different rules, different adults in charge of her care. I think full-time kindergarten, which is being implemented in Ontario is helpful to parents and children.
So, although I would not benefit from income splitting today, I would support it for all the young parents out there, so they have more choices, and their children have more choices.
For those parents who want to have one of them at home with their children, this legislation would be helpful.
For those who are single parents, or for those living at or below the poverty level, increasing the level of personal income should be a no-brainer.
Oops I meant to type “increasing the level of personal EXEMPTIONS”, but increasing personal income (i.e. a minimum wage of $10.00) isn’t a bad idea either.
Great to see you picking up this positive theme again.
Anything that would help give parents the opportunity to stay home and take care of the kids in their formative years is in everyone’s best interests.
My spouse worked in the home until our youngest was 12, and I’m proud to say we have two fine, well-adjusted young men who make me proud when I hear from adults they interact with.
I don’t fully understand the problem? Families will have the choice to either file together or as individuals. The benefits are clear – especially for families with one ’stay-at-home’ parent.
By Mark on 12.13.07 7:20 am
Hi Mark, I am no tax expert by a long shot (my accountant does that), but here is my take on it. Say a family has one person stay at home with the kiddies, the working person earns $40K. With income splitting he/she can then give her/his partner $20K of his income. Now that income is taxed in a bracket of $20K instead of $40K. Also, it allows the one who stays home to split the deductions and pay into CPP and get R.R.S.P. deductions, GST allowances etc. I am sure Garth can explain it much better than I. In my ‘emotional’ view, it finally puts a monetary ‘value’ on the good work done by the stay at home parent. L
By Dan on 12.13.07 7:32 am
Actually the reasoning for the GST was to replace a 12% FST on manufactured goods. The government of the day was trying to make things fairer for company’s that manufactured goods in Canada.
The GST was sold to us as being ‘revenue neutral’….heh, heh.
The Green Party supports income splitting but they also offer other measures for low income Canadians and poverty relief. You can’t really offer help to the middle class while not offering also a balanced fair approach that addresses those in poverty, low income, single parents who, like it or not, are in much more desperate need. Maybe we should allow the stay at home parent to be paid a salary by the income earning spouse. Homemakers are treated like slave labour in this country and that is also unfair. Ask a single parent who was the stay at home parent when a marriage breaks up what it’s like to be suddenly left with no money, no job experience and no unemployment insurance. That is how you get more families in poverty very quickly, when middle class homes break up. All these issues should be addressed in tandem.
“So right after this speech,(Baird) Bangladesh’s representative came out to call Canada’s position immoral, dishonest, working against the interests of the planet and working against the interests of individual Canadians,”
Wonderful description of Canadas’ ‘new government’.
By keith phibbs on 12.13.07 8:11 am
Hi Keith, 90% of tobacco farmers did not support this action, the Board did not support this action. I mean, really, they gave tobacco to the very people who reduce their sales on a regular basis. Won’t make one bit of difference to the governments. Imported tobacco is taxed just like domestic tobacco. I don’t know why there were no arrests, they did not have permits to move this controlled substance. From reading a local board, this did not get them any public support and did just the opposite. L
Has anyone else noticed that all the CPC supporters on this blog seem to support income splitting? Why? Because this supports conservative ideology.
I support it. There is nothing Conservative or Liberal about helping families. Get a life. — Garth
Thoughts on income splitting:
It is too late in my life for my family to really benefit from it, but I think back to the early 80′s when we had our children.
We had a choice to make, and ultimately decided as a family to give up 50% of our income (we were both earning about the same) in the belief that it would be better for the kids than ‘institutionalizing’ them from the age of 3 months.
This concept of having children and then dropping them at daycare everyday doesn’t seem right to me. I know that there can be economic reasons for doing it, but I am not convinced that it is best for the children or best for society.
The idea of encouraging a nurturing, nuclear family has its appeal for me. Certainly, back in the 80′s with the wild and wooly interest rates, anything that would defray tax costs, like income splitting, would have been welcome relief.
By the way, after both kids were in school full time, my wife re-entered the work force and has been there ever since. We were especially fortunate in that she was able to get a job at the Board of Education and managed to work about the same hours as the kids, and had summers and other holidays off. It was pretty sweet…
I don’t know where Harper stands on this poverty elimination issue. Maybe he’ll cut the GST 1% more encouraging impoverished people to SPEND MORE???
By MB on 12.13.07 3:10 am
I picked this tidbit out of your post as a jumping off point. Its not that I disagree with most of what you said.
A fact that seems to be constantly overlooked by many in respect to GST cuts, and the GST in general, is that the tax touches virtually everything including necessities which are not optional spending.
This splitting issue represents a proportional, but significant consideration of much wider concerns. Touching on things such as birthrates, abortion rates, quality of child care, youth crime, domestic violence, legal and social ramifications and the products thereof. Actually, things up to and including spending habits and personal choices and goals. More so, I think than a discussion of rights of married, common law, singles, men or women as exclusive groups.
The issue attaches itself to all of the above in some respect, and should be viewed as an issue of greater good, as opposed to the usual ME syndrome. That nasty little thing that has come to afflict our society in such a negative way.
Considerations such as double income, high earning family units escaping taxation equity is a valid issue, but I’m sure the number crunching experts at CRA are most capable of addressing this. If they can complicate the standard tax return to the extent they have currently, why this should be a cake walk for them.
As proposed, this does nothing for me personally, but in my view has potential to do a great deal of good within a society that has come to worship materialism and self interest over well balanced offspring, responsibility for the behavior of ones offspring and even the desire to have them.
Personally, I support measures that advance family living conditions and subsequently the betterment of family units, whatever they may be, for their sake and that of the heart and soul of our Country as well.
Is this a fix for all the ailments? No. Hell NO! But its a step in the right direction for a society and governmental bodies that spend much of their time tinkering with and changing laws and regs to satisfy special interests, often at the expense of the majority and good sense.
Flipping the page, I watched the Member from Kitchener centre speak in the House recently on improving services for Federal inmates suffering from psychological disorders. As I view her comments, she seemed to be trying to address the root cause which places many of these inmates in the situations they are in. Stockwell Day responded to her, in what I thought was a respectful manner. Perhaps a little vague, but seemed somewhat genuine. It would be very helpful to society as a whole if this simple realization could be acted on prudently. It seems the recent suicide of a young female inmate has brought the issue to the forefront for the time being. Hopefully, it won’t slide into obscurity again as it has so often in the past. Solitary confinement and handcuffs, just don’t do a lot for the problem.
To Gerry and anyone else,
please help us fight for real choices and join up http://www.careofthechild.com
We advocate, and push policy reviews also sent out quarterly updates on how we are doing….
Thank you Gerry!
How green is John Baird?
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/aislin/index.html
Brent,
“One small problem is however, that Flaherty’s income splitting for seniors only applies to the 30% of Canadians, like him, that has pension income, namely income paid by a pension plan. Plus you have to have a spouse, which means only 14% of seniors benefit from his bizarre idea of “tax fairnessâ€.”
I’d estimate most or all seniors are benefiting from Income Splitting. Do you not realize the CPP is already income split?
This is a fairness plan not a tax break. Those seniors have paid more taxes in their lifetime than those who were double income. Why,, how is that fair. Both partners on both sides worked just as hard as each other. It’s time the government stands up and gives us our basic human rights and treats us fair!
Dion would send $5 Billion to China, India, Russia according to his Project Green plan for sham GHG Kyoto Carbon Credits, but apparently will not adopt your income-splitting for families.
By Harry S on 12.12.07 11:53 pm
You are so full of sh*t your eyes are brown.
Dion’s Kyoto Carbon Credits would be a CANADIAN program with the money in CANADA (not China)paid into a Green Investment Account administered by an independent agency. Canadian Companies could draw on their Green Investment Accounts to fund carbon-reduction projects. Firms would have the choice of buying Kyoto-certified international emissions credits that lead to greenhouse gas reductions in other parts of the world to reduce their penalty. And Dion’s plan would work alot better than the hot air from Harper and Baird. http://www.thestar.com/article/193008
Income splitting won’t do any good for families that are devastated by the effects of global warming.
Want to reduce the child poverty? Senior’s poverty? then limit the housing industry porfits, and reduce the BIGGEST COST everyone has, and the most essential after food.
Real Estate agents have driven the market out of the reach of most people…YES most people. They are aided and assisted by Visa, MasterCard, and the banks who no longer see mortgages as just for the purpose of homes, but the sole investment people have as a tangible asset to act as collateral to insure the banking industries ‘Casino Royale’ mentality..
Then toss in the culturally taught ‘GREED FACTOR’ of materialism, and of course people are living in poverty.
What is the real disease?
By Emilie on 12.13.07 9:35 am
Good point. If you are around Harry, I have some responses from ZENN manufacturing for you to peruse. Seems they don’t agree with your assessments.
Let me know when you are ready for some reading.
Here is how to earn carbon credits without calling your remaining forest a sink!?!
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-02/22/content_812314.htm
‘Income splitting won’t do any good for families that are devastated by the effects of global warming.’
Funny but no one will care about Global warming if people stop having children because they can’t afford it. Nobody will be left to care.
I think income splitting is a good idea, but why are we bringing women into it as if it’s the only reason we’re pushing for this? As far as I can see, gay and lesbian couples would benefit equally from such a measure as well, without the gender difference aspect coming into it. As for single-parent families, I say there also needs to be the guaranteed minimum income… it’s a different issue and I don’t understand why they would want to use it as an argument against income splitting.
China now has 134 countries on its Approved Destination List, according to the official
China Daily, but Canada is not one of them.
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20071212090341132
Better buisness for PMSH to kiss the Dali Lamas’ arse I suppose.
Funny but no one will care about Global warming if people stop having children because they can’t afford it. Nobody will be left to care.
By Sara Landriault on 12.13.07 10:21 am
I think that as soon as “can’t afford it” is used as the only excuse not to have children, the parents have major greed issues going. Medieval peasants used to have 20 children and they wouldn’t let anything get in the way of having them grow up as well as they could. I think greed is also the reason why we might have so much trouble getting rid of this global warming in the first place.
“Medieval peasants used to have 20 children and they wouldn’t let anything get in the way of having them grow up as well as they could.”
They also didn’t have contraceptives or abortions.
Though I do agree with you on the global warming count.
I grew up poor and guess what I’m nuts but some what normal,,,, it is ok to be poor. My problem is why are so many poor parents paying for wealthier parents to have one style daycare?
Garth, on you comment about income splitting allowing the stay at home spouse to make E.I. contributions a couple of questions I have
Who would be considered the employer in income splitting with a spouse? If it is the bread winner spouse then I don’t think E.I. allows employees who work for an employer who is a family member to collect E.I. so while payments will be made no benifit will be paid back.
If a spouse was allowed to collect E.I. payments what would be considered a layoff? Bread winner spouse out of work=E.I. payments to the couple individually? Would a divorce be considered a layoff and due to collection? What would be considered quitting without just cause and negate E.I. payments?
Final question not regarding E.I. Does family income splitting fit in with taxpayer bill of rights ou would it have to be amended to allow family income splitting? Regards.
“For an example why does someone paying in the highest tax bracket get a bigger chunk of money back thatn someone in the ower tax bracket for saving for retirement? Its bad enough that the latter have a harder time saving anyway.”
- By James- Chatham on 12.13.07 7:45 am
It’s cause the higher income person paid more. The higher income person was taxed at a higher marginal tax rate. So, either have no difference between the tax rates across income levels (then all would be getting back the same amount of money, if they made the same contribution), or continue to have graduated marginal tax rates and recognize that the RRSP tax refunds are a function of these.
Funny but no one will care about Global warming if people stop having children because they can’t afford it. Nobody will be left to care.
By Sara Landriault on 12.13.07 10:21 am
If that were true, Canada wouldn’t be in a negative population growth along with other developed countries. And yes, we have the birth control and they don’t. They just have the infant mortality.
Thanks for sticking up for this one Garth… while we disagree on most everything else, we’re on the same page on this issue.
As for all those who think this will only benefit “rich families who can affort to have a stay at home mom”, think again… BOTH my wife and I work, but this would still save us hundreds of dollars a year.
“Has anyone else noticed that all the CPC supporters on this blog seem to support income splitting? Why? Because this supports conservative ideology.”
“I support it. There is nothing Conservative or Liberal about helping families. Get a life. — Garth”
I love it when Garth turns his guns towards a worthy cause…
By Harry S on 12.12.07 11:53 pm
Total family income should be divided between ALL members of the family .. mom, dad, kids .. and taxed at a substantially lower rate. Dad, mom, 3 kids with a family income of $100,000 should be taxed at $20,000 EACH .. and that would be true income splitting.
Don’t know about that but all (over 18 living at home?) members of a family should be able to throw their income in the common pot and be taxed as a family. BUT there is a big can of worms here, given that two unrelated Males (or females) can “live together†and be considered a family unit what then is the difference with siblings living together and sharing accommodation and expenses. Deciding what is and is not a “family†is getting pretty complex nowerdays!
I support it. There is nothing Conservative or Liberal about helping families. Get a life. — Garth
By MJB on 12.13.07 8:39 am
This is the second time in recent days, after your call for decorum, that I have seen you being ignorant without due cause. Subtract the “Get a life”, and you’ve made your point.
Smarten up.
The Humble Comrade.
Dion’s Kyoto Carbon Credits would be a CANADIAN program with the money in CANADA (not China)paid into a Green Investment Account administered by an independent agency. Canadian Companies could draw on their Green Investment Accounts to fund carbon-reduction projects. Firms would have the choice of buying Kyoto-certified international emissions credits that lead to greenhouse gas reductions in other parts of the world to reduce their penalty. And Dion’s plan would work alot better than the hot air from Harper and Baird. http://www.thestar.com/article/193008
By Emilie on 12.13.07 9:35 am
…………………………………
What you failed to include from that Toronto Star article is these revealing and damning statement about Dion’s Kyoto Carbon Credit plan:
The Liberals argue that allowing Canadian firms to buy limited international credits is an important tool in linking national carbon reduction strategies into a true global approach to climate change.
In our view, though, this money would be better spent here cleaning up our own act on global warming. The best thing Canada can do for other nations is to show them what can be achieved at a fairly modest cost.
And the costs in Dion’s plan seem fairly modest. In the oil sands, for example, the penalty for firms using existing technologies would add $1.17 (U.S.) to a barrel of oil, which sells for about $60. That translates into a few extra cents a litre at the gas pump – a small price to pay for the adoption of better technologies that can cut emissions from oil sands projects.
Despite reservations about the purchase of international credits, overall, we believe Dion’s carrot-and-stick plan is a solid program that would lead to a fairly rapid reduction in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions.
…………………………………
I too share the TorStar’s reservations about the purchase of Billion$$$ of Kyoto Carbon Credits, particularly by the Alberta oil sands, which would amount to a carbon tax. Also I wonder whether Dion’s plan also covers the auto manufacturers in Ontario which were made exempt from Kyoto by the past Chretien-Martin-Dion governments.
Let’s just admit that a Dion Liberal government would force Canadian companies, particularly in the Alberta oil sands, to buy Kyoto Carbon Credits from China to finance Canadian Liberal interests building and operating dirty coal fired power stations in China.
You just can’t escape that reality .. Canadian money going to China to benefit the friends of the Liberal party. If you deny that, you have buried your head in the sand.
Dion will NEVER exclude Kyoto Carbon Credits from any of his environmental plans, and on that alone he is damning hims and the Liberal party.
Have you read the carbon budget? It is the Lib policy. — Garth
By Harry S on 12.12.07 11:53 pm
Total family income should be divided between ALL members of the family .. mom, dad, kids .. and taxed at a substantially lower rate. Dad, mom, 3 kids with a family income of $100,000 should be taxed at $20,000 EACH .. and that would be true income splitting.
…………………………
Don’t know about that but all (over 18 living at home?) members of a family should be able to throw their income in the common pot and be taxed as a family. BUT there is a big can of worms here, given that two unrelated Males (or females) can “live together†and be considered a family unit what then is the difference with siblings living together and sharing accommodation and expenses. Deciding what is and is not a “family†is getting pretty complex nowerdays!
By rural on 12.13.07 1:27 pm
…………………………………
I agree with you rural, that it gets complex when you have to define ‘family’, but surely the issue is to advance and support the family unit.
Personally, I would define ‘family’ as those who enter into a formal, legal relationship to build a family unit involving dependent children. I suppose that definition can have exceptions, but the basic thrust is to benefit the family unit. A single mother with 2 kids should be able to split her income, and if she brings in a male or female into her ‘family unit’ they would also be able to split income.
Trying to find exceptions to destroy the concept is just disingenuous and destructive.
THen don’t define the family just define the child and it will work.
By Harry S on 12.13.07 1:56 pm
Harry, I have responses from the ZENN Car Manufacturer relating to your earlier claims about the value of Electric Cars being a sham. Don’t you want the facts Harry?
I haven’t seen your response to my earlier posts which are an attempt to hep you Harry.
Tanks, to Pyotr. Hep you Harry, I needs to Hep you boy.
Dion will NEVER exclude Kyoto Carbon Credits from any of his environmental plans, and on that alone he is damning hims and the Liberal party.
Have you read the carbon budget? It is the Lib policy. — Garth
By Harry S on 12.13.07 1:56 pm
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Yes Garth, I have read Dion’s Carbon Budget, and here is the critical policy verbatim:
Companies would also be able to buy international emission credits certified under the Kyoto Protocol to offset up to 25% of the amount they exceed their carbon budget.
…………..
Garth, here is my concern about Dion’s Carbon Budget. After Dion is elected prime minister, the Liberal government suddenly changes the Budget and determines that much more Kyoto Carbon Credits are required to meet our Kyoto obligation …. and Billion$$$$ more C Credits are purchased from China by the Liberal government.
As I have said before, a Liberal government will never exclude Kyoto Carbon Credits, and you know that too.
Besides, Dion’s Carbon Budget may be a policy, but it’s not a government law … is it .. and I don’t believe anything Liberals promise on Kyoto … can you ..???
I agree with you rural, that it gets complex when you have to define ‘family’, but surely the issue is to advance and support the family unit.
Agree 1000% Harry, not trying to be “disingenuous and destructive.†But you must realize that if such a system were brought in for “families†( and I fully support such a move) some of those outside that definition would have a real good case re “discriminationâ€. One of the problems with much of our legislation is that it does not fully and precisely spell these things out and so the courts become the arbiter of what was really intended. Just pointing out something that must be considered in considering this proposal.
Garth . . . I get the feeling you will be leaving for the NDP soon!!!!
Income splitting is a great idea . . . eventually for every family, including children, is even a better idea.
I just breaks my heart that some of the folks won’t qualify . . . but life’s like that . . . we all can’t be doctors, scientists or enviro-whacks either!!!
By MJB on 12.13.07 8:39 am
Well MJB, I tend to be a conservative supporter, and I don’t agree with income splitting.
I would rather assist those that really need it. The single income family of 4 which earns 40,000 a year, is able to have tax credits for 4 people, hence reducing the tax payble substantially!
Income splitting generally helps the single earning family with a high income (high tax brakets).
check out the tax packages http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/t1general/menu-e.html
Keep in mind that “affordable, subsidized childcare” will
-Cot several billion dollars, every
year. There’s been no willingness on
part of the Liberals, or anyone else,
to identify sources of funding for
such a massive new spending program.
-The bulk of the benefit flows to
middle and upper-income families who
aren’t necessarily the folks most in
need of help.
I totally agree with income splittinng. Many positive outcomes for this improvement have been mentioned in above posts… but above all it will help with the most important job in the world, raising our next generation.
Garth … The consensus amongst the hardcore Liberals on this forum is that family income splitting is not feasible because it would be discriminatory or some such thing. This is the very same sentiment you would near from lefty neoDeviates who control the NDP. Nothing for the family.
Why is it that I sense you are in the wrong political party trying to advance your position on income splitting??
13 years of Liberal history shows us that they are quite disingenuous about their promises. Just look at their Red Book travesty. You are amongst a bunch of political scoundrels, I regret to inform you.
Catherine,
I’ve done a report on double income tax credits compared to single income tax credits…. It isn’t a rumor, single income tax payers are a lot worse off than double. That is also on the record, when I reported to the finance committee. Ask Garth he was on the committee when I did it.