Dear Garth,
I am writing to you in the hopes that something can be done about the unfair taxation to which working parents are subjected. As you know, past generations were able to support families of many children on a single middle-class income. This is no longer the case I can assure you, and as a Milton resident making a decent salary, my wife must earn the same salary for us to simply afford a townhome, 1 car, no luxuries, and daycare for two kids. The possibility of having a third child is simply not an economic possibility.
With Canada’s birth rate below the sustainability level, it doesn’t take a genius to realize the economic crunch facing working parents is the reason. People like myself simply aren’t willing to suffer to provide taxpayers for the next wave of senior citizens. If this keeps up, I believe we are in dire financial trouble as a population in the next thirty years.
Canada is one of the only developed countries in the world that does not encourage larger families by offering substantial tax deductions for children. Mr. Turner, your income splitting initiative was a breath of fresh air and a step in the right direction, but Ottawa needs to go further. For our family, the cost of daycare is the main deterrent to having a third child. Maybe daycare spaces are commodities, subject to the laws of supply and demand not unlike a barrel of oil, but many would argue they are an essential service. If you look at France’s benefits for families with many children, you will get an idea of what can be done to encourage a large base of taxpayers for the next generation. The Harper government’s child benefits were a step in the right direction, but are wholly ineffective at convincing a family with two children to have a third.
Thanks for your time. Your common sense, accessibility, and financial acumen are making me consider voting Liberal in the next federal election for the first time in my life.
Sincerely,
Sean in Milton
Dear Sean:
Your words are well put. Your thoughts echo those of thousands of young families in Halton, and beyond. Regrettably, the government of Canada – not just this one, but all politicians who have been in power for decades – has been engaged in a war on the family. And it’s time to fight back.
While many will not agree with me, including MPs I work with, I am certain we have allowed an agenda of special interests to supercede that of middle-class families. We tax people as individuals, when they earn and spend as families. We shovel a disproportionate amount of tax on to houses, regardless of the ability of households to pay. We tax families in which a parent stays home to raise kids more than ones with the same income where two people work. We have not been serious about solving the child care crisis, and a hundred bucks a month, taxable, just doesn’t cut it. We’ve allowed the price of real estate to escalate, through taxes and land use policies to the point where young couples have to choose between a home and having a child. We’ve allowed government to over-spend, run up inflation and increase interest rates, swelling monthly mortgage payments. We maintain an income tax level far too high, and yet run multi-billion-dollar surpluses in Ottawa.
In a myriad of ways, middle-class taxpayers are under attack. And yet it is people like you and your wife who pay the freight in this country. Traditionalists among us lament our low birth rate and the dearth of children, but is it any wonder, when families are under so much financial stress? And we have allowed the cult of caterwauling groups to distort the national agenda and priorities – a reality I faced last week when severely criticized for pushing my agenda of income-splitting and a family tax return.
But you’re right. Without families, and middle-class people like you, buying houses and cars and dutifully paying your taxes, this country’s economy, and its ability to fund essential programs, would fail.
When I started running for office again three years ago, I made a promise to faithfully fight for you, Sean, and the hundred thousand more dads like you in Halton. I tried speaking up for you and your issues every day as a Conservative, and paid the price. This government may give lip service, but it is uninterested in helping to improve your life. Today, I am doing precisely the same, as a Liberal.
Like you, I may just vote that way for the first time, soon.
Take care,
Garth
118 comments ↓
I would definitely collaborate with Senator Anne Cools on this issue, Garth. I’m sure she would be open to it.
Like you, I may just vote that way for the first time, soon.
Take care,
Garth
posted by Garth Turner on 12.16.07 @ 10:04 pm
…………………………….
But Garth, the Liberals have a record of being anti-family, and even now they ignore your family income-splitting ideas. The Liberals have made many promises in the past to help families, and only repeat those broken promises at election time.
Surely the Harper Conservatives have done more for families than the Liberals of the recent past have ever done. Why do you have any faith in the Dion Liberals to be innovative about Canadian families??
They even reject your family income-splitting ideas and forcing you to even advocate your ideas on your public weblog instead of in caucus and with the party strategists.
Who other than you in the Liberal party are strongly and publicly advocating income-splitting for Canadian families ..??
The following link is to an interesting article in the Star today, detailing how Denmark is dealing with social changes–notably–child care (free), post-secondary education (free), transportation, housing, and many other social issues.
http://www.thestar.com/article/285962
In other words, this country is serving its citizens–not just the corporate elite. The two biggest expenses of having children are daycare and education. If those would be free, folks would have as many childen as they wanted. And it would pay for itself in the long run as we would have a well-educated work force.
It would also ensure that students worked hard to get into university or community colleges, into those limited spaces.
Your idea of income splitting to send people back to the 1950’s is SO regressive. We need to develop a plan for the 21st century. Denmark and other countries are doing that–that means we will be left behind unless we are willing to move forward.
Oh, and one more thing–War on the Family–Give me a break.
Lyin Brian testified last week as you know, and I watched the whole episode. I wish I had a dollar for every time he referred to his “family.”
EVERYONE has a family. Some are different than others, but they all deserve to be treated fairly. That’s why I’ll NEVER vote for income splitting. It is a CONSERVATIVE idea of rewarding well-off single-earner families. NO. I’ll never vote for that. I have too much empathy for low-income earners who really need the break. Remember the reports of the income disparity growing in Canada? Do we really want to continue along those lines?
We tax people as individuals, when they earn and spend as families. –This is absolutely untrue, unless the family is collectively involved in a business. Almost every taxpayer earns their income as an individual.
We tax families in which a parent stays home to raise kids more than ones with the same income where two people work–
This view only holds up if one accepts the fallacy that income is earned as a family. The single earner actually pays more in tax than one earning the same wage but with a stay at home spouse that they can write off as a dependent.
Since Sean and his wife both work and earn about the same salary, they would not benefit from income splitting, indeed they would conceivably pay more so that a single income couple with no kids and wifey at home watching Oprah could pay less.
There is hardly a war on the family. Children and families are substantially subsidized in a myriad of ways. Income tax is substantially reduced because dependents can be declared as a deduction. Healthcare costs as well as education costs are greatly subsidized by other taxpayers. Daycare expenses are deductable from taxable income. Parents can take a year off of work per child at the expense of those who pay employment insurance. For every pre-schooler the family receives $1200 a year, etc.,etc.,etc.
You’re getting heat on this issue, Garth, because you are wrong on this issue. Perhaps your claim that children should be subsidized even more has merit, perhaps not. But income splitting is definitely not the way to achieve that end.
Like you, I may just vote that way for the first time, soon.
Take care,
Garth
LOL oh Garth, I would laugh my ass off if you voted conservative in the next election LOL
It I were an MP, I would be working on the following:
Reduce taxation on average income-earners.
Raise taxation on above average income-earners. (The trickle down theory produces no benefits for groups that are less economically advantaged)
Provide affordable, subsidized housing for average income-earners.
Provide affordable day care for below and average income-earners.
Keep the cost of secondary education as low as possible.
Introduce an affordable prescription and dental plan for those without such plans.
Remove the $100 prescription payment from senior’s prescription plans and give them dental coverage.
The disparity between the rich and the middle class widened over the last 20 years. Middle income wages stalled. The top 5% made up the largest gap from one group to another.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070925.wincome25/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070925.wincome25
Oh pleeeeeaaase, voting Liberal will help single earner families?
The Libs want to create more publically funded social programs, which you should know will just up the government expenditure – and in turn up the public taxes!
Look at your provincial cousins, McGuinty’s government. Dalton has cost our family about 10,000$ since he’s taken over as the provincial government. How, you say? The special “health tax” for each of us, the de-listing of eye doctors, and the de-listing of physio therapy.
And now take a look at Stephane Dion’s plans – publically funded child care (probably will cost the government 15 Billion or more a year), and we have his carbon taxes. These costs won’t be coming out of his pockets – it will coming out of our pockets!
Or unless, Stephane Dion has a hidden agenda to attack some other group of tax payers (i.e. seniors? families with grown up children? businesses?) to fund his plans. Or do his plans include cuts to infrasture (like in Quebec – with its crumbling bridges and its 7$ a day child care)?
How times have changed. I married 32 years ago because we wanted to raise a family. That was the most important thing to us. Indeed, we never thought we would own a home, travel to Mexico for holidays, or even own an automobile. Raising our family was our number one priority. Well, I guess that what I got: I am more than ever in love with my old man and we have four wonderful grown-up children. I still have a small mortgage on our semi – but I own an old Chev!
The tax system requires a complete overhaul to be fair to all. The problem is money buys votes and Ottawa is a candy bowl during elections and now times leading up to elections. The simple fact is Canada has strong values in Health and Education both very costly, and will be even more so very soon. Although income spliting is sound it is only one piece of the complex puzzel. We had a national health care plan on the table, and 36% of Canadians voted for “Beer and popcorn” Garth even you must agree that by giving families more take home money will on drive up prices more as merchants demand bigger profits. We tried wage and price controls and it failed big time, we have tried flooding the market and it really failed. Garth everyone wants their home to increase in value, everyone wants a raise, and everyone one wants American prices, everyone wants health care and eveyone wants a new car. But when you are retired and do not have to drive, all you want is health care, because we eat less and do not need fancy cloths and a good walk is not healthy it is a treat. A small house with less taxes and heating costs couple with a small lawn and plenty of time cut it and dig in flower beds between visits to see the grandchildren is plenty. For those who want to travel, please do as was told to me, do it when you are young.
Not sure any of this makes sense but what the heck, time to shovel and go for a Tim’s hell I can walk there if I choose. Love the East Coast even though we are defeatest people hey!
Dear Readers,
With the almost 0% national birth rate, and only people receiving social assistance based on the number of children they have actually making and caring for babies there is clearly a… War on the family!!!
Income-splitting for two-parent families in conjunction with subsidized child-care for single-parent families would be an EXCELLENT start!!!
Sincerely,
MB
Hey Garth,
Let’s not focus too much on defining what a family is. Rather, why not reshape taxation by starting to cut taxes from the bottom up instead of the top down?
I’d like to see someone start the process of transferring taxation so that the rich and the big corporations pay their fair share, again.
Would this type of tax regime not benefit a lot of “families” and “individuals” alike?
-R
The global environment is being jeopardized by unfettered growth…..growth in population. None of what we presently have is presently sustainable. Growth is the front line culprit:
Arithmetic, Population and Energy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Dr. Albert A, Bartlett
Professor Emeritus
Department of Physics
University of Colorado at Boulder
The last thing we need is for governments to be promoting larger families. So if you are concerned with the globe’s environment, then it should be considered progressive that:
“Canada is one of the only developed countries in the world that does not encourage larger families by offering substantial tax deductions for children.”
I think it’s well understood that implementing a national child care program will unfairly raise taxes on single income
families.
Garth, your idea will only work under a couple of conditions. First changing income tax from individual based to residence based. Second there needs to be a $50,000 residential basic exemption. Third there needs to be a straight tax on income above the exemption. and finally all income must be treated equally in other words eliminate the capital gains tax. What would this mean? Singles, single parents, pensioners and low income families would benefit the most and likely 90% would pay minimal or no tax. For the rest it means a choice of lifestyles which could take some pressure off our day care system and possible for more people to choose to have more than one child. Older folks would benefit most from this system and maybe it will mean that our kids will finally be able to afford to leave home!!!!!!!
“… we have allowed an agenda of special interests to supercede that of middle-class families. … And we have allowed the cult of caterwauling groups to distort the national agenda and priorities … .”
Garth, those are not windmills – they’re actually giants! Thank you for attacking them. They have skewed our whole political system, not just the taxing part.
Right on Brent (12.17.07 7:59 AM), my sentiments exactly. Any government who supports larger families with tax insentives should be seen as anti-environment. It should be the equivalent as a party claiming the be green while being funded by a major oil company (oh wait).
I’d say we should go one step further and impose a tax on families who have more than 2 children. Call it a carbon tax if you will. In fact Kyoto should be about population growth, if we could get every country in the world to restrict families to two children or less we would have a massive impact on the environment. Less cars on the road, less livestock to feed a smaller population, etc….
“Income-splitting for two-parent families in conjunction with subsidized child-care for single-parent families would be an EXCELLENT start!!!”
MB, are you really that ignorant. Why haven’t you read what Garth, I and many others have said about income splitting.
Income splitting for families will be aimed at all parents not just two parent middle income.
In France the system is based on the child not the parents. That is why I keep saying “don’t define the family, define the child”.
I’m sorry to be so blunt here but Garth has been very open to giving options to all families. You’re attack on him for that is unnecessary and only warranted on your hate for conservative views.
Income Splitting will not bring us back to the 50’s, not having income splitting will.
Without income splitting I will be left barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen under my husbands thumb.
With income splitting I can get my own credit, bank account, tax bill etc… Canada will finally see me as an economic value.
Our daycare system right now does not help single parents. Quebec has more middle income stay at home moms using it to shop than parents who actually need and want it.
But MJB, you feel free to vote for Bill C303, because apparently you want the rich to have daycare and not single moms.
No one should be having three children. In fact we should have tax laws that penalize people who have more than two and reward people for only having one. There are almost 7 billion people on the planet. There were 3 billion when I was born. It is an environmental crime to have three children and these suburban, arrogant energy pigs living in the country that uses the most energy per capita and produces the most wast in the region that produces the most waste and uses the most energy on the face of the planet in its entire history should NOT be encouraged to have more of the same.
I am certain we have allowed an agenda of special interests to supercede that of middle-class families. – Garth
By your very statement you’ve just made middle-income Canadians, of which I would be included, a special interest group.
But the sentiment of your statement is correct, tax policy has been dictated by the “squeaky wheels”, and implemented by governments that happened at the time to be in tune with those squeaks.
Looking at comments such as raise taxes on above average income earners, lower taxes on average and below earners, again squeeky wheels.
The question should be what is fair tax policy.
Personally, I’ve said it before, set the tax exemption high enough to keep everyone out of poverty, and then tax every dollar after that at the same rate.
Once personal taxes are simplified, then look at business taxes such that a dollar profit will result in the same total taxes, corporate and personal, regardless of the method paid to shareholder, that is treat dividends as a corporate expense and treat it as income in the hands of the shareholder. (It would also put the shareholder in the same tax position as the employee!)
I’m not holding my breath though, as the interest groups will want their say, and no government will make such radical changes because of the votes they would lose.
Garth … What are your thoughts on total family income-splitting, so that large families are encouraged and supported ??
Surely the incentive is for Canadians to again have large families so that we are not so dependent on immigration that tears at our social and national fabric.
I know your income splitting is only between adults with no children, but perhaps income splitting should only kick in once they have one child, otherwise you are just rewarding two adults who may have no intention of having children. Isn’t that the ultimate reason for income splitting .. family formation ??
“Canada is one of the only developed countries in the world that does not encourage larger families by offering substantial tax deductions for children.â€
By Brent Fullard on 12.17.07 7:59 am
So we import some 250,000 persons per year instead, along with the accompanying myriad of concerns. Curious approach. Instant taxpayers? Or instant burger flippers? For an instant world.
There is nothing like a simple Simon approach to taxation to fire up politicians…especially those suffering from wee brain sundrome.
Public housing stocks and co-op housing stocks are much too low.
Consider:
1) The rich get too much and pay too little.
2) The poor get too little and pay too much.
3) Some, who consider themselves middle class, get too much; some too little.
4) Poiticans of all stripes from Civic on up set their own salaries/benefits; usually too high compared with private sector.
5) Civil servants from the village on up try to mimic the politicans and are generally overpaid.
5)Business/manufacturing/private sector are over taxed and generally have to cut back wage/benefit to their employees and/or reduce number of workers in order to compete.
6) The number of working poor/poor workers is disgustingly high.
7) Number of children living in poverty is shamlessly high.
9) Post secondary education is too expensive.
10) The idea of helping the greedy at the expense of the needy is stupid and counter productive.
You got a brain Garth; start using it for the things that matter like;
Safety of the citizenry; safe streets, safe neighbourhood, etc.
Availability of affordable higher education to the many; presently too many of the qualified, who want/need, are denied it.
1) The appaling debt load visited upon University students.
2) The urgent need of affordable and convenient located day care.
3) Interest deductable morgages.
4) Low rent/co-operative housing…it is absolutely amazing what affordable housing can do for morale/productivity/family cohesion.
4)Effective industrial policy/aid/advice/financial/planning etc
5) Aid to cities/towns/villages
6) Infastructure/transportation enhansement.
7) Environment; especially destruction of forestlands,farmland, wetlands, air/water polution etc.
9) Effective training/skills programs for the young who want/need it and the old who require/want/need re-training/skill upgrade.
10) Productivity enhancement policies.
It is a fact the raising people up out of poverty tends to aid the middle class as well.
This is Canada; let’s us start being a Kan-do nation…not a think I might, I think I will, I think I will wait, I think somebody else should take the lead nation.
Mr Garth TurnerMP,
Brent Fullard, on., makes an exallent piont about growth in population.
It’s the elephant in the room/world that almost know one talks about in the mass media!
If everyone was told about what is coming soon and the real implication of climate change and peak-oil & gas,
I think the caring, critical-thinking poeple will ‘chose’ NOT to have any kids! I’m glade I did, but I still care about the other human beings on our only planet. I realize that I’m in the same boat/planet as everyone else.
Negative population growth would put a dint or less profit in the Corporate growth profit margins. How can that be a good thing for the ulta rich of the world? Do they even care about there own kids? Most of them are old and will be dead soon, they might not see the brutal effect of cliamte change and the stark reality of peak-oil and gas.
Bissness as ussual will not cut it in the near future. We are quickly running out of time to make the change we all need to make whlie there is still some cheap energy left to make all the new stuff to change were we are getting our power from, to grow food and get water, heat and cool our homes, make closes, ship food to market, ect..
What kind of world are we making for our families and other human beings?
Pollutaed, over populated, energy depleted, over heated, food skares, water short???
What are you doing to help?
Think globally and act locally as you can. Write your Government ask then what there plans are to help us all deal with what is coming soon!
Garth … does your income splitting plan only apply if there are children in the ‘family’, or will apply to DINKS as well ??
At least answer that question !!
Does that refer to “double-income, no kids,” or just to you? — Garth
By Michael on 12.17.07 10:44 am
I’m with you, Michael. Well said.
Good sunny morning Garth,
Your friend should not just be looking to taxes and government assistance. I know from experience where there is a will, there is a way. Let’s do some basic math:
Let’s say our friend here, has an average household income of $4000. net between the two of them.
Let’s do guesstimate averages:
Mortgage: $1500.
Car & insurance: $500. (my daughter just leased a new toyota)
Heat & hydro: $200.
Insurances: $250. (house, life)
Prop. tax: $150.
groc., clothes, misc. $600.
Average child care, two kids $1200.
Without child care the cost of living for this person (with no luxury as he states) is $3100. per month. I’ve added extra for the grocery bill and misc. because with both parents working these are higher. Add in the childcare, and you have $4300. per month.
Not doable right? No. If one parent quits the job here is what I would do:
Okay, now we are back to $3100. per month cost of living as you no longer need someone to raise your children.
Take in two children at $50. (could charge more)that is $250. per week or $1000. per month income.
So now, you have a total monthly income of $3000. net. With one parent at home, you can cut your grocery bill in half so your actual living cost is about $200. less per month. This family would come out on the plus side of $100., plus the $200. the government now gives each month = $300.
Now the ‘bread-winner’ actually has 3 dependents which will make a huge impact on his tax bill.
Now that they no longer have ‘child-care costs) a third child is quite ‘doable’. Now, if he/she takes a third child in, that extra they can put away in RRESPs.
Just another perspective from one who’s ‘been there, done that’.
Leasa
SARA said…”Income splitting for families will be aimed at all parents not just two parent middle income.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m ignorant on this. How can a one parent family split income? Where can I find the story on how this will be accomplished? Thanks
The single earner actually pays more in tax than one earning the same wage but with a stay at home spouse that they can write off as a dependent.
By henry on 12.17.07 12:05 am
Henry – do you have any idea how little the “writeoff” for a spouse is?
I fully agree with James- Chatham on this one.
Or, as an alternative, bring back the tax exemption for childrens and repeal all children tax benefits.
Totally snowbound today, lots of time to catch up on postings.
“The Conservatives’ seating in Parliament seems to have been rearranged.When Harper stands up to answer a question, which admittedly is not very often, four women MPs can be seen, Rona Ambrose, Diane Finley,
Diane Ablonczy and Helen Guergis are seated in a row, suggesting, of course, that Harper cares about women.”
Would it not look better if these women were seated amongst the front rows of men which would indicate equality of the sexes.The women might learn not to bob their heads in agreement and/or smiling/smirk with each comment from the PM. The men might learn to speak without anger.
When will the PM call the by-elections, is the deadline not before parliament resumes?
Aren’t we glad the Liberals sat on their hands before, as each day passes the true face of the conservatives is coming to the fore.
With income splitting I can get my own credit, bank account, tax bill etc… Canada will finally see me as an economic value.
By Sara Landriault on 12.17.07 8:56 am
Sara – how does filing a joint tax form force hubby to give you any more money than he does today?
I agree and disagree with some of the letter’s points.
Daycare in Toronto starts at about $900 to $1200 and goes to $1800 (so two kids in daycare is more than the monthly mortgage payment on a $350,000 house).
My wife is pregnant with our second and we have to take the first out of daycare while she’s on mat leave because of the lost earnings. This means we also loose our guaranteed spot (you get the second child grandfathered in if you have a current child at that daycare) and we have to get back in the TWO YEAR long queue for another spot.
It’s not enough simply to allow incoming splitting for families. In my case it wouldn’t do a thing since my wife and I both work and both get paid exactly the same salary. If one of us stayed home we could barely feed ourselves.
Child support has to be adjusted to allow not just for traditional family setups (i.e. one parent at home, one at work) but for the other permutations as well.
Daycare should be made affordable for all. I’m not saying $7 a day as in Quebec (approx. $175/month), but say $25/day (~$500-600/month) The government should create spaces because right now the wait is TWO YEARS which puts the child one year away from kindergarten so really what’s the point anyway. The Conservative plan for corporate daycares was doomed from the start and it continues to fail spectacularly. If I was the conspiracy theory type I would think this was the cons doing some subtle social engineering and getting our wives to stay home and pregnant.
Income splitting will only help an arbitrary number of families. For those who can’t afford to have a parent stay home there needs to be an equal accommodation. Perhaps, those parents who choose to work get the $25/day daycare and those than have a parent stay home can income split. For single parents you drop the fee down to $7/day or something.
Of course this would all be affected by income. For a family with a stay at home parent and making more than $150,000, income splitting becomes a tax shelter and should be denied them. If the combined incomes of two working parents is greater than $200,000 then they have to pay full price for daycare. This would be modified by the percentage each parents brings in (i.e. if you have one parent making 150,000 and one making 50,000 then they basically qualify for income splitting and then they have to pay full price for daycare).
Single parents get a free ride until they brake the $200,000 mark.
This is fair. Arbitrarily rewarding families that happen to make or choose to make disproportionate amounts of income should be rewarded more than those that don’t. That is, if a husband and a wife make 50k a piece they shouldn’t pay as much tax than a wife that makes $100,000 and a husband who stays home and takes care of the kids. ONe has a 12,000 to 24,000 or great more expense than the other even though they make the same thing. The Single working parent family shouldn’t get what amounts to free daycare.
Income splitting has its pros and cons. I believe being able to file a daul income tax return would accomplish the same effect if implemented properly. This along with being able to deduct your mortgage interest on a home purchase. It would be nice to see the $1000.00 interest free deduction that was taken away when Mr Turner’s conservatives were in government under Mr Mulroney be returned to the tax scheme. This way people would be encouraged to save a little. Under the present system (say bonds)If you take the tax on the interest income and inflation you did not gain anything.
As for daycare I do not agree with subsidized daycare. For many years we raised our families and received no assistance. However, this is an election hot button issue and is with us to stay. If this is the case I believe we should offer free and subsidize daycare up to and including a certain threshold. For example: a single parent or couple working for minimum wage should get free daycare until they reach this threshold. This way the interest of the child is taken into consideration and would go a long way to reducing poverty. To ensure these people have a drug and dental plan the same type of system offered to Senior for drugs could be extended. In addition a shared plan for dental could be provided. However, some of these plans fall under provincial jurisdiction.
For the Feds: All the contributions to an RESP to be tax deductable. This would encourage families to contribute in this area the same as RRSP’s.
War on the Family or Whither Society in the 21st Century
From Pink Floyd’s “The Wallâ€:
All in all it’s just another brick in the wall.
All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.
It’s hard not to sound like a chauvinistic dinosaur when you start discussing the nuclear family as envisioned by the “Leave it to Beaver†model. Those of us who are children of the 50’s and 60’s came from an ideal that suggested a sole ‘breadwinner’ and a spouse at home raising two or three kids was what was ‘right’.
Without getting in to the ‘rightness’ of that, Garth’s family tax idea seems to hearken to a time when we believed that was the best model, for society, for nurturing children, and for future generations.
Maybe a family tax return debate is premature, and we should first debate what kind of society, if any, we as a people want our government to promote. IE. Should government advocate and encourage the Leave it to Beaver Model? Should they advocate Universal Child Care? Should they do both or neither?
The reality of the 21st Century is that our concept of the nuclear family is out of date for numerous reasons. Families break up, economics dictate that both spouses have to work, we have become consumers whose first priority is to gather wealth. Women are not content to continue in the role of homemaker; they want and deserve careers of their own, if they so desire.
So, what do our children need and deserve? Let’s debate that. Should we be institutionalizing them from the age of three months, and let someone else look after them for 10 or 12 hours a day? Or, should we take the first 5 or more years of their lives to nurture and teach them family and society ‘values’ as we have learned them?
As a society are we so caught up in materialism, that we are not considering the future of society? Does it even matter? Is the idea of making any sacrifices, of doing without luxuries, totally outmoded now?
When Garth has posted on this topic in the past, there are those that complain that his idea is the worst form of ‘social engineering’ and the government should not encourage the nuclear family. They do, however, seem to support universal day care. Seems to me that that is social engineering as well, just a different concept of it.
I know my ‘gut’ feelings about this. I believe that for the first several years in a child’s life they can get more from being treated as individuals in a caring family environment than they ever could from being another brick in the wall. I believe that parent’s should be willing to make some sacrifices to do this, and that government, society, and business should acknowledge this sacrifice and try to find a way to offer their support as an investment in the kind of society we want to build.
In my opinion, it is a shame that we have created an economic structure that forces both parents to have to work in a lot of cases. It would be nice if they had a choice.
Garth … does your income splitting plan only apply if there are children in the ‘family’, or will apply to DINKS as well ??
At least answer that question !!
Does that refer to “double-income, no kids,†or just to you? — Garth
By Harry S on 12.17.07 11:25 am
…………………………………
DINKs are Double Income No Kids .. and my personal situation is irrelevant.
Now answer the effing question !!!
Say please. — Garth
People need to realize that no one advocates “day care”.
That is ridiculous.
We should be advocating an early childhood education system, particularly for the 3-5 year old set. This is the age group that benefits the most from a program of social and developmental learning. And believe me, when I personally see the differences between a kid who enters kindergarten from a “daycare” versus an “ECE centre”, they are profound and an outright shame.
Yes, education is by far the greatest expense that face Canadians. But it isn’t an “expense”, is it, since it is not just thrown away for nothing. Education is fundamentally an investment into the future of our society.
It is unfortunate that people cannot understand or appreciate this. One family cannot provide the same amount of stimulation and activities that 10 families can pooling their resources into a single licensed facility. To think that simply putting a bunch of kids together and letting them play is a serious waste of developmental potential as well as resources.
Austin
That is, if a husband and a wife make 50k a piece they shouldn’t pay as much tax than a wife that makes $100,000 and a husband who stays home and takes care of the kids. ONe has a 12,000 to 24,000 or great more expense than the other even though they make the same thing. The Single working parent family shouldn’t get what amounts to free daycare.
By Mike Bean on 12.17.07 12:03 pm
You’ve got it, Mike! This is exactly why income spitting is not fair. If one parent stays home, they just don’t have the same expenses as a couple who both work and have to pay for child care.
There are also differences in other expenses. As Leasa stated above, a couple with one parent at home can greatly reduce their grocery bill.
The rising cost of raising a child, be it the need to have a two income family or the cost of day care, is the planets way of telling us that there are insufficient resources to sustain the current levels of population growth. It should not be the role of government to “mask” economic reality. That only makes government the equivalent of an “enabler” to continue on down a self destructive path. If there are no economic trade offs associated with having children, then people will continue to continue to have children, free from the economic reality of having one more mouth to feed and lifestyle to sustain. Canada is not an agrarian economy that is dependent upon large families. Large families are a luxury that carries with it certain economic realities….and tradeoffs.
Meanwhile we certainly don’t need a Finance Minister who has a penchant for bespoke tax policies:
http://caiti-online.blogspot.com/2007/05/self-benevolent-tax-policies-of-jim.html
Daycare should be made affordable for all.
By Mike Bean on 12.17.07 12:03 pm
and so should a new car, a nice big house, etc, etc.
Mike – have you ever heard of the notion of living within your means?
The Single working parent family shouldn’t get what amounts to free daycare.
By Mike Bean on 12.17.07 12:03 pm
… it should only be really cheap for Mike Bean.
It’s a Liberal War on the Family and that is the current Liberal legacy after 13 years of failed government.
I really feel sorry for you Garth, you who sought solace in the corrupt Liberal party who screwed Canadians with a ‘tax and spend’ government .. tax Canadians and spend the money on their friends.
The Dion Liberals appear not to support your ‘family income-splitting’ proposals and you are left to public meowing about it. Why do Liberals not support you and the family??
We know that Dion has attacked the GST reductions and the family allowances, while dangling the stock Liberal promise of national daycare to trick Canadians again. Dion believes that tax levels should not be reduced, so that a Liberal government can redistribute the higher taxes as they see fit.
The brutal truth of the matter is that Dion needs the extra taxation to buy Billion$$$ of Kyoto Carbon Credits from China et al …. and your tax-depleting ‘family income-splitting’ will mean there is less money for Liberal friends in communist-capitalist China .. without imposing a hefty Liberal Carbon Tax.
Yes, I do feel sorry for you Garth in your miserable, untenable situation … unless Dion suddenly espouses your ideas and dangles it as another disingenuous Liberal promise in any next election.
I guess a Liberal promise is better than nothing .. but not by much ..!!!
Dear Garth,
As the primary advocate of income-splitting, what PURPOSE does income-splitting for all couples and across all levels of income serve?
Please advise.
Sincerely,
MB
P.S. Although you quoted me SARA LANDRIAULT, I think you have me confused with MJB. I see some aspects of Income-splitting as a good thing… especially the child-rearing aspects!
When will the PM call the by-elections, is the deadline not before parliament resumes?
By Geminesse on 12.17.07 11:57 am
I did a bit of checking on the by-elections as we are without representation in our riding of Vancouver Quadra. I understand Karen Redman is there for us in the interim.
Steve has 6 months to call the by-elections after the current candidate has indicated that he will step down, and Steve is leaving the by-elections right to the LAST day because the vacant seats will probably all go Liberal:
Bob Rae Toronto Centre 30 Dec 07
Martha HF Willowdale 9 Jan 08
Joyce Murray Van Quadra 26 Jan 08
?? Churchill River 2 Mar 08
How times have changed. I married 32 years ago because we wanted to raise a family. That was the most important thing to us. Indeed, we never thought we would own a home, travel to Mexico for holidays, or even own an automobile. Raising our family was our number one priority. Well, I guess that what I got: I am more than ever in love with my old man and we have four wonderful grown-up children. I still have a small mortgage on our semi – but I own an old Chev!
By Loraine Lamontagne on 12.17.07 6:52 am
You have it all Loraine! What you have is worth all the money in the world. Enjoy!
A family using daycare, and both spouses work save on taxes right now. Both by tax breaks on childcare and having both individual incomes.
A single income family is paying more taxes with no tax breaks.
Adding, to keep children at home daily costs money as well. Daycares are not the only ones who feed kids nutritionally, read books, educate and keep them comfortable all day.
The only difference is daycare has put a price on it, and we’ve never done that up until now.
We already have income splitting. The employer splits your pay check with the taxman…you get the rest.
By s.b. on 12.17.07 9:38 am
Yeah – remember those sentiments when you expect my kids to pay for YOUR CPP, OAS, health care and $500B of national debt (not including provincial and municiple debt) that the previous generations have rung up.
Just imagine what your taxes would be like if there wasn’t a next generation to DUMP the burden on.
Oh yes…the kids in daycare now are the little people who grow to be the big people who pay our pensions; and we are going to need lots of them. They need all the help we can give them and their parents. Sure, as some here have stated, it means trading in the Beemer a little less often or taking the occasional bus. Tax fairness, public service, strong industries, a well educated/well trained work force, productive farms are in all our best interests. Pursue/attain happiness sure but rampant materialism/self interest can and will lead to ruin.
A family using daycare, and both spouses work save on taxes right now. Both by tax breaks on childcare and having both individual incomes.
A single income family is paying more taxes with no tax breaks.
Adding, to keep children at home daily costs money as well. Daycares are not the only ones who feed kids nutritionally, read books, educate and keep them comfortable all day.
The only difference is daycare has put a price on it, and we’ve never done that up until now.
By Sara Landriault on 12.17.07 3:09 pm
Sara, why did you have children? Did you not think that you would have a responsibility (including financial) in raising your children?
Sara, your husband can claim you and your children as dependants (which adds up to a chunk of tax savings). Sara, we, working parents, get up early, drag ourselves to work, and then do our household chores in the evening after spending time with our children (volunteering in their activities, etc.).
Don’t get me wrong, stay at home parents are not lazy SOBs, who turn on the boob tube for their children and have tea with their friends. Most of them are contributing members of our society. However, I don’t think we owe you and your spouse your choice of life style.
And the same goes for 2 income earner families. Only low-income earner families should be subsidized for day care.
Your argument for tax breaks for day care, is false – as the day care costs employ people, who in turn pay taxes on the income from day care. So if a parent is paying the 30 or 40 a day, the parent should have that cost as a tax deduction.
Now that I ranted – I do believe that you can’t introduce income splitting without changing other aspects of the tax laws either.
It also isn’t right that people below the poverty line pay tax ($12,000). Also the ability to claim certain deductions are only available when one makes over a certain amount (I would LOVE to put more away into RRSPs, but I just can’t afford to after everything else). Also, targeting tax cuts to one group (even a group that I’m a part of) doesn’t make sense unless that tax is offset elsewhere.
I’ve posted it before, we are in a world of hurt in the next few years. As more people retire, there will be fewer tax dollars coming in, and more costs with CPP, OAS, health care, etc… We should be preparing for that crunch now – or there will be a “generational revolt.”
I’d say we should go one step further and impose a tax on families who have more than 2 children. Call it a carbon tax if you will. In fact Kyoto should be about population growth, if we could get every country in the world to restrict families to two children or less we would have a massive impact on the environment. Less cars on the road, less livestock to feed a smaller population, etc….
By Dan on 12.17.07 8:36 am
So Dan, what about many individuals who choose not to couple and procreate? Can they then sell their carbon credits to those who wants more than their allotted share?
Btw, Dan, do you know how stupid and scary your idea is?
We already have income splitting. The employer splits your pay check with the taxman…you get the rest.
By Michael on 12.17.07 3:56 pm
Now don’t go blaming the employer!
The taxman tells the employer what he wants. “Stand and deliver,” I think are the words used!
Children should not be viewed as a commodity.
It’s not all about retirement funds and snow birding to some.
Canada is no longer an Agrarian society, to it’s detriment, due to lack of vision globally and special interests. It’s easier and makes a lot more money if you play commodity markets etc. If you know what you are doing. So, what is the wealth earned in the end? Can’t even afford to have the number of Children you wish.
On that note, I don’t really believe that economics are the major driving factor there anyway. It’s mostly that moderns don’t want many Children, some none at all.
China and India have too many people. Canada has too few. Many farms have been abandoned and a great number of rural areas have and are still emptying into the cities and burbs. The areas they leave often become vacation lands, or grow bush and weeds. Along with the migration comes the loss of independence.
Producers receive a pittance, and the lions share goes to speculators, processors, distribution and wholesale / retail. If producers received reasonable returns balance would be maintained. Instead, we have mass production methods which destroy the habitat and bring on impending nightmares like Global warming. Not to mention tainted foods etc.
In the vastness of this country, there is lots of room, and abundant limited vision.
Now answer the effing question !!!
Say please. — Garth
By Harry S on 12.17.07 12:30 pm
………………………………….
Please, Garth … I beseech you, please answer the question ..!!!
Too late. Lost interest. — Garth
Catherine,
Everyone gets a tax break for their child, not just stay at home parents. You just said you think stay at home parents aren’t lazy and do contribute then you put at the bottom if you work at a daycare then that creates jobs to contribute to the economy.
You’ve just argued your own point. Stay at home parents do contribute to the economy and have high costs to stay at home. Just as double income parents who pay for daycare. Why should one over the other get a tax break. I do pay for my own children and do not ask more of the government for it, what I ask is they stop taking more from me than they do others. It is not fair. Income Splitting is not a tax break it is family tax fairness.
By the way claiming our children as dependents does not add up to a chunk of savings, it is less than $50 for us. Adding we all get that option!
Now answer the effing question !!!
Say please. — Garth
By Harry S on 12.17.07 12:30 pm
………………………………….
Please, Garth … I beseech you, please answer the question ..!!!
Too late. Lost interest. — Garth
By Harry S on 12.17.07 5:06 pm
………………………………….
It’s never too late for a worthy issue such as family income-splitting, so let me repeat my humble question requesting clarification of your excellent tax concept.
Garth … does your income splitting plan only apply if there are children in the ‘family’??
Thank you in advance ..!!
As I have said many times, yes. * sigh* — Garth
Tax is merley a reflection of value adding employment, ie., wealth creation; some employment is conducive to wealth creation; some to wealth destruction. Similar work with equal wealth creation is not always rewarded similiar. For exampe, a big rig driver working for Freightways with a teamsters union contract earns $80,000.00 plus/annum while a non union driver doing the same work in a non union environment makes 40,000.00 plus/annum…a free gift to the economy of $40,000 if you please. A contract worker in the federal Govt. might make $25,000-$30,000/year/ while a full time employee makes $40,000 plus for the same work…another $15,000 gift to the taxpayer…I could go on and on and on. Nothing is fair. However, and economy such as Canada’s makes it possible to enjoy a confortable living by most…it comes with a price. Love it or leave it.
We already have income splitting. The employer splits your pay check with the taxman…you get the rest.
By Michael on 12.17.07 3:56 pm
The most astute comment of the day. Me likey.
Still giggling…
Michael 5:39PM
Correction; I should have specified personal income tax. Capital gains, dividends, property tax, wealth tax, estate tax,transfer tax, royalties, yaw-di-daw-di-daw, are another matter.
Just woke up and read the posts since I expressed my opinion when i got home from work at 5am this morning. There are a lot of good ideas but only a few that agree that we need a massive overhaul if we want to make it fair for everyone. Garths idea of income splitting is the best one if we change other parts of our system as well. Basically income splitting means we change from an individual based tax system to one based on an address which is the basis for everyones lifestyle. This means there is only one tax form per physical address. Now it no longer matters what the makeup of that household is, the amount of tax payable is the same for each household. AS i pointed out earlier if we eliminate capital gains and treat all income equally and have a $50,000 basic household exemption as well as a flat tax on all income above that amount most Canadians would see massive improvments in their lives. Single people, retired or other pensioners, single parents and the working poor would all pay little or no tax under this system. Ironically four people earning $20,000 a year in one house would pay tax while a single wage earner earning $50,000 in the next house would pay none which is completely fair because the expenses for both households are roughly the same. The other great feature of this idea is that now we would only need a withholding tax on all incomes below $50,000 of say 5% and we then have a choice of paying a lump sum at the end of the year if we owe more or having more deducted at source. Obviously most of us would see whole lot more paycheck each week and would allow more households to choose between staying at home at least until chidren are going to school full time, changing to part time work or using day care which means this issue becomes less of a crisses. With the overly complex system in place today most of us have few choices and issues like daycare become huge problems and political footballs. Obviously this is a incomplete overhaul of our tax system and if Garth is interested in the other half he knows where to contact me.
I’ve posted it before, we are in a world of hurt in the next few years. As more people retire, there will be fewer tax dollars coming in, and more costs with CPP, OAS, health care, etc… We should be preparing for that crunch now – or there will be a “generational revolt.â€
By Tim N on 12.17.07 4:19 pm
——————————————————————–
Good post, Tim N., and it goes with Garth’s book on or about 2015, when the vast majority of boomers leave the workforc completely, either through full retirement or death.
Either the feds increase immigration levels on all aspects — as long as immigrants are up-to-date with new procedures, let them work, because they want to work.
There may come a generational revolt, or complete anarchy mainly because the vast majority of people will not have the slightest idea of what to do, or how to live their lives — simply, fairly and equitably.
Garth, I find your comment concerning income splitting very interesting as you state it would only be utilized with couples with children. Do you believe it would with stand a charter challenge concerning equality under those conditions.
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 and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I direct you to the portion concerning equal benefit of the law, which tax policy is.
Sure, so you would end monthly child care payments and seniors’ benefits because they are not given to everyone? Sheesh. — Garth
PS. Concerning gobt funded daycare, figure out how much it cost per child in the national funded day care, for example, lets say it is 30 a day, fund the day cares, but remember to cut a check for the same amount per day to the stay at home moms. Last time I checked the single income family with stay at home Moms’ paid taxes too.
Never mind anarchy or revolution — there is a possibility that none of us will be here much longer!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071217/deathstar_galaxy_071217/20071217?hub=World&s_name=
I see the insanity still reigns. Have fun!
Hey…any MP who gets the concept that the middle class is being crushed is okay by me…
I live it. We have two beautiful girls and with propery tax( $250/month), mortgage payments( $1000) month), food( ($750 month), car payment( $500 month), insurance…etc it is a constant battle to stay afloat…and we are sinking
I don’t really care how it’s done but somehow, this needs to be fixed.
Thanks Garth for at least seeing it…
By Tim N on 12.17.07 4:19 pm
By William Dahl on 12.17.07 6:27 pm
By Charles Oxley on 12.17.07 6:31 pm
………………………………….
Okay fellas .. only look at MP Garth’s family income-splitting scheme only as a political concept and not a viable taxation regime. Do you think Canadians will vote Liberal if they adopt MP Garth’s pet issue ??
MP Garth did say it only applied if the family had children .. and how many do you need to pay zero taxes if you distribute the income between all members of the family ??
Total family income splitting becomes regressive the more children you have, once you reach a certain optimum income splitting, Adding more children to the family is of no tax advantage and it becomes a disincentive.
The other problem is the loss of tax revenue to care for the needs of the retired seniors who will demand government assistance, and as we all know, children do not vote.
I have suggested that MP Garth espouse total family income-splitting, so why not give parents additional votes for each child as well ?? Now wouldn’t that alter voting patterns ..!!
Think outside the tax box …!!!
Would someone be so kind as to tell me the different income levels? I’m not sure of the accepted income bracket for “middle class”. Thanks.
Garth, I raised my comment concerning the Charter Challenge as it seems to be the vogue thing to do know in Canada as soon as soon something new is proposed. I believe CPP and Family allowance would with stand a current charter challenge because it could always be argued that they are time honored i.e. Grandfathered.
My question was meant to provoke a serious opinion from you concerning if you thought it would withstand a charter challenge with this countries new perspective of what is in it for me and why should the other guy get more. Screw, lets go to court outlook.
Charles Oxley 7:33PM
Not to put too fine a point on it Charles, the universe, as we know it, is a black hole surrounded by an absolute singularity. We can’t avoid a black hole simply because we occupy one. Smart physicists will dispute this contention…smarter ones will assert it…just as different economists have their favourite theories/approaches of/to taxation/economy. It is also true that the earth travels around the sun in a straight line..check out Einstein for an explanation. The wise sage, the theologian and the advanced physicist tend to think that everything that we conceive as the physical world is actually an illusion; but a perfect illusion. Therefor, I can’t be absolutely sure that I am the only reality and everthing else is an illusion any more than I can say I am just part of an elaborate dream.
Where does that leave Santa Claus? you might say. I don’t know but I do understand that he will be leaving the North Pole shortly on a world wide trip that he will complete in a few hours. That he can do so requires a great leap of the imagination and an understanding of physics that few humans will attain.
I hope that Santa is very good to all who post here and those who don’t.(except Steve and Jim, the mendacious Grinches who pood on the seniors savings)
“Merry Christmas” to those who believe in Santa and for those who don’t “Seasons Greetings.”
Harry S,
There are people in many different situations, as far as income-splitting is concerned. You don’t have to be so aggressive, in your inquiries.
DINKS – Double Income No Kids
SINKS – Single Income No Kids
DICKS – Double Income Cant-have Kids
ZITKS – Zero Income Too May Kids
RED PRICKS – Reduced Personal
Retirement Income ‘cos of Kids
ETC.
Each family’s or individual’s circumstances are different and offer varying levels of potential tax saving opportunities. Trying to tinker with the tax cide to favour one group will rewult in another group crying foul. The tax code is unlikely to be a win-win solution. As long as we’re all trying to do our best to legally minimize our tax burden, that’s fair.
As Leasa stated above, a couple with one parent at home can greatly reduce their grocery bill.
By MJB on 12.17.07 12:51 pm
Not only do you reduce your grocery bill, you reduce your clothing bill, no more need to buy uniforms or nice work clothes! Play clothes for kids staying home, don’t need to be as nice as clothes to attend day care.
On the grocery bill…you’d be amazed at how much cheaper home cooked good food is! Now you have time to actually chop, peel and prepare fresh food…no more packaged expensive heat and serve crap! I still giggle in the grocery store when I see ‘ready to eat’ salads! 4X the price to have the lettuce cut up for you! Amazing! In the summer, since you’re home anyway, till up part of that yard…put in a garden…can some tomatoes, cure some onions…actually use those cool cellars that are built into your basement! If you are hard working and industrious, a stay at home parent can save a fortune and at the same time feed their family well. I highly recommend the ‘Fanny Farmer Cook Book for every home. It’s an equal opportunity book that can be used by both males & females! I bought my daughter one and she loves it. Most of her generation, if it’s not wrapped in plastic and isn’t whamo-blammo instant’ they just don’t know what to do with it!
If I could do it, anyone can. Ya just got to want to.
Leasa
Garth, instead of focusing on new spending, which just comes back around to bite again with new taxes… why not focus on one key equation.
The ratio between take-home after-tax-income and home ownership. For example if a family income was 20,000/yr and the average house price 100,000. The ratio would be 1:5.
I don’t have the data, but I’d like to see that figure plotted throughout the last 100 years. My guess is that the ratio of earnings to home price is progressively getting worse every year.
Once we understand what is occurring in some sort of real detail (the CPI is obviously broken)… then we can look at what type of policies would get this ratio back in check.
Garth … does your income splitting plan only apply if there are children in the ‘family’??
Thank you in advance ..!!
As I have said many times, yes. * sigh* — Garth
——————-
Not a very fair plan. Me and the wife get penalized because of infertility while someone gets breaks on my tax dollars. Make no wonder liberals don’t want this, which Canadian would besides those irresponsible enough to have more kids than they can afford.
Hi garth,
For what it’s worth, in the early colonial days in Quebec the laws stated that if a settler chose “not” to get married and have children he would be subject to double taxation. So was the priorities of the time.
dubya finally begins to see the errors of his ways. America might have some future economic trouble — doh!
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_sees_storm_clouds_over_US_econ_12172007.html
Although in some years my family would probably have benefited from income-splitting (not this year, to be sure), I still don’t see how it would ever benefit more than a very narrow segment of society – specifically, couples where one spouse is at least in the second tax bracket and the other makes a little money but not little enough to be a ‘dependant’. I think my husband and I spent about two years in this category – somewhere between the birth of our son and the day the dot-com bubble burst.
Frankly, we would have benefited a lot more if daycare had been subsidized to the point where it would have been worth my while to keep my $11 an hour job in Oakville. As it was, after deductions, daycare, gas and other expenses, the $120 or so a week I was left with was hardly worth the effort.
I’d be curious to see what the cost/benefit equation would look like on income-splitting vs. $7 an hour daycare.
BTW, given the ambivalence about income splitting being expressed by all sides here, I have to ask: If most of your constituents turned out to be against this, would you drop it?
Ed Brooks said, “It’s a shame that we have created an economic structure that forces both parents to work in a lot of cases. It would be nice if they had s choice.â€
Some have suggested income splitting may be social engineering to keep women at home.
Sometimes, when there is downsizing in a company, or a spouse wants to try a n entrepreneurial venture to get ahead, or, if there is illness or an accident, a change in plans may be forced on a couple and the wife may need to work but, at a time when day care is so expensive and there are not even enough day care spaces in the first place, the family may be forced onto assistance and maybe lose their house. This situation is not uncommon today.
Single mothers may have lost their husbands due to death or their husbands may not make enough even on two low-paying jobs to support a wife and two kids and let’s face it, all men/women are not created equal. I know many would say, “then they shouldn’t have childrenâ€. Would this be social engineering or, really, even fair?
I do believe it is better for mothers to stay home to nurture and train children and to maintain a bond with them into teenage years.
I am a grandmother. When my husband and I were younger, we worked with our church youth group and also took in a couple of kids through the concerns of my daughter. A lot of kids passed though our lives and one can’t help but observe the factors which contribute to success in raising children,.
When my daughter became a day care worker and then a day care director, she worked for about a year after having her first child but then was able to make the decision to stay home and be the one to raise her children . She was fortunate to be able to choose.
In my experience, I do see a need for subsidized and expanded day care spaces if we want all kids to have a chance to become contributing members of society. In many instances, a good properly certified day care can give a child a feeling of security and confidence he/she might not find in a home under stress, This may not occur just in the case of poverty either but does usually accompany need. Some parents really need this choice. Such things as learning disabilities may be addressed earlier if a child is in a certified day care too.
We are caught up in materialism. This is the inconsistency of pushing greater and greater production to obtain greater wealth so people must work harder to buy the things corporations spend big money to convince us we need…this to support the economy which favours the top 5% of the population. And round and round it goes. Yet. this conservative government thinks mothers should stay at home with their kids but subsidizes big oil so ToysRus can have lots of plastic toys to tempt our children and push parents farther into debt. After all, the Conservatives count on them to keep the economy going.
How can unfettered corporate or personal greed be sustainable? Obviously it can’t.
Look at the social problems Japan had when they pushed employees to produce more and more, faster and faster. Look at our environment. We need to leave resources for future generations but we are trying to use it up as fast as we can so some can end up with more toys, more power.
Society has problems. We have to look at them.
Catherine,
Everyone gets a tax break for their child, not just stay at home parents. You just said you think stay at home parents aren’t lazy and do contribute then you put at the bottom if you work at a daycare then that creates jobs to contribute to the economy.
You’ve just argued your own point. Stay at home parents do contribute to the economy and have high costs to stay at home. Just as double income parents who pay for daycare. Why should one over the other get a tax break. I do pay for my own children and do not ask more of the government for it, what I ask is they stop taking more from me than they do others. It is not fair. Income Splitting is not a tax break it is family tax fairness.
By the way claiming our children as dependents does not add up to a chunk of savings, it is less than $50 for us. Adding we all get that option!
By Sara Landriault on 12.17.07 5:18 pm
People who work at a daycare are employees. Parents, who choose to stay home, are not employees!
Following your logic, would you say that it would be fair to provide 2 income families with free maid, shopping, and cooking services, so these parents have some time to themselves?
Again, Sara, you are penalizing those parents who choose to work outside the home, because you choose to stay at home.
Btw, Sara, you should get more than 50 per child in tax benefits, visit the CRA website (line 305).
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/5000-g/5000-g-06e.pdf
Dear Santa I want my Canada Back.
I want my Canada Back! I love those words, yes Ladies and Gentlemen, the Canada that we grew grew up in, the Canada I was raised in with all it faults, the Canada I was proud of, the Canada where we had leadership not ‘Dictatorship” where the Bully the on Hill is more concerned about a “White House” rather than “Our House”". I want my children and grandchildren to have at minimum the standard of living I enjoyed in Canada. Where I turned on a TV and the PM of Canada was talking to Canadians, not talking down to Canadians. My Canada is unique not in the image of George “Dubya” Bush but in the memories of gallant men and women who came to-gether from coast to coast to coast and fought for freedom of speech and for the right to be heard via there elected representative in Ottawa, who are now told to sit and listen to a “Dictator” spell out rules of what to say, where to say it and to whom to talk to. Dam it I want may Canada back, the question is do you?
Henry – do you have any idea how little the “writeoff†for a spouse is?
By Phil on 12.17.07 11:55 am
The spousal “writeoff” is $9600.00 x 15%=$1440.00. Hardly unsubstantial. Not to mention a dual income couple are both paying CPP and EI contributions, a not insignificant expense. A single income earner making $80,000.00 is only paying CPP and EI on 50% of earnings while a dual income couple, each earning $40,000.00 pays CPP and EI on 100% of their earnings. And so on.
What I find interesting about this post is that Sean in Milton would not benefit one iota from Garth’s income-splitting scheme. Indeed, since the Saras of this world would be paying less, the Seans of this world would have to pay more. Too funny.
More from your new open and acountable government…
Ottawa ignored nuclear hiring advice-
Former AECL chief was passed over for Alliance fundraiser
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071218.wsoubliere18/BNStory/National/home
Harper and the cons keep embarassing themselves by continually blaming the liberals. First with the polling contracts , now some of their partisan appointments turn out to be not qualified. Very dangerous for our country.
Ottawa ignored nuclear hiring advice
Former AECL chief was passed over for Alliance fundraiser
DANIEL LEBLANC AND ALAN FREEMAN
From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail
December 18, 2007 at 2:16 AM EST
OTTAWA — The Conservative government rejected the findings of independent headhunters last year on the hiring of a new chair for Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., picking instead a partisan fundraiser who abruptly left last week during the isotope crisis.
Jean-Pierre Soublière, who was the acting chair of AECL in late 2005, said in an interview Monday he was certain he was twice selected by the independent panel to become the permanent chairman of the board
.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071218.wsoubliere18/BNStory/National/home
Garth,
income splitting will provide some income tax relief to people who need it, and as such is welcome. However, is anyone looking at the whole ball of wax of taxation?
We have an Income Tax Act that has grown in volume and complexity in response to the demands of particular interests and the need to close unforeseen loopholes, and has become a monster. We have a Canada Revenue Agency that is responsive and responsible only to the requirement to extract maximum revenue wielding this monster. We have the feds and provinces extracting another cut of almost anything that leaves a taxpayer’s pocket after it has survived income tax to get there. And we have property tax (how many renters in Ontario know that around 20% of the of the rent they pay landlords goes to municipalities as property tax?) and an array of miscellaneous levies to extract even more.
Is there someone in the bowels of Finance or Revenue or any political party looking at how much money a government really needs to run Canada and the provinces, and how this can be raised equitably and effectively? A simpler, sensible and better way would appreciated by all taxpayers – except those profiting from the current mess, of course.
Leasa – funny you should mention the Fanny Farmer Cook Book – I was just looking at the copy I have yesterday….it was my mother’s – 10th edition printed in 1967.
I use it all the time – excellent for a general cook book. My copy still has my mother’s notes (in her own writing) and markers tucked in it, etc.
You’ve made me think about her today and how much I miss her.
Holy Isotopes Crapman!
Me thinks the CRAP will be nuked in the next election. Not enough U-308 in the world to make people warm up to HARPOON and the Buffoonites.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/286547
Garth:
As it is becoming more and more aparent to Canadians that PMSH is conducting himself and the Conserative Party in the image of Washington. Is it possible we the taxpayers can have one MP stand in our H/C and have PMSH assure Canadians that no e-mails or accounting records are either lost, shedded under any conditions with out full house aopproval? I fear this may happen as has been the case with our South cousins as the neo cons appear to know no shame when it comes to accountability.
Again, Sara, you are penalizing those parents who choose to work outside the home, because you choose to stay at home.
Those parents who do paid work, are either already income splitting or in need of income splitting.
Income Splitting covers all families, not just specific ones like Bill C303.
Geez – is Harper in panic mode? Running around the country Xmas week throwing money to NFL, Ottawa, etc?
Last think I want to see at this busy time is Harper’s mug everywhere.
Harper go home and be with your kids – it’s Xmas.
What do you get when you cross Harper with his fundraising head of the AECL?
Particle physics?……. No, partisan physics.
What do you get when you cross Stephen Harper’s solemn election promise not to raid seniors nest eggs with the conversions of BCE and Telus?
Changed circumstances?…….No, a convenient excuse employed by the likes of Paul Desmarais Jr, to get the highly impressionable Stephen Harper to panic/renege.
Henry, it scares me to think about what you’re living on if you think the extra CPP and EI can compare to the additional FIT that’s paid by the one-salary family.
CPP caps off at $2000, EI at $720.
There’s a heck of lot more FIT on the 2nd $40K in your example than $4160 (2000+720+1440).
Buy a copy of quicktax and play let’s pretend.
By Pat. G. on 12.18.07 2:37 am
Dear Pat. G.,
BRAVO!!!
I agree with your ENTIRE post! Every paragraph, every sentence, every word, every letter, space and punctuation mark.
I wish I had written what you said because it verbalizes EXACTLY how I feel.
Thankyou Pat. G.
Sincerely,
MB
High dollar strikes another blow. This time in the land of “The Culture of Defeatâ€.
Union says N.B. mill closure is bad Christmas gift
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/12/17/upm-closes.html
The union that represents the 535 laid-off employees at the UPM-Kymmene Group paper mill in Miramichi, N.B., says it is upset with the company’s timing.
The company announced Monday that it is permanently shutting down the mill, ending any hope people in that community were holding that the mill would re-open.
This Community has a population of approx. 18,500, and is the center for commerce to a large area surrounding it. This closure represents approx 5% of the total workforce. The spin-off from this could easily be triple as it affects woods workers, machine operators, truckers, suppliers and a reduced services market. Everything from the Equipment sales companies to fuel suppliers. Then there’s lost service industry as well. The figure would then represent closer to 15% of local employable persons.
If you factor in the perpetually high unemployment rate of the region, which is about 20% you end with a potential job loss impact of around 20% of total employed persons.
Couple this with a further 220 jobs in the general area which are in question, and the spin-off from this, and you have one major blow to an already depressed area.
Where do these people go now? They are too far from another major center to commute. What about their property values?
High dollar and the softwood lumber deal are the factors that brought this unwanted Christmas present to these hard working people from the land of the Culture of Defeat.
Softwood lumber agreement, Free Trade Agreement. Big deal, Big Schlemiel.
This is the community where Brian Mulroney, architect of the FTA got his first post secondary education at old St. Thomas. It’s going to be hard on their families too.
http://www.stthomasu.ca/publications/transitions/oct2002/bmh.htm
Amazing Grace! How sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I’m found
was blind, but now I see.
You’ve made me think about her today and how much I miss her.
By slg on 12.18.07 9:10 am
Wonderful memories, eh? For me it’s my dad. He through all the rough times was my rock. We were best buddies. Sometimes I sill have trouble listening to certain songs without the tears. He died Jan. 1, 1994. Oh, gosh…here I go again…
Yes, Fanny Farmer was given to me 25 years ago and there is where I learned the true art of really cooking. It is amazing how well you can eat for (even today) very little money.
I’m truly happy I brought your mom to the forefront of your thoughts today.
Many Blessings. Leasa
by the way a spouse deduction is not extra, you get a personal deduction I do not. It is simply transfered to my spouse because I do not have a paid job.
MB: Thanks. Birds of a feather must stick together.
Bravo Premier McGuinty ..!!
Hopefully leader Dion will also promise to have a Family Day holiday in February to match what Liberal leader McGuinty is doing in Ontario to fulfill his promise. Garth … I assume this confirms your faith in the Liberal party positon on the family.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………..
McGuinty hopes Family Day will catch on
By CHIP MARTIN, SUN MEDIA
http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local/2007/12/18/4730696.html
Premier Dalton McGuinty said today in London he’s hoping the power of persuasion, rather than the clout of law, will persuade Ontario employers to grant workers Family Day, a new statutory holiday, on Feb. 18.
Some employers, such as the County of Middlesex, have said they won’t grant the mid-winter day off, arguing their workers already have plenty of statutory holidays.
Establishing the third Monday in February as Ontario’s ninth statutory holiday was one of McGuinty’s first acts when his government was re-elected in October.
It was a promise during the election campaign.
“We’ll take a look at what’s necessary,†he told The Free Press, “but first of all we are appealing to all employers to recognize it. â€
McGuinty said “rested and happy employees are productive employees†and he hopes employers will recognize that fact.
He noted the United States has 11 statutory holidays, “so I am convinced we can manage this.â€
“Long weekends represent an economic stimulus,†he said. “Families often plan holidays around a long weekend, they do something special, they travel, they tend to spend more money. It’s good for the economy.â€
But he stressed spending time together is essential for on-the-go families of today. That’s how the day was named and chosen.
“Our life is hectic and ‘just-in-time’,†McGuinty said.
But what will he do to deal with places like Middlesex that won’t recognize it?
“There are laws in place that govern the observance of statutory holidays,â€
McGuinty said. “But I am appealing to employers, not just to their goodwill, but to their good instincts.â€
More from your new open and acountable government…
Ottawa ignored nuclear hiring advice-
Former AECL chief was passed over for Alliance fundraiser
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071218.wsoubliere18/BNStory/National/home
By maggie on 12.18.07 7:36 am
Maggie, do you know that CNSC’s president, Linda Keen, doesn’t have a degree any near nuclear science (i.e. physics)? Her degree is in agriculture (Masters) and chemistry (undergrad).
Heck even her board members are not nuclear scientists! And their responsibilities are:
“The Commission Tribunal:
makes independent decisions on the licensing of nuclear-related activities in Canada ;
establishes legally-binding regulations;
sets regulatory policy direction on matters relating to health, safety, security and environmental issues affecting the Canadian nuclear industry.
The Commission Tribunal takes into account the views, concerns and opinions of interested parties and intervenors when establishing regulatory policy, making licensing decisions and implementing programs. ”
Scary stuff this bunch!
Ref: http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about/organization/
Buy a copy of quicktax and play let’s pretend.
By Phil on 12.18.07 10:17 am
A quick calculation shows that a single income earner with a $5000 rrsp pays $10,500 in FIT. A two income couple, each making $40,000, each with a $2500 rrsp pays collectively $7400 in fit plus $2150 extra in actual CPP, EI contribution costs. For the privilege of paying less than $1000 in federal taxes than the single income couple, the second person must get up and go to work every day, with all the attendant work related expenses that entails. What this shows is that the single income couple is NOT penalized. Since income splitting would be paid for in part by the taxes on the working couple, what you and Garth are advocating is penalizing work and workers.
Gee Leasa – another funny coincidence – my dad died in October 1994, my mum in 1993.
Xmas can be the hardest time.
Tony said:
“….Not a very fair plan. Me and the wife get penalized because of infertility while someone gets breaks on my tax dollars. Make no wonder liberals don’t want this, which Canadian would besides those irresponsible enough to have more kids than they can afford…..”
Are you serious? What an uneducated statement that is. I have two girls…age 4 and 1. In that timeframe by proprty tax went from $1700 per year to $3200 per year. My hetaing costs have gone from $1700 per year to $2800 per year. Gas prices have skyrocketed. Interest rates have risen( I did anticpate that one).
Whatever Tony. When you are 65 years old it will be myself…responsible enough to have kids….that will provide the tax base to keep your healhcare going.
Sorry. But at the end of the day….without middle class Canadians who work their butts off….have kids….this country goes to pot.
Middle class Canadians have been “taking it” long enough in my opinion.
“Since income splitting would be paid for in part by the taxes on the working couple, what you and Garth are advocating is penalizing work and workers.”
By henry on 12.18.07 5:41 pm
Dear henry,
That’s one way of looking at it. The other EQUIVALENT way of looking at it is that it would provide the OPTION for a parent to stay home and raise their child(ren) and have their child-rearing work at home be treated in the same way as going out of the home to work… individual RRSP contributions and all!
Now that’s a choice whose time has come!!!
Sincerely,
MB
By henry on 12.18.07 5:41 pm
Thanks for the figures, Henry. So if the $80,000 single-income couple only benefits to the tune of $1,000, the question would be who could benefit from income splitting.
Wait–I’m getting a signal now–yes, I think I’ve got it. It is the very high income earner. Want to have some fun, Henry? Re-do those figures for a single-earner family making $150,000.
Catherine,
I suggest you take a look at who is heading the Technical Support Branch of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, a Mr. T.J. Jamieson.
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about/PDF/org-cnsc.pdf
Next, do a search through Google Scholar and you’ll find papers authored by Mr. Jamieson with such esotheric names as:
♦ – Experimental and computational determination of neutron dose equivalent around radiotherapy accelerators
♦ – Effectiveness of custom neutron shielding in the maze of radiotherapy accelerators
♦ – The application of the bubble detector to the measurement of intense neutron fluences and energy spectra
And so on.
If you do a general Google search, you’ll find more of his papers, such as:
♦ – Y2K Risk and Compliance Assessment for Radioisotope Licensing
♦ – Periodic Safety Review of Nuclear Power Plants
some of which were authoured while working for Science Applications International Corporation Canada:
Jamieson authoured this assessement of the Chalk River events:
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/newsroom/issues/lessons_learned_nru_reg.cfm
While Linda Keen is the head of the organization, which generally entails an administrative role, I can almost guarantee you that she relies on Technical Support to assess the circumstances and advise her accordingly. Even within the Commission tribunal itself are some quite impressive credentials, including Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Order of Canada, Grand Prix d’excellence from the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec – the highest honour for Québec engineers, Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering, PHD in Mechanical Engineering (Masters Materials Engineering).
Aside from what was revealed today by others here with respect to Mr. Burns and his direct relationship with the progenitors of the Conservative party, and the individual who was twice recommended and rejected by Harper to fill that role, there were the telling comments by Tony Clement yesterday:
In other word, Clement admits it’s okay to issue a politically motivated smear against a public servant who was exercising due diligence in the undertaking of her job, and not apologize. A smear that could lead to a ruined reputation as part of the cost of achieving political gain, all part-and-parcel of this government’s “the end justifies the means” thinking.
In a related commentary today, the Globe coined the phrase of the month:
“Harper runs into trouble when Harper runs out of script.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071218.wpolitics17/BNStory/National
This phrase has wider applicability beyond Harper, right down into the sloganeering found within the lowest levels of the Conservative trenches. If it’s copyrighted ©, the Opposition should find out how much the royalties are, it’s a good one.
“Greg” posted on the last thread about the closing of the UPM Paper mills in Miramichi, NB. 535 direct job losses, plus, of course, many more spin-off jobs.
He says, “Where do these people go now? They are too far from another major center to commute. What about their property values?”
Well, this is my home town. The mill has actually been closed for 4 months now. Many, many workers from this area are actually commuting to Alberta (mostly), but also to Ontario for work. A local businessman flies workers to Alberta and back on a regular basis–a few weeks out, a few home. Local workers are willing to do this to support their families, but they don’t want to move them out west where they would be faced with much higher living costs and a lower quality of living standards. My husband sold real estate for a couple of years, and he actually had families from Fort McMurray wanting to buy homes back home here for their families–they would commute. It wasn’t much different anyway as they were living in work camps. Wives and children at home in NB had family support and could afford upscale homes in this area.
This same businessman I mentioned above, Robbie Tozer, and his company, Atcon, have recently won the contract to build a bridge across the MacKenzie River near Yellowknife. So he will be sending NB workers to NT for that job. He plans to build a construction plant here in Miramichi to build bridge parts and to hopefully help rebuild a lot of Canada’s and the US Northeast’s crumbling infastructure. Go, Robbie, go. You will be hearing more of this man in the future.
We are NOT a culture of defeat.
As for housing values, I don’t care if my 4-bedroom, 2-storey, attached garage home might only be worth $160,000 here as I don’t plan to sell it anyway, nor do I plan to move. It’s great to live in the Maritimes.
Garth, though, I think you are wrong in predicting that housing values will plummet. Values have consistently increased for at least 35 years. Look at real estate values in Europe and Japan. Land is in demand. Land has always meant wealth. Think about it–as the world’s population increases, is land going to be in more or less demand?? My advice to a young couple would be to buy a starter home–get something now. Upgrade later.
By glen on 12.18.07 6:40 pm
Your heating costs are 2800 a year? How big of house do you have? Are you on natural gas?
Catherine,
I am curious about your 4:20 AM question on Glen’s heating costs. Are you trying to lead up to an accusation of excessive heating costs due to too large a house or imprudentg source of heat?
Let me assure you that $2,800 a year will heat the average bungalow in Ottawa, as long as it isn’t heated electrically.
By Herb on 12.19.07 9:49 am
If it were costing me $2800. per month to heat an average 1200 ft. sq. home, I’d be checking my attic for insulation, I’d be caulking my windows, I’d be turning off vents and closing rooms I don’t use, putting on a sweater and turning the heat down also helps. Hint: If you have icicles hanging from your house…you don’t have enough insulation!
Leasa
Catherine,
I am curious about your 4:20 AM question on Glen’s heating costs. Are you trying to lead up to an accusation of excessive heating costs due to too large a house or imprudentg source of heat?
Let me assure you that $2,800 a year will heat the average bungalow in Ottawa, as long as it isn’t heated electrically.
By Herb on 12.19.07 9:49 am
Well Herb, our natural gas bill, including heat and hot water runs about 1,100 per year. It’s a single home (1200 sq ft bungaloo)! AND, I don’t have solar power!
You say 2,800 heats an average house in Ottawa? Where? Please provide some concreate evidence!
In other word, Clement admits it’s okay to issue a politically motivated smear against a public servant who was exercising due diligence in the undertaking of her job, and not apologize. A smear that could lead to a ruined reputation as part of the cost of achieving political gain, all part-and-parcel of this government’s “the end justifies the means†thinking.
In a related commentary today, the Globe coined the phrase of the month:
“Harper runs into trouble when Harper runs out of script.â€
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071218.wpolitics17/BNStory/National
This phrase has wider applicability beyond Harper, right down into the sloganeering found within the lowest levels of the Conservative trenches. If it’s copyrighted ©, the Opposition should find out how much the royalties are, it’s a good one.
By Dube on 12.18.07 10:51 pm
So Dube, if Chalk river was unsafe for years, can you please tell us why the CNSB didn’t close it years ago then? And why didn’t they go public years ago? Why did they issue conditional licenses?In my opinion, Linda Keen knows how to play the bureaucratic games.
Catherine,
About the heating cost. I am a little suprised that this is questioned.
Perhaps I can clarify. When I said heating cost, I should have pointed out that the number included light etc. We have electric baseboard heating. 9 year old split entry with 1250 sq/ft upstairs and 800sqft in the basement.
It seems to me that the lights etc runs about $1200/year so the “heating cost is around $1800/year.
I live in New Brunswick and it’s cold here. There exists a real myth out there that cost of living in Atlantic is less than Ontario and west.
WOW is that false. Our taxes are higher(check it out), property tax is higher, food cost more, flying anywhere costs more, and clearly…..utilities cost more.
MJB – the same thing is happening in Northwestern Ontario – plenty of effectively single parent families with daddy working out west – and the ones who move their families out there are NOT putting their houses up for sale – they plan on coming back.
Liberal TAx Policy
Tax his cigars
Tax his beers
If he cries
Tax his tears
Tax his Car
TAx his GAs
Find other Ways
To tax his Ass
The last federal government to raise personal income tax was Conservative. The government that brought in a tax on income trust investments was Conservative. The highest-spending government in Canadian history is Conservative. Did you just crawl out of a time capsule? — Garth
The Conservative government was the last government to reduce income taxes after Garth crossed the floor without approval of his constituents
The Liberal government was also preparing to tax income trusts.
When I’m Gone
Do not Relax
Its time to apply
The Inheritance Tax
Perhaps I can clarify. When I said heating cost, I should have pointed out that the number included light etc. We have electric baseboard heating. 9 year old split entry with 1250 sq/ft upstairs and 800sqft in the basement.
It seems to me that the lights etc runs about $1200/year so the “heating cost is around $1800/year.
I live in New Brunswick and it’s cold here. There exists a real myth out there that cost of living in Atlantic is less than Ontario and west.
WOW is that false. Our taxes are higher(check it out), property tax is higher, food cost more, flying anywhere costs more, and clearly…..utilities cost more.
By Glen on 12.19.07 6:17 pm
May I ask why you have baseboard heaters? Why not get high effeciency forced air furnace? It will you save greatly in the long run.
We switched to a high effecient natural gas furnace years ago (it was oil, then electric). We also replaced all our windows to wood casements, added extra insulation, and planted more trees (they break the winds and provide shade in the summer).
And we never have our heat set more than 18c. My motto “if you’re chilly, put long sleeves and slippers on”. Even now, my adult children do the same.
In the summer, we only turn on the air when the humidex is 32c or more. Open windows, when the air is on, is great!
BTW, during our re-model, we didn’t go for ceiling pot lights or undercounter lighting or anything that required electricty. I was adviced not to go this way, as the “re-sale” may not be as great. However, my family believed and believes not to be glutons on our resources. We have lived like this for over 30 years.
[...] the rounds on the web the other day, I came across this article on Garth Turners blog in which a letter writer pleads with Garth to address “the unfair taxation to which working [...]
Well Catherine “money pants”….
Yes, we looked into that option. Do you have any idea how much that costs huh?
The upfront cost is enormous. As stated in my original post….we do not have spare cash floating around( yes…I’m rolling my eyes).