Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary14
The key here is the maximum savings of $2k. Due to this it really only benefits families with a combined income of around $75k annually. Anything beyond that and it doesn't benefit most people. Without the maximum of $2k it would have meant the splitting could benefit people who have a much higher income ($125k annually or more) while their spouse has a lower income. I think that was the original idea but they made a last minute change.
My guess is that they try to make up for it by increasing the UCCB (universal child care benefit) from the super-low $100 per month it's currently at.
|
The financial repercussions of that original concept would have been incredible.
Its a double entry system, if theres savings at one end it has to result in costs at the other.
The potential tax savings to taxpayers from an unrestricted income-splitting program would be significant, so much so that it would likely have to be counterbalanced by an increase in overall tax rates.