[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Rerun

As usual, the rich will pay less taxes and the middle class ends up taking the hit.

P.S. We miss you Jim Flaherty .

Indeed. The details have changed a little since but the premise is still the same before his death.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jim-...mise-1.2533641

Earlier, Flaherty said the measure needs "a long, hard, analytical look" by experts "to see who it affects in this society and to what degree. Because I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society."

"When you have groups as diverse as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on the one hand and the C.D. Howe Institute on the other hand, saying the exact same thing, that it won't benefit the vast majority of Canadian families, I think it's quite clear that they're starting to realize that they've got problems."

"And if the objective is to provide support to families in raising children, it would distribute most benefits where they are least likely to be needed. Splitting would also be revenue costly, adverse to work incentives, and gender-biased," the report concluded.

The researchers found that the Conservatives' income-splitting proposal would:

• Highly concentrate the benefits among high-income, one-earner couples: 40 per cent of total benefits would go to families with incomes above $125,000.
• Be of no benefit to 85 per cent of all households, including single-parent families, and that even among couples with children nearly half would gain nothing or less than $500.

The Broadbent Institute, a think-tank named for former New Democrat leader Ed Broadbent, argues income splitting would benefit Canada's wealthiest families and come with a $3-billion price tag.