Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
Actually, the current policy provides a disincentive for families to have one parent stay at home. This new policy is aimed at fixing this problem and providing some fairness to a situation where a stay at home parent's or family member's labour is viewed as having zero economic value compared to 'professional care-givers'.
How exactly does income splitting provide a disincentive for dual income families in your mind?
|
You can re-arrange the words incentive and disincentive for both cases. If something incentivises one it disincentivises the other provided they are exclusive choices. In this case the average tax of non-income splitting families is increased to subsidize those who benefit from income splitting.
The policy provides percieved fairness. Its what makes it so easy to sell. A mothers work in the home as real monatary value and we are going to allow you to pay your spouse for it. Why should a dual income family get to have a tax deduction for day care when a single income family doesn't. Its not fair.
And I would agree it isn't "fair" but it is asking the wrong question. Any government targeted subsidies should be designed to help someone who has a need.
Do single income two parent families have need of a subsidy compared with single income single parent families or dual income families. The answer in my opinon is no. The money the government spends on subsidizing families should be targeted in places of need.
Instead the conservative government targets their spending in areas of percieved fairness. Raising the athletic benefit to $1k per child benefits families who can afford athletic programs. It makes great copy but all of these benefits target the upper middle class. And as a group I don't think we need it at the expense of others.