Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_eoj
Aligning taxes or incentives in order of those who 'need' them simply creates a value judgement. The athletic benefit also increases the incentive for children to be involved in sport, but your argument would suggest if it is disproportionately beneficial towards the middle class that you disagree that it is 'needed' regardless of general children s physical activity levels or health care costs, etc.
So really we just see a situation where some would deem any tax break or incentive not disproportionately aimed at the lower class as wasteful or unneeded. Simple enough I guess but generally not the same opinion as many Canadians. I guess telling one group of society their labor should be valued at zero because they (or their spouse/family) have a certain level of income makes sense to some, but not to me.
|
You are trying to right a wrong that was created by a tax incentive.
The only reason that the work of a spouse becomes zero value is because if you pay a third party you get a tax deduction for raising kids. If you didn't get that tax deduction for raising kids then people with 2 incomes and 1 income would be being treated the same way. The concept of not paying your spouse to do work you would pay other for would disappear.
So this proposal provides another targeted benefit to right a percieved wrong caused by a previously targetted benefit. You are right that any targeted benefit (like income splitting) provides a value judgment. In general the government should avoid these types of incentives and go for lower overall levels of taxation. And only have incentives where in benefits Canada or where there are low income needs. (as an aside all the low income subsidies should be rolled into one program)
So something like the daycare benefit makes sense because it encourages increased labour participation which is good for the Canadian economy which benefits Canada as a whole. Its not a value judgement its a simple economic arguement.
Something like income splitting does not pass the benefit to Canada argument therefore the group it benefits should not be incentivised.