View Single Post
Old 10-05-2019, 01:36 PM   #21
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
That's a bad example, as those two couples would pay pretty similar taxes. In Alberta the first couple would pay $23,150 in taxes ($26,900 minus the $3,750 saved from transferring the lower earning spouse's personal exemption) and the second one would pay $22,200, for a difference of $950.

And I really don't see how it makes sense to disincentive the non-working person or lower earning spouse by effectively taxing that person at the higher earner's marginal rate for any income they earn.

It's a measure that almost solely benefits high earners in traditional family units where one member can afford to not work. It provides essentially nothing about 2/3rds of the population.
I didn't mind the Harper policy that had the cap up to $2000 in benefits. I think that is a nice perk for a lot of people, and fits into tax fairness with regards to Enoch's example without going overboard.

I think it brings a bit of balance to the fact that a lot of means-tested benefits are calculated on household income, while taxation is considered individual. In my opinion, if benefits are calculated as a household, then taxation should also be filed as a household with corresponding tax brackets (like in the US).
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Regorium For This Useful Post: