View Single Post
Old 10-05-2019, 02:59 PM   #23
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
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.
That $950 is a larger savings than some of the other items mentioned in this thread. And for the couple missing out, it is pretty difficult to justify. Also, it was a single example - there are countless other ways that a couple can generate income - why should the split change their tax liability?

As for it being a benefit for the wealthy, that is a weak and lazy complaint, IMO. What defines wealthy? For many people it is anyone making more than they do. Being a one-income family, or choosing to work part time, are lifestyle choices. Family income should be family income, regardless of how the couple splits it. The tax system should not be punishing couples for how they generate their income. Universality.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post: