View Single Post
Old 10-05-2019, 06:03 PM   #41
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Here is an example that boils the issue down to its simplest form:

You have a couple that have the exact same job, with the same pay. They have a kid and one needs to be at home (they can't afford a nanny/babysitter).

They have a choice: one work full time and the other stays home, or they each work half time.

The total tax for the couple in those two examples should be the same.

Arguing that the same simple rules shouldn't apply at higher incomes is just bleating: tax the rich more!
But how about this situation. Two people have jobs. One of them gets married. Why should one now get to split his income.

We already have the spousal amount and the equivalent to spouse amount to rebate non-working dependants.

From a more tax should be uniform in all circumstances perspective income splitting makes no sense. It rewards marriages. When the couple gets divorced the higher income paying support no longer gets the tax deduction and the person receiving support doesn’t pay tax on it. So again that is consistent with no income splitting.

So income splitting introduces a perversion to how individuals are treated on earned income.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote