Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
The income splitting rules would've cost almost $3B a year, provided zero relief for 85% of households, and reduced the labor supply by about 7,000 full time workers (based on PBO estimates). It was, and is, a terrible policy.
|
It is debatable whether reducing the labour supply is a bad thing, as it reduces unemployment. And there are all kinds of studies and opinions that there are significant societal benefits to having a stay-at-home parent.
Arguing that it doesn't affect 85% of households is a bit of a red herring. If some households are being treated unfairly (15% in this case), it is the right thing to do to correct that.
And 'costing $3B' is just another way of saying that some households are being over-taxed to the tune of $3B.
It is difficult to list valid reasons why some couples should pay more tax on the same income than other couples.