New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Tinordi]

Guys, guys, lets focus on what really matters here: the NEP!

Remember that policy from 35 years ago? Yeah.

[robaur]

Harper is an idiot and the Conservatives need to be booted out of power.

I am confident this will happen. Eastern Canada will assure us of this.

/end thread.

[Jets4Life]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Surely you're old enough to have lived through both Kim Campbell and Paul Martin?

Paul Martin would not have made a bad PM. Kim Campbell was only in office for less than 6 months, and she was never cut out for the job, and did not have time to do anything. Chretien was the best PM of my lifetime.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Jets4Life

Paul Martin would not have made a bad PM. Kim Campbell was only in office for less than 6 months, and she was never cut out for the job, and did not have time to do anything. Chretien was the best PM of my lifetime.

What do you mean he wouldn't have made a bad PM? He was a horrible party leader and PM. He undermined Chrétien, made embarrassing comments towards the U.S. after promising to try and improve relations, let the NDP re-write the budget just to get house votes which was as desperate a thing I've ever seen from a guy trying to keep his power at all costs. The guy was a bigger disaster in 6 months than most PM's manage over a full term or longer.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

It benefits only about 10% of Canadian households (typically the ones who are already wealthy and least in need of a tax break), so the rest of us receive a relatively higher tax burden to make up the difference.

This seems to be the main argument against income splitting. My related question is what effective tax rate is appropriate for people below the median income? Because if every change ever made is to make the system more progressive, eventually you have a small amount of wealthy people paying all the taxes, which I'd suggest is highly unsustainable.

What is the "right" amount of progressiveness in the tax system?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This seems to be the main argument against income splitting. My related question is what effective tax rate is appropriate for people below the median income? Because if every change ever made is to make the system more progressive, eventually you have a small amount of wealthy people paying all the taxes, which I'd suggest is highly unsustainable.

Median income in Alberta in 2012: $94,460
Effective rate on $94,460 in Alberta: 28.9% ($27,300.49)

That assumes 10% provincial tax; it will go up once the graduated AB rate kicks in.

[carbonrod]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

- 2% reduction of the GST against the advice of every economist in the country

How about we spend some time figuring out if we actually need the taxes that are currently collected before we add more taxes?

Originally Posted by MarchHare

- Income splitting that only really benefits wealthy couples with a stay-at-home parent

No. It benefits anyone that chooses to put themselves into a position to take care of their children via a stay at home parent. This is something society should support rather than insist that we all seek two income households and increasingly state-raised children.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by carbonrod

This is something society should support rather than insist that we all seek two income households and increasingly state-raised children.

Why?

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think anyone seeks having a 2 income family to raise children. It has just become a necessity for most people unfortunately.

If every family could have one stay-at-home parent, that would be awesome. Unfortunately, the income splitting tax break does not achieve that.

[carbonrod]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I don't think anyone seeks having a 2 income family to raise children. It has just become a necessity for most people unfortunately.

If every family could have one stay-at-home parent, that would be awesome. Unfortunately, the income splitting tax break does not achieve that.

It isn't a necessity for everyone, and income splitting helps by returning taxes to parents that choose to have one income and one parent primarily raising the children.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why?

If a family can create a scenario where one income will permit them to be more involved with their children, we should support this.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Why?

Because the latest generation of state-raised kids is looking real swell.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Because the latest generation of state-raised kids is looking real swell.

Compared to who? The boomers? By most standards, Millenials are doing much better than their parents were doing at the same age in a number of categories.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by carbonrod

If a family can create a scenario where one income will permit them to be more involved with their children, we should support this.

Again, why?

Why is this somehow a more viable family structure in your view that it should be supported, rather than other alternatives?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Compared to who? The boomers? By most standards, Millenials are doing much better than their parents were doing at the same age in a number of categories.

The skewed view of Millenials from their parent's basement.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

The skewed view of Millenials from their parent's basement.

Whooah, better put some oven mitts on if I'm gonna try to handle this take.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by carbonrod

How about we spend some time figuring out if we actually need the taxes that are currently collected before we add more taxes? No. It benefits anyone that chooses to put themselves into a position to take care of their children via a stay at home parent. This is something society should support rather than insist that we all seek two income households and increasingly state-raised children.

Why would i have kids if i'm going to get someone else to raise them? Usually parents can do a much better job getting their kids off to the right start than someone else. Not to mention having your kids come home sick twelve times a year, then taking even more time off work.

Some people might be ok with daycare and that's fine but sacrificing a second income to raise your own kids for a few years should be applauded.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Why would i have kids if i'm going to get someone else to raise them? Usually parents can do a much better job getting their kids off to the right start than someone else. Not to mention having your kids come home sick twelve times a year, then taking even more time off work.

Some people might be ok with daycare and that's fine but sacrificing a second income to raise your own kids for a few years should be applauded.

Geez, that's harsh. And there are other words for it too!

Putting your kids in daycare (or, you know, school) doesn't actually mean you are having someone else raise them.

Some families need both parents working to pay the bills. For things like food, and shelter.

Now sure, I guess that we can question why anyone who doesn't make a hundred grand a year or more would have children, but that sure would be stupid.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Some families need both parents working to pay the bills. For things like food, and shelter.

Also, some couples don't want to put his or her (most frequently her) career on hold for 5-6 years which causes a very significantly reduction to lifetime earnings due to both lost salary and (more importantly) lost opportunities for experience, promotions, and career advancement.

[Mike F]

Here's an analysis I found which gives some numbers as to how the income splitting policy would actually play out.

If the math is accurate, the summary should be an answer to anyone, left or right, as to whether it's a good idea.

These tax cuts are ‘upside down’

These tax benefits are ‘upside down’ because they give the biggest benefits to the people who need them the least. Canada’s progressive income tax system sets a higher tax rate for those with higher incomes. When large ‘across the board’ tax cuts are made to that progressive system, those tax cuts will always give the biggest tax benefits to those with the biggest incomes.

As shown in the table above, upside-down tax cuts like income splitting are unfair because they give the smallest benefits – or no benefits at all – to those who need them the most.

What is parental income splitting really for?

If the Harper government has decided to give new special tax benefits to parents with children, presumably it is because the government wants to do everything it can to help all parents give their children the very best start in life they can.

But, if parental income splitting is to help make sure all children get the best possible start in life, why should parents who need the most financial assistance raising their children get small federal benefits like $9 or $74 or $104 per year – while those who need it the least will get an average of $1,008 or $1,091 or $1,914 per year, and as much as $6,600 per year? Why should parents who can already do virtually anything they want to help their children off to a good start need such generous help from the federal government?

[crazy_eoj]

Income splitting is clearly a policy introduced for the conservative base voters. It sounds great in theory, I mean who really doesn't thing that a stay at home mother shouldn't be allowed to gain some portion of income for their labor, but in the data it does pretty conclusively show that the benefits are out of proportion for high income earners, who really do not 'need' the break.

Once again, targeted tax cuts don't really benefit society as a whole. The answer to helping all families is to reduce taxes, or increase personal exemptions for everyone!