Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
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:
Old 10-05-2019, 01:54 PM   #22
HitterD
Powerplay Quarterback
 
HitterD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In my office...is it 5:00 yet???
Exp:
Default

For me, the 50% capital gains tax inclusion on primary residences is enough of a reason not to vote Liberal (as if there weren’t enough for me already).
HitterD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 01:59 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:
Old 10-05-2019, 02:00 PM   #24
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

That's not actually their policy though (the capital gains on primary residences).
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 02:02 PM   #25
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Let's take the 'wealthy' argument a bit further.

We have two individuals that each make $200k. One is single, the other has a stay-at-home spouse and a kid. Should they pay the same tax? (ignoring the small difference resulting from the child deduction)
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 02:07 PM   #26
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

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!
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 02:18 PM   #27
opendoor
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Exp:
Default

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.
opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 02:33 PM   #28
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
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.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 02:38 PM   #29
calculoso
Franchise Player
 
calculoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ontario
Exp:
Default

If they didn’t have to pay so much tax, they could either save it, pay down debt, or have more disposable income to spend in other areas of the economy. The Government appears to want to encourage each of these.

As usual, it comes down to “whose hands do you want the money in”... private hands or government hands.
calculoso is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to calculoso For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2019, 03:07 PM   #30
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
Let's take the 'wealthy' argument a bit further.

We have two individuals that each make $200k. One is single, the other has a stay-at-home spouse and a kid. Should they pay the same tax? (ignoring the small difference resulting from the child deduction)
Didn't you just argue in favour of universality? Seems like this argument favours the person with the spouse and kid, doesn't it?
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:08 PM   #31
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by calculoso View Post
If they didn’t have to pay so much tax, they could either save it, pay down debt, or have more disposable income to spend in other areas of the economy. The Government appears to want to encourage each of these.

As usual, it comes down to “whose hands do you want the money in”... private hands or government hands.
That's not really what it's doing though. It just kind of shifts the tax burden to single people and dual income households.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:21 PM   #32
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Didn't you just argue in favour of universality? Seems like this argument favours the person with the spouse and kid, doesn't it?
You're reaching here. Universality and fairness suggest that couples should be treated equally, which is what I argued. You are are suggesting that the individual should be treated the same as the one income earner with a spouse. Not only are those two situations not the same, but trying to equate them would eliminate the ability to equate the two couples.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:29 PM   #33
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rubecube View Post
Didn't you just argue in favour of universality? Seems like this argument favours the person with the spouse and kid, doesn't it?
I’m pretty sure they’re just making any argument that supports people who are doing better than most getting to keep as much of that as possible, usually with the common what’s good for rich will benefit the poor talking points.

It was interesting to learn that people driving Lamborghini minivans owe the higher end model purchasers a debt a gratitude for subsidizing their purchase.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:34 PM   #34
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HitterD View Post
For me, the 50% capital gains tax inclusion on primary residences is enough of a reason not to vote Liberal (as if there weren’t enough for me already).
Can you provide a source for this? I haven't heard anything about that.
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:37 PM   #35
Enoch Root
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2012
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I’m pretty sure they’re just making any argument that supports people who are doing better than most getting to keep as much of that as possible, usually with the common what’s good for rich will benefit the poor talking points.

It was interesting to learn that people driving Lamborghini minivans owe the higher end model purchasers a debt a gratitude for subsidizing their purchase.
This thread is for discussing specific policies. If you want to bleat your political views, keep it to the other thread.
Enoch Root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:40 PM   #36
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root View Post
This thread is for discussing specific policies. If you want to bleat your political views, keep it to the other thread.
I didn’t bring up any of my political views in my post.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 03:59 PM   #37
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

I think we've seen the fatal Achilles' Heel in this thread concept: iggy_oi exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HitterD View Post
For me, the 50% capital gains tax inclusion on primary residences is enough of a reason not to vote Liberal (as if there weren’t enough for me already).
This can't be a thing. It would be an instant path to securing somewhere around 0 seats in parliament. It would be more politically suicidal than the CPC promising to try to overturn gay marriage.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
GGG
Old 10-05-2019, 04:12 PM   #38
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
I think we've seen the fatal Achilles' Heel in this thread concept: iggy_oi exists.

This can't be a thing. It would be an instant path to securing somewhere around 0 seats in parliament. It would be more politically suicidal than the CPC promising to try to overturn gay marriage.
Could be applied in many ways....

Levity aside, elimination of the Principle Residency Exemption on home sales to have them taxed would be a significant and fundamental shift in our tax code.

This isnt some casual throw-in. I havent seen anyone say that this is an element of their platform but I'd be surprised to see it.

Whats the trade off? Typically if homes were to be taxed in that manner then simultaneously homeowners would or should be able to deduct expenses relative to that property.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 04:17 PM   #39
rubecube
Franchise Player
 
rubecube's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Victoria
Exp:
Default

Yeah, I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere either and you'd think it'd be pretty big news.
rubecube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2019, 04:28 PM   #40
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

It was brought up as a suggestion at housing town halls and included in a document detailing the suggestions. The conservatives put out a tweet claiming that it was part of a “secret plan” the liberals were going to implement when it turned out to just be one of a number of suggestions brought forward that were not included in the liberal platform.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/beta.ctv...1_4595724.html

So no, it’s clearly not an actual policy they’re looking to implement.
iggy_oi is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016