Wednesday, October 25, 2006

Go Garth!

So Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is finally agreeing to ponder the pros and cons of Income-tax splitting for seniors! (Toronto Sun)

How ironic that it took a boot from the Conservative caucus for this to occur. I have a lot of conflicted feelings about Garth's blog and the way he loves the media limelight, but I sure do support this particular initiative.

Garth explains how this is a "basic tenet of tax fairness":


Now he (Flaherty) has a benchmark to meet, having said it is a “worthy” thing and that his finance minions will be crunching numbers. Expectations have been risen, and the odds that overtaxed seniors will eventually get a break are mounting. It is simply wrong that good people who lived by the rules of their time should be penalized. With all of a couple’s income flowing through the hands of one person, they are taxed disproportionately to a two-income household making exactly the same amount. Everybody knows this is wrong, and yet it has been relentlessly ignored.


The government would also be wise to consider this from a demographic point of view. Baby Boomers are now starting to enter the retirement phase of their lives. They still have a lot of political clout in terms of numbers and propensity to show up at the polls.

You go, Garth! This could be your greatest moment yet.

26 comments:

Jan Hollander said...

No one is 100% bad.
Not even Garth Turner.
I do strongly support this income splitting idea. It would be the fair thing to do. The fact that I am a retired person has nothing to do with it. Honest!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! I think this is way past due. When these folks were just starting out, it was still customary for one parent to stay home and look after the children.

One income families have been discriminated against long enough. Perhaps some kind of means test could be involved though.

Let's see how Flaherty handles it. If he doesn't like the idea, I'm sure another party will.

Anonymous said...

Income splitting violates the fundamental principle of horizontal equity, which states that two similar people should pay similar rates of income tax. It's also just plain unfair and is probably discriminatory against homosexuals and young Canadians to boot. Besides, it would be a huge tax break and the money would need to be made up somewhere else. If it happens, look for young Canadian men to rapidly leave Canada for the USA or other countries. So please reconsider your support for this legislation; we have a looming demographic crisis and this policy will only make it worse.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's also just plain unfair and is probably discriminatory against homosexuals

That's an interesting comment. Please elaborate.

Alberta Girl said...

Anoyn - please do explain - you obviously fit into one of the categories you are concerned about. However - given that Gays have all the same benefits as Hetero couples - why would income splitting be any different. I am sure that there are many elderly gay couples that would be able to take advantage of this regulation.

Am I wrong?

Anonymous said...

Horizontal equity should also compare families. Single income vs dual income families end up paying more taxes and get fewer benefits. That is not equitable.

The nature of tax cuts is that they usually increase peoples' spending which contributes to more jobs and thus, more tax revenue. Ireland and New Zealand have found that out. All those tax cuts from the past 10 years have seen the amount I give to the government increase each time.

Young people will come and go no matter what. What is the difference between young people leaving and families leaving due to tax policy? Either you promote families which build a future for the country by having kids, or you promote individuals. Our fertility rate is low enough. We need more families with kids to be survive as a society. What looming democratic crisis? Even if there was a looming democratic crisis, it is nothing as compared to the looming population crisis. Without people to pay for all the services the soon to be retiring baby boomers expect, our debt will grow.

alias dictus said...

Exactly how are one income families discriminated against?

alias dictus said...

Income splitting discriminates against single earners, single parents, and working couples. There is nothing fair or equitable about this proposal.

Sara said...

tomorrow I'll blog a support letter from my magazine article that went directly to flaherty!

its gonna happen

Sara said...

wow I can't believe there are actula people against this, but of course their would be... the fake feminists...


either way look at it from our point of view, there is no discrimination in income splitting. A mom or dad at home contribute to the economy just as much as someone working outside the home.
As for me a mom at home I have to rely on my husbands permission to buy a loaf of bread because of your damn individualizing the tax laws,, now how is that fair.

Or should I shut up and go back to my knitting?

alias dictus said...

Sara, for you and your husband to pay less tax, someone else has to pay more. Forcing earners to pay more tax so that you can sit at home IS discriminatory. How exactly do you contribute to the economy by staying at home?

alias dictus said...

Sara, for you and your husband to pay less tax, someone else has to pay more. Forcing earners to pay more tax so that you can sit at home IS discriminatory. How exactly do you contribute to the economy by staying at home?

Sara said...

who else would raise our kids, oh yah all those daycare workers that cannot raise them like we do. Hmm sit at home and do nothing, that's exactly what I do. From waking up, making the beds, fixing lunches, vacuum, laundry, cleaning etc.. and that is only 10% of what I have to do. Let alone dressing them, grooming, teaching them how to brush their teeth, eat well, you know forks and all, then pleases and thank you's. Hanging up awful paintings they have done, reading books, raking leaves, gardening, mowing the lawn, teaching them how to swim, watching endless movies that I have seen over and over again, sewing their clothes, cleaning their puke, hugging them even when they are bad (you see I'm their mom I can hug without getting sued), going over homework, making sure they play well together, teaching them how to pronounce properly, ABC's, math, puzzles, board games, hell even how to wipe their own bumm.

But how would that contribute to society when we can pay some stranger to do it.

I could just let them run wild and grow up to be criminals if you like.



And by the way our tax system is not the stock market, by him paying less tax does not mean someone else pays more. Are you sure you know what contributing to society really means?

Sara said...

and if you really want to look at this economically, well buddy to put your kids in daycare puts Canada in debt, just ask Quebec.

A mom or dad making $12 an hour with 3 kids gets subsidized about $18,000 per child. Hmmm do the math!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You tell 'em Sara!

Sara said...

I took a breath but it still didn't help lol

Nicole said...

How does a parent staying home contirbute to society...is that poster for real.....

well maybe you should ask the thousands of women ( and men too) that have done it...
what a completely ignorant statement.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

It's a slap in the face to so many families.

alias dictus said...

A very good friend of mine is a single working mother. She gets up at 5:30 am to get breakfast ready for her 9 yr. old daughter, then drops her off at her daycare provider at 6:00am, then goes off to work, puts in a hard 8hr. day, and gets home in time to pick her daughter up from school.
She also makes the beds, fixes the lunches, vacuums, does the laundry, dishes, mows the lawn, helps with homework, etc. And that is only 10% of what she does.... besides holding a full time job. Here is a working mother with real daycare needs who benefits not a dime from the Conservative "daycare" program. All working parents do all those things you mentioned. My question to you, Joanne and Nicole is what do you do, over and above what all working parents do, especially my single friend, that makes you, Sara, sitting at home, deserving of being subsidized by those aforementioned hard-working people.
If someone is paying less, someone else, somewhere down the line has got to pay more to make up the shortfall. That's not ideology, that's arithmetic.

Sara said...

Here is a working mother with real daycare needs who benefits not a dime from the Conservative "daycare" program

yes she does, she gets subsidized and that is through the Conservative plan. The daycares alone are saying that it works with the tax breaks for them. Look at ADCO's website. In case you missed that its Association for Daycare workers...

I have full respect for your single friend just as I did for my mom who was a single mom of 4 kids. We didn't have daycare we took care of ourselves.

Your friend has daycare and it will always be there, it was there before the Liberal lied and after the Conservatives cut more funding.

That is basic math as well.

I never said I did more than any other parent, you did by saying I did less. Well guess what in that 8 hours your at work and your kids are in daycare I'm at home childcaring mine. Wow what a shock a mom childcaring no couldn't be, could she get off the couch and put the beer and popcorn down no way.....

You are making this to be a stay at home mom is lazy and deserves nothing unless her husband gives it to her. Well bite me, you need to look at the real world buddy.

Was your mom a stay at home mom, and do you think she is useless.

Basic economics is try asking your single friend what she would prefer, staying at home or going to a dead end job.

if there was no worry of money or resume decreasing. Try asking her. And do you have children by the way?

I am equal to any parent who uses daycare, no more no less.

A single parent suffers more I'm fully aware of that and I have always said if they can subsidize $18,000 per child for daycare then they can certainly give more than $11,000 a year on welfare to single parents!!!

alias dictus said...

How does she get subsidized through the Conservative plan? Specifically?
You've got it in your head that society owes you a living. Take some responsibility for the choices you have made.
Nor does my friend go to a dead end job. She earns a decent middle income. But you're saying that she should pay a higher rate of tax than someone doing the same job, making the same money but with a stay at home spouse.

Sara said...

no actually if you read up on oncome splitting you would know she would be able to use her child as a spouse and split the income...

Your saying two people should pay less tax than 6,,,

you didn't answer my question, have you asked her if she would rather be at home..

no I didn't say anyone owed me a living but you are forcing me to pay for others to use daycare. Not the single parents either, these are the middle class who make much more than we do.

Yes she will and is still getting subsidized, call your province and see if any subsidies have been cut off,, NOPE
Do your research

Nicole said...

My question to you, Joanne and Nicole is what do you do,


What do I DO...well, I have ran a home based business now , currently into my 17th year ( I am 36 BTW) I have a 14 yr and a 12 yr, and I have also been working a part-time buisness in the evenings in the direct sales industry for the last 7 years as well, all so that I could and continue staying and being in the home for EVERY day of my childrens lives.
I work my ass off EVERY day to have this kind of life and have sacrificed ALOT over the years.

I find it completely ridiculous that you would even suggest that a stay at home parent does not contribute to society. On top of all of the things I do, I have volunteered for MANY events at my childrens schools, have coached Tball, every year canvass for the MS society, along with many other things I am involved with.

The work that a person does in the home is work, it is just unrecognized work and being a caregiver is a very hard demanding, often thankless job. If being a stay at home parent is worthless to you, I would be curious to see your opinions, Alias, on when a child has to become the caregiver to an elderly, or dying parent, or when a spouse ends up becoming a caregiver to the other spouse...

Everyone has different scenarios, and for you to judge Sara, without knowing all the facts, is harsh...infact when you mentioned your single friend, I thought of Sara who has stayed home during the day to be with her very young children and then after being a caregiver all day, has worked evenings and weekends for minimum, slaving in the food industry, while her husband takes over the caregiving duties, so all is not as rosey as you would like to imply.
I work 2 jobs, depend on nobody else to raise my kids and pay my taxes...so now it is my turn to ask, what do you do Alias....

alias dictus said...

Nicole...I didn't mean a stay at home parent does not contribute to society. I meant stay at home parents do not contribute to society any more that anyone else, any more than working parents who also do all those things you and Sara do to take care of the home front, any more than what would justify forcing working parents to work harder and pay more tax so that a single earner family can pay less?
A tax break for one demographic means a punitive tax increase for another. There is already too much of that garbage in the tax system already. We need to get rid of the trash, not add to it.
Two people doing the same job, making the same money should pay the same amount of tax, regardless of other considerations. If one wants to arrange their life so that their spouse stays at home, that is their choice. They should not expect somebody else to pick up the tab for that choice

Sara said...

Nicole...I didn't mean a stay at home parent does not contribute to society. I meant stay at home parents do not contribute to society any more that anyone else,

If that is what you meant I never would of faught you on it, that is what we are trying to get people to realize.

No one else will pick up the tab if we income split. The government is making money right now, we deserve tax breaks and many people want income splitting.

By the way your single friend with one kid and a great job obviously doesn't need subsidy does she?


Their are parents out there making $30,000 and less without childcare, and living in poverty but they believe they can childcare their own children better than anyone else. Yet we make them pay for others to use childcare. Is that fair?

alias dictus said...

Sara....If you can reduce your taxes because of a special tax break, where do you think that money comes from? It's got to come from somewhere, from reduced program spending, from the surplus ( which doesn't really exist because of the huge national debt) or from higher taxes from someone else.
My single friend has a decent paying job, not a great job and is not subsidized at all. I really don't know where you get that.