jackass Layton Favoured Income Splitting

[Anonymous]

As did Michael Ignatieff.

NDP Leader jackass Layton struck similar tone, telling reporters during a campaign stop in Regina that the Conservative income-splitting plan asks Canadian families to wait for relief.



"As I understand it, this will come into force some time in the future, possibly, if certain conditions are met. A lot of these kids who are 16, 17, 8 now are going to be grown up by then. Our families here in Canada need help right now," Mr. Layton said.



Mr. Harper "thinks that people can wait on a wing and prayer, that maybe they will get some help some day," he said.



"We believe that help is needed now. That's why I met with the Prime Minister I said 'let's take the federal tax off home heating right now to give families a break. Let's immediately move every senior out of poverty.' He rejected our suggestions."



The promised Conservative measure is a form of income splitting, a policy the Conservatives have long favoured but held off enacting because it can be expensive depending on how it's implemented. The Tories introduced pension-income splitting for seniors in 2007.



Income splitting allows the spouse in higher tax bracket to shift income to their partner with a lower level of earnings so that the overall rate of taxation is reduced.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-unveils-income-splitting-plan-ignatieff-blasts-four-year-delay/article4266794/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le4266794/">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-unveils-income-splitting-plan-ignatieff-blasts-four-year-delay/article4266794/

[Anonymous]

I have heard of it, but I do not know much about it..



It sounds like a good idea in theory, but I will have to read about it when I have more time.

[Anonymous]

I have heard of it, but I do not know much about it..



It sounds like a good idea in theory, but I will have to read about it when I have more time.

If done right it can be a very good thing for families. However, it can be quite a loss of revenue for greedy governments. I only mentioned because that idiotic old nutjob Vesna quoted some hyper-ideological "study" by the Centre for Policy Suicide.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like a good idea, but like anything the devil is in the details.

[Anonymous]

It sounds like a good idea, but like anything the devil is in the details.

If done right with corresponding cuts in expenditures what's the problem? Lowers family tax bills which even Layton recognized, but the Centre for (suicidal) Policy Alternatives doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Harper promised income splitting and Layton as well as the Grits urges him to stick to it. Well, now that we are very close to being in the black, the Tories appear to be backing off??

Jim Flaherty's musing that the Conservatives are backing away from their promise to make the tax system fairer for all families is turning from musing to government policy.



The day after his budget, Canada's finance minister began trash talking a key election pledge by calling income splitting a shiny bauble, one he didn't like.



That's weird because back in 2011, Flaherty and the rest of the Conservatives ran on this simple promise: Once the budget is balanced, families with kids under 18 will be able to split up to $50,000 of income to lower the tax burden.



When Flaherty began saying he'd rather pay down debt than provide income splitting, it led to speculation that Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper, who personally made the promise in 2011, were at odds.



Not so.



Thursday afternoon, Harper said where the government stood on the issue.



The PM said when the budget is balanced he will consider something but wouldn't commit.



"We're very clear that we made commitments and reducing taxes for Canadian families will be among the highest priorities as we move forward," Harper said.



Great, does that mean income splitting?



Not according to senior government people who assure me there will be some kind of tax-break promise before the next election, just not the one they ran on last time.



Let me explain something to the big brains running the PMO: When you make a big promise like this to voters and then switch once in power, they won't believe you next time.



Income splitting for families is popular not only with the Conservative party base but with swing voters as well.



This is the type of policy that sells well in the suburban ridings that the Conservatives have to hold onto.



It's also a matter of fairness.



Right now there can be two families living next door to each other, each one making the same amount of money but one family pays much more in taxes.



Why?



According to a study by University of Calgary economist jackass Mintz and doctoral student Matt Krzepkowski, a single-earner family making $70,000 pays 30% more in taxes than a dual-earner family making $35,000 apiece.



Both families earn the same total income but are treated differently.



That is not fair.



Critics of income splitting, which now seems to include Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper, say this kind of tax cut helps some people but not others.



Well, so do plenty of other tax measures.



Parents that put their kids in daycare or boarding school can claim up to $7,000 a year in fees to get a tax break. Families with a stay-at-home parent cannot.



That violates Flaherty's new policy that every tax measure must help every single Canadian.



Same with union dues which are tax deductible, but not everyone pays them so not everyone gets the tax break.



You can get special deductions for taking the bus to work, putting your kids in art classes, living in the north — all kinds of measures litter the tax system that benefit some and not others.



I'd much prefer a flat-tax system of 10% for all and no breaks, but at this point in time, there is no chance anyone in government would implement such a thing.



So until then, let's agree to make the tax system fairer.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/13/promise-worth-keeping-key-election-pledge-of-income-splitting-now-a-shiny-bauble">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/13/p ... iny-bauble">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/13/promise-worth-keeping-key-election-pledge-of-income-splitting-now-a-shiny-bauble

[Anonymous]

Harper promised income splitting and Layton as well as the Grits urges him to stick to it. Well, now that we are very close to being in the black, the Tories appear to be backing off??

Jim Flaherty's musing that the Conservatives are backing away from their promise to make the tax system fairer for all families is turning from musing to government policy.



The day after his budget, Canada's finance minister began trash talking a key election pledge by calling income splitting a shiny bauble, one he didn't like.



That's weird because back in 2011, Flaherty and the rest of the Conservatives ran on this simple promise: Once the budget is balanced, families with kids under 18 will be able to split up to $50,000 of income to lower the tax burden.



When Flaherty began saying he'd rather pay down debt than provide income splitting, it led to speculation that Flaherty and Prime Minister Harper, who personally made the promise in 2011, were at odds.



Not so.



Thursday afternoon, Harper said where the government stood on the issue.



The PM said when the budget is balanced he will consider something but wouldn't commit.



"We're very clear that we made commitments and reducing taxes for Canadian families will be among the highest priorities as we move forward," Harper said.



Great, does that mean income splitting?



Not according to senior government people who assure me there will be some kind of tax-break promise before the next election, just not the one they ran on last time.



Let me explain something to the big brains running the PMO: When you make a big promise like this to voters and then switch once in power, they won't believe you next time.



Income splitting for families is popular not only with the Conservative party base but with swing voters as well.



This is the type of policy that sells well in the suburban ridings that the Conservatives have to hold onto.



It's also a matter of fairness.



Right now there can be two families living next door to each other, each one making the same amount of money but one family pays much more in taxes.



Why?



According to a study by University of Calgary economist jackass Mintz and doctoral student Matt Krzepkowski, a single-earner family making $70,000 pays 30% more in taxes than a dual-earner family making $35,000 apiece.



Both families earn the same total income but are treated differently.



That is not fair.



Critics of income splitting, which now seems to include Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper, say this kind of tax cut helps some people but not others.



Well, so do plenty of other tax measures.



Parents that put their kids in daycare or boarding school can claim up to $7,000 a year in fees to get a tax break. Families with a stay-at-home parent cannot.



That violates Flaherty's new policy that every tax measure must help every single Canadian.



Same with union dues which are tax deductible, but not everyone pays them so not everyone gets the tax break.



You can get special deductions for taking the bus to work, putting your kids in art classes, living in the north — all kinds of measures litter the tax system that benefit some and not others.



I'd much prefer a flat-tax system of 10% for all and no breaks, but at this point in time, there is no chance anyone in government would implement such a thing.



So until then, let's agree to make the tax system fairer.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/13/promise-worth-keeping-key-election-pledge-of-income-splitting-now-a-shiny-bauble">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/13/p ... iny-bauble">http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/02/13/promise-worth-keeping-key-election-pledge-of-income-splitting-now-a-shiny-bauble

There is a big difference between my income and my husband's, so it seems like we would be one of the families it would help us to keep more of our own money.

[Anonymous]

I believe the Tories are really going to alienate a lot of those suburban voters if they abandon this promise. They campaigned on income splitting once the deficit was eliminated. Unlike the silly non-issue senate scandal, abandoning this key policy plank affects people in a real way who counting on it going through. We can argue about the economic feasibility of this, but not keeping this promise now is suicidal for the governing Tories.

[RW]

Great for families but if the argument is based on some idea of fairness, it's bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Great for families but if the argument is based on some idea of fairness, it's bullshit.

I thought it would be good for my family Ms. Real woman..



Can you explain please?

[RW]

I am sure it would be Fash.  Absolutely fabulous for mine as well, but is it fair?  It's giving people a tax break for being nothing more than married.  If you compare two people, one who is married and one who is not, both making $70,000 a year, the guy who isn't married will/could be paying more in taxes than the guy who can income share with his wife.  Is that right?

[Anonymous]

I am sure it would be Fash.  Absolutely fabulous for mine as well, but is it fair?  It's giving people a tax break for being nothing more than married.  If you compare two people, one who is married and one who is not, both making $70,000 a year, the guy who isn't married will/could be paying more in taxes than the guy who can income share with his wife.  Is that right?

Hello Ms. Real Woman, I mentioned this on Vancouver Forum and everyone opposes it..



All I know is that my husband earns more than double what I do, but we pay more in tax than a family of four where the husband and wife have equal incomes..



It would lower our tax bill that I do know.

[Anonymous]

I have been reading more about income splitting and I have changed my mind. It's not such a great idea.

[Anonymous]

Income-splitting is definitely not my preferred choice when it comes to tax reform. However, it looks like the Tories are backing down on this which would be a mistake for them politically. They are counting on income spltting bringing out the suburban moms like Fash for them at the next election. Without income-splitting, they will run into the arms of the cuter but airheaded baby Trudeau.

[RW]

I hear ya Fash.  It would go a long way in my household as well.



They already pissed us suburban working moms off with their child care reform.  What a crock of shit that was.  Why the hell would you send $100 per kid to people who don't even utilize childcare or who make a ton of money as is?  Why not just burn bills right on the Parliament lawn?