QuoteNDP Leader Jack 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/

Quote from: "Fashionista"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.

Quote from: "seoulbro"It sounds like a good idea, but like anything the devil is in the details.

QuoteJim 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 Jack 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

Quote from: "Shen Li"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??

QuoteJim 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 Jack 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

Quote from: "Real Woman"Great for families but if the argument is based on some idea of fairness, it's bullshit.

Quote from: "Real Woman"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?