Harper pitches income splitting for families

[Machjo]

Harper pitches income splitting for families - Canada - CBC News

Interesting how when Elizabeth May had proposed this at the English-language leaders' debate last election, Harper argued we couldn't afford it. I haven't looked closely at the Green party's platform for this election yet, but what I could see as really embarrassing for Harper would be this time around at the leader's debate, May opposes income splitting on the grounds that when she'd supported it last election, we could still afford it but that now we can't anymore because we have too much debt.

I am curious how other candidates might have had to modify their tax platforms from last election to compensate for the increased debt.

Oops, I should have read it beforehand. He's talking about doing it only once the debt is paid off. Responsible enough there. But the way he spends, it'll take a whilte to implement this.

Though I still don't get why last leader's debate, harper opposed May's income splitting proposal on the grounds that 'we couldn't afford it' but that now, after the debt has grown, it's something worth discussing?

Makes my head itch. But I can't wait to see how May responds to this bizarre change of heart. And again, it would be funny should Harper and may switch sides on this issue on the grounds of the debt having grown.

 

[eh1eh]

Whoa, next it'll be carbon tax.

 

[Corduroy]

Here's to more parties stealing Green ideas.

 

[Machjo]

Whoa, next it'll be carbon tax.

Granted that was a difference. May had mentioned in the leader's debate that income splitting would be more than affordable owing to the carbon tax compensating for it. Ironically enough though, a carbon tax is actually more conservative than the Conservatives care to admit. If you think about it, a carbon tax is relatively more user-pay than income tax or even the GST. One would have thought that the Conservatives would support a more user-pay tax system.

But then again, it shouldn't be too surprising. May was a member of the Progressive Conservative Party before, and so it's only natural that some conservative types would turn Green.

 

[PoliticalNick]

What's the deal with the carbon tax....Science actually proves the earth is cooling and co2 is what keeps all the plants alive, infact the levels of co2 at earlier times in earth history have been 100 times higher and live thrived.

Income splitting after the debt is paid...thats a good one. Harper plans to run up another 100 illion in debt over the next 4 years (on top of the 500 billion we already have) and then show a 300 million surplus in year 5. At that rate we would be lucky to see it by the year 2500.

 

[TenPenny]

Interesting how when Elizabeth May had proposed this at the English-language leaders' debate last election, Harper argued we couldn't afford it.

And he's still saying we can't afford it, because he doesn't plan to implement it. Until the deficit is gone, that is. In four or five years, that is. I guess Harper really does assume we're stupid. In the words of Bev Oda, 'NOT'.

 

[weaselwords]

Harper has got stars in his eyes. He proposing policy that won't even be in effect for five years by his estimate. There is at least one more election in the future (based on fixed election dates & 4 year a parliament life), he's that cocksure of a majority that he's already campaigning for next. Now that Chutzpah.

 

[DaSleeper]

Retirement income splitting works for me...:smile:

 

[Machjo]

What's the deal with the carbon tax....Science actually proves the earth is cooling and co2 is what keeps all the plants alive, infact the levels of co2 at earlier times in earth history have been 100 times higher and live thrived.

Compared to many other popular tax proposals, I actually like the idea of a carbon tax owing to its being more rational in its impact in encouraging more efficient use of resources. If you have to pay more to use these resources, you'll use them more efficiently. also, it makes taxes somewhat more user pay in that those who buy more gas are likely to drive more and so they ought to contribute more to road construction.

Income splitting after the debt is paid...thats a good one. Harper plans to run up another 100 illion in debt over the next 4 years (on top of the 500 billion we already have) and then show a 300 million surplus in year 5. At that rate we would be lucky to see it by the year 2500.

I actually agree with waiting until the debt is paid off before reducing taxes. It's just a shame that, when he'd said we could not afford income splitting in the leaders' debate last election, we now know why: he obviously had some big spending plans in mind already to be able to confidently propose such tax cuts.

And he's still saying we can't afford it, because he doesn't plan to implement it. Until the deficit is gone, that is. In four or five years, that is. I guess Harper really does assume we're stupid. In the words of Bev Oda, 'NOT'.

Again, I fully agree with no tax cuts until the debt's paid off; that's just good fiscal policy. My problem is with his saying last election we couldn't afford such tax cuts and then turning around and spending like a drunken sailor. At least be consistent: if we can't afford such tax cuts (which is reasonable enough an argument), then obviously we can't afford spending increases either.

 

[TenPenny]

[I actually agree with waiting until the debt is paid off before reducing taxes.

It's too bad Harper didn't believe in it, we'd be in better shape today.

 

[petros]

I we paid off the debt where would money come from?

 

[Machjo]

Another thing I'd say is that even if we can't afford tax cuts (which we certainly cannot afford with the debt load we now have), that doesn't stop us from at least shifting taxes towards a more user-pay system so as to encourage people to use resources more efficiently. After all, we have to pay income tax regardless, and so income taxes don't really modify our behaviour beyond reducing our overall spending. However, a more strategic tax like a gas tax would also encourage us to find ways around it by reducing consumption, thus helping with other things like reducing traffic, smog, etc. as additional spinoff benefits. Ideally a policy intent on being efficient and economical ought to aim to be as multi-purpose as possible. A simple shift towards gas taxes does that.

I we paid off the debt where would money come from?

Huh?

 

[Omicron]

Harper pitches income splitting for families - Canada - CBC News

Makes my head itch. But I can't wait to see how May responds to this bizarre change of heart. And again, it would be funny should Harper and May switch sides on this issue on the grounds of the debt having grown.

Yes indeed, it will be interesting to hear what May says, but Harpo's offering it because it sounds warm and fuzzy and should get a vote or two...

... yet even if he were to get a majority, his own rules say he doesn't have to honor it until the budget balances, which is now predicted to not happen until 2015... around the time his mandate would be over...

... so he's hoping to get a whole period of reign enabled by a promise which - if people read the fine print - they'd know he never has to keep, and nobody will be able to say he's breaking an election promise.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Another thing I'd say is that even if we can't afford tax cuts (which we certainly cannot afford with the debt load we now have), that doesn't stop us from at least shifting taxes towards a more user-pay system so as to encourage people to use resources more efficiently. After all, we have to pay income tax regardless, and so income taxes don't really modify our behaviour beyond reducing our overall spending. However, a more strategic tax like a gas tax would also encourage us to find ways around it by reducing consumption, thus helping with other things like reducing traffic, smog, etc. as additional spinoff benefits. Ideally a policy intent on being efficient and economical ought to aim to be as multi-purpose as possible. A simple shift towards gas taxes does that.

Your idea sounds good on paper but becomes a regressive taxation program (regressive being as your income & assets increase you pay a lesser % overall). We all have to eat and move around and all that stuff and all use about the same on average. Under such a program as you suggest the wealthy would pay about the same as someone who makes minimum wage. I could go for a program of income tax credits for reducing consumption such as removing a vehicle from the road or installing solar into your house but our base system should be progressive taxation where those with more income and assets pay more tax than those with little income or assets.

 

[Omicron]

If we paid off the debt where would money come from?

What do you mean?

If the debt's paid off, it just means taxes should be lower because we won't have to be paying interest on a debt.

The only people who would say something like that are lenders, who *want* governments to take on as much debt as possible so they can juice that jurisdiction's taxpayers with interest.

Are you speaking as a financier specialized in lending to government?

 

[Goober]

Harper pitches income splitting for families - Canada - CBC News

Interesting how when Elizabeth May had proposed this at the English-language leaders' debate last election, Harper argued we couldn't afford it. I haven't looked closely at the Green party's platform for this election yet, but what I could see as really embarrassing for Harper would be this time around at the leader's debate, May opposes income splitting on the grounds that when she'd supported it last election, we could still afford it but that now we can't anymore because we have too much debt.

I am curious how other candidates might have had to modify their tax platforms from last election to compensate for the increased debt.

Oops, I should have read it beforehand. He's talking about doing it only once the debt is paid off. Responsible enough there. But the way he spends, it'll take a whilte to implement this.

Though I still don't get why last leader's debate, harper opposed May's income splitting proposal on the grounds that 'we couldn't afford it' but that now, after the debt has grown, it's something worth discussing?

Makes my head itch. But I can't wait to see how May responds to this bizarre change of heart. And again, it would be funny should Harper and may switch sides on this issue on the grounds of the debt having grown.

It works well for hign income families - yet leaves out single parents - a substantial number of families are single parented - also it means little to those under the 80 k mark or so - for the higher income - they will reap the majority of the cost - est - 2.2 to 2.5 billion.

These topics should be in the election thread - otherwise we have so many threads to look and reply to, it gets a tad confusing.

 

[Omicron]

It works well for hign income families - yet leaves out single parents - a substantial number of families are single parented - also it means little to those under the 80 k mark or so - for the higher income - they will reap the majority of the cost - est - 2.2 to 2.5 billion.

Ahh... dawns the light. More acceleration of rich going up and poor going down.

 

[Goober]

Ahh... dawns the light. More acceleration of rich going up and poor going down.

Another article that lays out even more problems -

Probing the pledge: The Tories’ flawed tax break for families - The Globe and Mail

 

[Machjo]

As for the income splitting, I do see the point with regards to the rich benefiting more from it than the poor. I don't believe that that alone is a bad idea though if it is counterbalanced with other policies to help the poor.

 

[Omicron]

As for the income splitting, I do see the point with regards to the rich benefiting more from it than the poor. I don't believe that that alone is a bad idea though if it is counterbalanced with other policies to help the poor.

If he really cared, all he had to do was say, "If you've got kids, you get a tax break... so much per kid".

That's much simpler than the calculations required to do the accounting behind income splitting.