CONS income splitting to benefit earning more than $233,000 most
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
It's O.K., you don't savvy English.
I see you live in Vancouver, so you have only yourself to blame!
My understanding is it's technically a transfer and not a split. When one person is a high income earner it isn't unudual for the spouse to be stay at home.
I have dealt with a lot of people where primary earner was in s high paying trade and covering all family expenses.
One of the reasons we're struggling is from "carrying" ne'er do wells who afford to flit off to Phoenix, as soon as the weather turns cold!
One of the reasons we're struggling is from "carrying" ne'er do wells who afford to flit off to Phoenix, as soon as the weather turns cold!
Jealousy is such an ugly emotion. Perhaps if you made better choices and were not "struggling" with a 100k mortgage, you could "flit" off south as well. I know I spend as much time as I can down south each winter but, then again, I've made some smart decisions.
Of course I shouldn't be too presumptuous. Maybe it wasn't bad decision making on your part. I don't know you so for all I know it could just be laziness.
I think the point of this was missed. The income splitting was supposed to help families. Not just some of them. Many of you seem to think that its unfair that the wealthier pay higher tax rates, but you seem to find little fault in a "family support program" that mainly benefits the well to do.
So, if the program is advertised to help Canadian families, and it doesn't, three possibilities exist, A, the present government is a bunch of liars, B, the present government is incompetent, or C, low income families are not Canadian citizens. Oh and if your a reformist, you can pick D.
So, if the program is advertised to help Canadian families, and it doesn't, three possibilities exist, A, the present government is a bunch of liars, B, the present government is incompetent, or C, low income families are not Canadian citizens. Oh and if your a reformist, you can pick D.
A burning question............Are there any cases where income splitting has increased total taxes paid?
I wouldn't think so. Most tax credits (payable) are based upon family net income, splitting doesn't change that. The non refundable tax credit is 15% of items (personal, spousal, child, cpp ei etc.), the lowest income rate is 15%. So if you share 11,138 income to your spouse, whom had zero income, there's no effect - on the one hand you lose the $1670 (11,138*15%) non refundable tax credit, but on the other hand you reduce your income tax by at least 1670 - dependent upon at was rate the ll,138 you transfered was previously taxed. So if net family income is 43953 or less, then nothing changes.
That being the case I'm not sure how income splitting could be construed as a bad thing!
Ok from the GOC site:That being the case I'm not sure how income splitting could be construed as a bad thing!
"The Government of Canada has proposed a package of tax cuts and increased benefits to make life more affordable for Canadian families. Here's how families can put more money in their pockets in 2015:"
They list income splitting as #1. Clearly for a family earning 20/hr, income splitting does not make life more affordable, nor does it put more money in their pockets. It does nothing. Why would a government, attempting (one has to assume its their intention) to make life more affordable, create a program that does nothing to help the lower end income working family?
Don't get me wrong, The system has always fcked over the single income family (two people earning 50k each pay less tax than one person earning 100k), but honestly, you have a program to help families, except the poorer ones?
Quit frankly, those poorer families will end up paying more tax because of it, the money for this program could have been used against the natl debt, knocking down the debt servicing cost, which could lead to either lower taxes or improved programs.
I disagree. A couple with 2 jobs making 50k each pay less tax than a couple where one makes 100k. This would help alleviate that. Wealthy, as in rich, already in general have assets split for income purposes and would not benefit from this.
The poor pay very little tax. The first 10k is completely tax free. Anything higher is in the lowest tax bracket.
To get to the crux of the matter I think neither a family with two incomes of $50 grand or one income of $100 grand has F**k all to whine about. There are families in this country with an annual combined income of under $30 grand.
Damm tough surviving on $100G. What with mcmansion mortgage, boat and car payments, moorage, golf club membership etc. Not to mention kids in hockey. Did I mention 50% tax?
Or people that see better ways to use our tax dollars. I guess time will tell if Harper and Company can actually balance the budget.
Conservatives hate it as well when you are running a deficit and are not cutting expenses as well. Oh well, like I've said before, your generation has no problem going deeper in debt and passing the bill onto your children. Thankfully my generation has seen the example you have set. Things will probably get better once Canada's most selfish generation dies off.