Liberals now pulling away from Cons into majority territory

[waldo]

Good question! I doubt if there's a simple way of doing it.

possible ways to increase eligibility: increase the age range for children still living at home, or do away with the child requirement altogether. As I read the critical reviews of the proposal, to realize any kind of significant benefit within that 'measely' $2000 cap limit, one parent needs to be a stay at home parent & the other must make more than $100K... surely, that has avenues to tweak to broaden the eligibility pool! If Harper Conservatives are so intent on squandering a presumed surplus... go big, or go home!

 

[mentalfloss]

possible ways to increase eligibility: increase the age range for children still living at home, or do away with the child requirement altogether. As I read the critical reviews of the proposal, to realize any kind of significant benefit within that 'measely' $2000 cap limit, one parent needs to be a stay at home parent & the other must make more than $100K... surely, that has avenues to tweak to broaden the eligibility pool! If Harper Conservatives are so intent on squandering a presumed surplus... go big, or go home!

That's a joke, right?

 

[waldo]

That's a joke, right?

well... it's a Harper Conservative joke on the majority of Canadians!

The vast majority of families are not likely to benefit, according to reports from The C.D. Howe Institute and The Broadbent Institute. They found that 85 to 90 per cent of households would see no rebates from this tax break at all.

Those likely to see the biggest benefit would be single-income families, in which one spouse is making at least a six-figure income and the other is making little to no money. According to the Broadbent report, in order to benefit most from the plan, one spouse would need to make at least $100,000 more than the other.

The reason that the majority of families in Canada wouldn't benefit is because so many families have two income earners in the same tax bracket. Single parents also miss out, since they have no one to split their income with. Families with children no longer under the age of 18 do not qualify either.

 

[mentalfloss]

Broadbent roflcopters.

But in all seriousness, if we were to assume a single income family at 50k received half the max.. that's what.. less than $100 per month for a mom or dad trying to sustain a spouse and child on an average salary?

Doesn't make any sense.

 

[captain morgan]

The Mom and Dad might have thought about the position they are in and issues of affordability before they started a family.

 

[JLM]

The Mom and Dad might have thought about the position they are in and issues of affordability before they started a family.

Or in many cases figuring out what are "wants" and what are "needs"!

 

[mentalfloss]

The Mom and Dad might have thought about the position they are in and issues of affordability before they started a family.

If you are going to hold this standard, then you are effectively arguing they should not receive any benefit at all.

 

[captain morgan]

Or in many cases figuring out what are "wants" and what are "needs"!

That too is a big consideration. Raising a child is a huge responsibility and has a high price tag associated with it.

A prospective parent having that understanding will do the child as well as themselves a big favor in having a plan well in advance

If you are going to hold this standard, then you are effectively arguing they should not receive any benefit at all.

What a silly and short-sighted comment.

There are a lot of moving parts in this discussion, but considering the commentary from your clownesque buddy, his beef is that the bennie is not exactly equal to all under all circumstances, meanwhile, dutifully ignores the reality that the taxes collected are not equal to begin with.

Why is this important? Put simply, those that pay higher taxes on a % basis will see a larger dollar amount when a %-based reduction is employed.

Should we get into a discussion on personal responsibility as well just to cut right to the chase on this?

 

[mentalfloss]

Sure, why don't you start by defining the scope of personal responsibility.

 

[Cannuck]

Name me one thing that could be done to benefit ALL Canadians!

Investing in infrastructure.

 

[mentalfloss]

Investing in infrastructure.

No can do.

You will be rewarding people that aren't responsible human beans.

We should be counting those beans.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Name me one thing that could be done to benefit ALL Canadians!

Execute Justin Bieber.

 

[captain morgan]

Sure, why don't you start by defining the scope of personal responsibility.

Ok, we can do this a few ways.

Personal responsibility can be generally considered as accepting the consequences of your decisions and actions.

Or, we can suggest that holding other 3 rd parties responsible for your actions is representative of one that has not accepted any personal responsibility.

Or, we can look at the historical levels and scope of services provided in the past and set the bar at that point (adjusted for inflation, of course)

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

One of the many, many things I like about Canada is that you have five political parties that have some significance in government.

Given that politics has degenerated into a team sport, it's more fun watching five contestants punch it out than just two.

It's also cool when they assemble the governing coalitions. It's like a husband and wife negociating for sex. In the U.S. it's just rape.

 

[mentalfloss]

Ok, we can do this a few ways.

Personal responsibility can be generally considered as accepting the consequences of your decisions and actions.

I can agree with that.

Now how does that fit into the schema of the discussion of income splitting.

 

[Colpy]

no - I'm against an inequitable proposal that doesn't benefit all Canadians... how quaint of you to be so dismissive of, apparently to you, the great unwashed middle/lower-class.

I looked.

The "four million families" quote is correct. Every two parent family with children should benefit to some degree or the other, no matter how small.

possible ways to increase eligibility: increase the age range for children still living at home, or do away with the child requirement altogether. As I read the critical reviews of the proposal, to realize any kind of significant benefit within that 'measely' $2000 cap limit, one parent needs to be a stay at home parent & the other must make more than $100K... surely, that has avenues to tweak to broaden the eligibility pool! If Harper Conservatives are so intent on squandering a presumed surplus... go big, or go home!

What??

I need to start paying taxes in your jurisdiction.

Check your figures. Because they are WAYYYYYY out of whack.

That is simply obvious.

 

[waldo]

Ok, we can do this a few ways.

oh my! Harper Conservtive social engineering... who would have thought you'd go there! As for your stoopid comment purposely falsely stating what I said... I never said benefits should be the same across the board. What I did say, what I am saying, is the majority of Canadians should realize "some benefit"... they shouldn't be excluded as they are now under the Harper Conservative income-splitting proposal. Capeesh, Cappy?

I looked.

The "four million families" quote is correct. Every two parent family with children should benefit to some degree or the other, no matter how small.

you looked it up... where? Pardon me if I'm more inclined to believe the analysis coming from C.D. Howe... or the Broadbent Institute. You can't slag both of those since one is 'right-leaning', right?

 

[captain morgan]

I can agree with that.

Now how does that fit into the schema of the discussion of income splitting.

Income splitting is a benefit that all but those at poverty level (income wise) can potentially benefit from.

As far as personal responsibility is concerned, and in the context of your original statement relative to starting/raising a family, income splitting can benefit most anyone in terms of recapturing taxes paid and putting that cash back in peoples pockets to accommodate costs associate with raising a child.

The personal responsibility element doesn't change, although the opportunity to minimize the tax exposure assists people in the above context

 

[mentalfloss]

Income splitting is a benefit that all but those at poverty level (income wise) can potentially benefit from.

As far as personal responsibility is concerned, and in the context of your original statement relative to starting/raising a family, income splitting can benefit most anyone in terms of recapturing taxes paid and putting that cash back in peoples pockets to accommodate costs associate with raising a child.

The personal responsibility element doesn't change, although the opportunity to minimize the tax exposure assists people in the above context

Except those pooruns who aren't self-responsible according to you, are still going to receive some benefit, however minimal.

So they are getting some reward even though they didn't 'earn it'.

 

[DaSleeper]

I looked.

The "four million families" quote is correct. Every two parent family with children should benefit to some degree or the other, no matter how small.



What??

I need to start paying taxes in your jurisdiction.

Check your figures. Because they are WAYYYYYY out of whack.

That is simply obvious.

The writer of the article he was quoting is simply and completely wrong in saying that one partner would have to make 100K and the other no income at all in order to save the $2000...
Before income splitting for seniors...I had my tax deductions set up so that at tax time the refund or tax payable would run about $150 one way or the other depending on how many rrsp's were cashed in,
My splitable pension is a bit less than one third the quoted 100k amount and we get about $300. back at tax time....give or take a few hundred dollars...
As soon as I saw that bullshyte in the article and a few other thing that were completely over the top I quit reading it....