[Unsound]

I always thought that a sales tax that excempts basic neccesities, as the GST does, is one of the fairest ways to tax. People who earn more would tend tend to spend more, fancier car, bigger tv etc and therefore pay more tax than those who are mostly just trying to feed themselves.

As for income splitting, it just seems fair to me to treat a household as a household. WHether our combined income is 100 000 cause I have a good job and the wife stays home, or whether it's because we both have mediocre jobs, our household expenses would be fairly similiar, but there will be less money to take carew of them if it's just the one high earner.

Obviously it benefits high earners more than low, but any tax cut does that, by virtue of the fact that high earners pay more tax.

Increasing the personal exemption is probably the only way to benefit everyone, and I would be in favour of that as well. 25000 would be a good number to me. Anyone who makes less than that really can't afford taxes anyways, unless they're a student living at home working part time or some such, in which case we'll get 'em later no doubt.

[BeaverFever]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Who has one spouse working these days?

Why, do you have more than one spouse working?

[andyt]

Unsound Unsound:

I always thought that a sales tax that excempts basic neccesities, as the GST does, is one of the fairest ways to tax. People who earn more would tend tend to spend more, fancier car, bigger tv etc and therefore pay more tax than those who are mostly just trying to feed themselves.

As for income splitting, it just seems fair to me to treat a household as a household. WHether our combined income is 100 000 cause I have a good job and the wife stays home, or whether it's because we both have mediocre jobs, our household expenses would be fairly similiar, but there will be less money to take carew of them if it's just the one high earner.

Obviously it benefits high earners more than low, but any tax cut does that, by virtue of the fact that high earners pay more tax.

Increasing the personal exemption is probably the only way to benefit everyone, and I would be in favour of that as well. 25000 would be a good number to me. Anyone who makes less than that really can't afford taxes anyways, unless they're a student living at home working part time or some such, in which case we'll get 'em later no doubt.

To more than double the basic exemption would take billions and billions. That money would have to be made up from somewhere.


So we're taxing by household now? That's like the couple that's always trying to only chip in for one person when going out. You earn your money individually, you should be taxed on it same. Otherwise, why limit it to two people per household? Many kids also earn money, could income split with them. Or just a group of people living together -that's deemed a household by Stats can, should they be able to split income?

Income splitting with your spouse comes from a time when the little woman stayed home and had to be supported by hubby. More and more people these days are singletons, it just discriminates against them, poor widows, orphans etc.

Consumption taxes are regressive. As I said, lower income people pay proportionately more of their income on consumption taxes, because they basically consume all they earn. Still, they say they are good form of taxation, so just maybe expand the rebate program for lower income. And maybe start with setting the basic exemption at 15k - that would be a good step.


Income splitting can be of no benefit for households earning up to 90k - ie each partner earns 45k or less. On partner has to earn more than 45k, the other the equivalent amount less than 45k.

[andyt]

So the income splitting is only available for families with children. Why not just boost the per child deduction or raise the child credit. That way, every family with children, including single parent families can benefit.

[Jonny_C]

From a news item:

"Pundits and analysts were quick to jump on that particular measure {income splitting} claiming that it didn’t help Canada’s middle or low-income earners."

Hogwash. If you earn $40K a year and your wife stays at home with the kids, you can split $20K off to her. The tax you pay on two incomes of $20K each is a LOT lower than the tax on one income of $40K. The difference goes in your pocket at tax time. Those "experts" should do a little math.

Income splitting for pension income was introduced a few years ago, and because my pension income is much higher than hers, it saves my wife and I almost $2000 a year in taxes. And I make a pretty average "middle class" pension.

Income splitting for families should work in a similar fashion.

[housewife]

andyt andyt:

Guys with high paying jobs, mostly. Flaherty wasn't a fan because it mostly benefitted these guys, while the full on program would have cost 2 billion.

You want to give a tax break, raise the personal deduction. Add another tax bracket at the top to take some extra income there, and cut out the spouse deduction. Why should the govt keep your non-working spouse in bon bons. Then increase the child deduction.

You have no idea what your talking about! and your being a fucking ass!! But of late that is all you seem to do in that smug know-it-all way of yours. You try getting posted all over the fucken country into areas that had no jobs or wouldn't hire spouses as it might be a short posting. Then try budgetting knowing that the rent varried cause CM-Fucking-C was trying to make it fair for the locals. Then try doing the fucken math on the cost of working. Oh and then just for shits and giggles try to fed a family of 5 on 300 a month. Oh and don't forget your fucken bon bons!!

[andyt]

If you only have $300 a month for food, your hubby can't be earning much money in the first place. I spend more than that just for myself, but then I like to eat high quality food. That means that income splitting won't save you much money at all. It benefits families in the top tax bracket that have one income earner. Only 16% of Canadians will benefit from this program.

Wouldn't it make more sense, if you want to help families with kids, to either allow higher deductions per kid, or increase the child benefit? It would likely put more money in your family's pocket, but also benefit single parents (they need a break if anybody does) or families where both parents make about the same income.

[housewife]

andyt andyt:

If you only have $300 a month for food, your hubby can't be earning much money in the first place. I spend more than that just for myself, but then I like to eat high quality food. That means that income splitting won't save you much money at all. It benefits families in the top tax bracket that have one income earner. Only 16% of Canadians will benefit from this program.

Wouldn't it make more sense, if you want to help families with kids, to either allow higher deductions per kid, or increase the child benefit? It would likely put more money in your family's pocket, but also benefit single parents (they need a break if anybody does) or families where both parents make about the same income.

Seeing as he was CF at the time. NO

Have you ever filled out taxes other than single no dependance? I'm guessing not.

Why present it like you know it all. You have no idea what your talking about.

[andyt]

I do, but it seems you don't. You might want to research this income splitting before you fly off the handle. Or just eat some bon bons.

[Lemmy]

$1:

A federal proposal to allow income splitting for two-parent families would create more inequalities in the tax system rather than less, and it is a flawed idea

http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Commentary_335.pdf

[andyt]

Income splitting would not benefit low-income single parents, minister says

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/income- ... -1.2820376

No duh. Who would they split their income with? Candice Bergen - What an airhead

[housewife]

andyt andyt:

I do, but it seems you don't. You might want to research this income splitting before you fly off the handle. Or just eat some bon bons.

I already injoy income splitting you pompus ass!! The pension split works very well.

[andyt]

Great, But we were talking about the proposed changes to the tax code. So your comment is irrelevant either way. Seems you just want to spout off without knowing what you're talking about. You admit that before your hubbies retirement, you were low income, so the current changes would not have benefitted you one bit. But fumed on about feeding people at $60 per month - were you hunting dinosaurs to supplement your food budget?

So you're reflexively defending this legislation, even tho it would not have benefitted you when hubby was still working, (Since he appears to have had a low paying job) nor would it affect you now. Fair enough, but maybe take in the criticism that there are ways to help families who really need it, cast a much wider net than this proposed legislation would do.

[Jonny_C]

andyt andyt:

Income splitting would not benefit low-income single parents, minister says

Of course not. They mostly don't pay any tax to begin with. The minister is simply stating the obvious, for those people who obviously missed the point.

Income-splitting is aimed at typical middle-class, two-parent families. It's about time the average family gets a break. Don't believe for a moment the idea that this measure is for "wealthy" families. You're not wealthy if you're making under a hundred grand a year.

I can think of at least a dozen families of friends and relatives that will get a tax refund out of this measure. Some will get more, some will get less, but it's easy to see how it will benefit them all. And take my word for it, none of these families is wealthy. They are simply families where one spouse makes significantly more money than the other.

[housewife]

andyt

If you knew how it worked and the history you might be able to come up with something. Up untill about 20 years a go for tax purposed it was better to not be married when having children. It was closed when someone took gov to court as she couldn't "live in sin"

But seeing as this is another one of the topics that you don't and don't seem to want to know there isn't really any point is there.

As to the budget some months were more some less. I had a cold storage room so fall was higher. Would you rather some one lived in their means or spend on all the throw away stuff build up debt and go bankrupt? Every other add on the radio seems to be how debt is not your fault. I guessing you have something weird to say on that too