Apolitical Staples

How much money is income splitting for everyone going to cost? That could be the reason it is not being floated at the moment.

Of that I am not sure. I suspect not as much as you might think. For lower income people they pay low (or effectively no) personal income tax. For high income earners no amount of splitting will lower your tax rate (unless we include children in the splitting equation, which I am in favour of). So effectively it is for single income families making $60-$80K (to pick numbers out of the air). I am not sure how many of those there are. I suspect quite a lot but I have not done the research on it. To me it is a question of equity - why should a single income family pay more tax than a two income familly on the same amount of income. It makes no sense and it is unfair.

“How much money is income splitting for everyone going to cost?”

Cost!? Cost?! AAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhhh

It’s isn’t going to cost us one bloody cent. It will allow us to KEEP some of our money. The government doesn’t have money. It takes money. From us. If it takes a little less, it hasn’t incurred a “cost”.

Lowering the effective tax rate reduces income to the government. If this falls below prudent thresholds (surplus, etc), then the government will have to raise taxes. That’s why it’s necessary to see what the impact is. BTW, I think I saw that the pensioner-splitting cost was about $400 mil/year.

It is an interesting idea, but I would like to see some figures. Allan: As to not costing us anything, well that’s another topic. It only doesn’t cost us anything if you believe government shouldn’t do anything, which I don’t. So, we may have an unbridgeable gap between us on that one.

“So, we may have an unbridgeable gap between us on that one.”

Ya think?

Greg,

I used to dream of income splitting every budget. But, with the recent collapse of the marriage, I have discovered you can split income after all. You just can’t stay married is all.

By the way, I did not assert that government “shouldn’t do anything”. What I said was that government has no money other than what it takes (by threat of penal consequences and the use of force). Choosing to take less of citizens’ private property by force does not constitute a “cost” to the government, regardless of how much or little you believe the state should do.

Allen again we will just have to disagree. I see paying taxes as a duty of citizenship and you see it as state confiscation of private property.

Turner has the answers on his blog, the amount is just over 3 million a year. Which is not a lot since you were going to pay over 5 billion for a National Child Care plan. Yes, I totally agree with full income splitting, I’m lobbying for it now.

As for the divorce, yes you do get to split the income then :0 sorry it had to come to that but before today it would be cheaper for seniors to divorce. Still cheaper childcare wise for me to divorce hubby now :)

Actually, according to Garth:

But, what will this cost? Can we afford it?

If we restrict this to two-parent families with children under 18 years of age, the cost would be $1.561 billion per year, based on 2005 numbers. Of that, two-thirds of the cost would go to benefit double-income families, and the remaining amount for the 26% of all families that have just one income. The greatest number of people to benefit would be in the income range of $60,000 to $80,000 per year.

Jim L

So, we may have an unbridgeable gap between us on that one.

Relax, Socialist Greg, you don’t have to build any bridges. Simply get behind the political parties which promise greater and greater welfare handouts, government jobs, etc. for non-earning and non-saving people, demonize the people who earn and save, win an(other) election, and then use the government police force to steal whatever you need. And be sure to pretend that you’re doing all of this “for the greater good”. It soothes the conscience.

Non-socialist (?) Greg: why is it that you think that when you relieve the direct tax burden on families without cutting spending, so that you then have to raise the tax burden on those who buy goods and services from the family members, or who sell them goods and services, thus diminishing their salaries, costing them their jobs and raising prices, that this is somehow preserving the family?

Remember, government economic meddling always has two types of effects.

Who said I wasn’t in favour of cutting spending as well?

Paying taxes is a duty, but so is not spending public revenue on every la-la scheme that comes to mind. Define the core responsibilities of each level of government, stick to them, and leave all other rights and obligations to individuals.

“I see paying taxes as a duty of citizenship”

Yup. Most people see it that way. That’s why there are no threats of fines or incarceration to back up the forcible taking of private property via the Income Tax Act and other legislation.

Look. Some taxation is necessary if you want to have a state (and I do), but let’s not pretend that taxation is something it isn’t. You might volunteer half your paycheque to the “greater good”, but I doubt most people would voluntarily slice off that much of their hard earned cash. I sure as hell wouldn’t.

Socialism is a bit like a proselytizing faith - both think their moral system should apply to everyone and anybody who disagrees is clearly not in a state of grace.

Tax is a coercive state measure. The sky is blue. 2 +2 = 4.