Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Income Splitting plus other Family measures

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gemini View Post
    Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
    Originally posted by Drumbones View Post
    LRT LRT All those billions just to take a few buses off the street and impede traffic even more.
    We're playing that game? Here's my entry: It would do a lot more good for society as a whole than putting a bit extra McDonald's money in the pockets of crappy parents that had kids they apparently couldn't afford to begin with.
    If everybody who has kids waited until they could have afforded them the population would be one quarter of what it is. Some of the poorest families bring up the greatest of kids.
    Anyone can raise any kind of family. People are people. Some turn out good, some not so good. My comment was partly sarcastic. A one-time $420 cash injection won't take anyone out of the poor house. But pooling that money for a one-time infrastructure project could have a real lasting benefit somewhere.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

    Comment


    • #17
      Well I will not qualify for the $420. There was a time when it would have been welcome. There was a time when our day care fees were nearly as much as the mortgage. I cringe now when I hear how much people pay for a small baby in day care. The money will get circulated back into the economy somehow and that's always good.
      Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

      Comment


      • #18
        After a couple of reads through the official site...
        I think it is only a marginal improvement at best over the current system - once everything is taken into consideration.
        for example:
        if you are married and make $100k and your spouse makes no income, you have 4 children ages 1,5,11, and 13.

        you currently get $200 per month(taxable) in Universal Child Benefit money plus around $330 per month(non taxable) in Child Tax Credits.

        In the new system you would get $440 per month(taxable) in Universal Child Benefit money but $0 per month in Child Tax Credits(because the program will be gone). If the income splitting benefit is capped at $2000 then that's only an extra $166 per month.

        So old plan =$530 per month, new plan =$606 per month.

        When the 5 year old turns 6 you loose out on $100 per month. So now with the new program your actual cash benefit is worse than what we have now.

        Am i missing something?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Chmilz View Post
          Anyone can raise any kind of family. People are people. Some turn out good, some not so good. My comment was partly sarcastic. A one-time $420 cash injection won't take anyone out of the poor house. But pooling that money for a one-time infrastructure project could have a real lasting benefit somewhere.
          It's not a one time cash injection. It's $60/mo for every child under 18 going forward. If the parents are diligent enough to save it in an RESP for the child, then yes it is enough to pull someone out of the poorhouse since the child will have a post secondary education paid for. This program has only been around since mid 2006, and somehow parents survived before that, so I suspect that if pressed, almost everyone would not miss that money.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Cured View Post
            After a couple of reads through the official site...
            I think it is only a marginal improvement at best over the current system - once everything is taken into consideration.
            for example:
            if you are married and make $100k and your spouse makes no income, you have 4 children ages 1,5,11, and 13.

            you currently get $200 per month(taxable) in Universal Child Benefit money plus around $330 per month(non taxable) in Child Tax Credits.

            In the new system you would get $440 per month(taxable) in Universal Child Benefit money but $0 per month in Child Tax Credits(because the program will be gone). If the income splitting benefit is capped at $2000 then that's only an extra $166 per month.

            So old plan =$530 per month, new plan =$606 per month.

            When the 5 year old turns 6 you loose out on $100 per month. So now with the new program your actual cash benefit is worse than what we have now.

            Am i missing something?
            When your 5yr old turns 6, you lose out on $100/mo in both cases. So the new plan is still better.

            Comment


            • #21
              But it's still not the big deal that it was presented as.

              It's something, but it won't buy many votes. Especially since the big cheque expected in July is just 6 months of delayed benefits. That's not a big deal for most but for those who need it the most that's not nice.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by highlander View Post
                But it's still not the big deal that it was presented as.

                It's something, but it won't buy many votes. Especially since the big cheque expected in July is just 6 months of delayed benefits. That's not a big deal for most but for those who need it the most that's not nice.
                It's a political move. It has very little impact on those below the median family income. But a bigger deal on those above the median income. The middle class that usually flips and flops between Conservative and Liberal.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gemini View Post
                  The money will get circulated back into the economy somehow and that's always good.
                  I'm single with no kids. I don't spend my money? This tax break should have been for everybody. But since the lowest earners already don't pay much or any taxes, that would only help those that can afford things. Hence my reasoning to simply put it towards infrastructure.

                  Building LRT so tens of thousands of people - the poor included - didn't have to invest in a vehicle and all the expenses that go with it would help those who don't make much get by easier. But that doesn't win an election today, does it?
                  "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The fact is that high income sole breadwinner families will receive about $2,500 per year in tax cuts - $2K from income splitting and about $500 from the UCCB (net of federal tax).

                    Families where both parents make roughly comparable incomes, single parent families, and lower income families in general will receive anywhere from $500 to $720 from the UCCB increase (depending on their income level), and nothing from income splitting.

                    If the federal government wants to really help families needing it the most, they should have plowed the $3 billion into increasing the base benefit of the Canada Child Tax Benefit. That way all of the help would have gone to low and middle income families without discriminating against certain types of families.
                    Last edited by East McCauley; 31-10-2014, 08:23 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      ^the fact is at the moment, tax laws are unfair, in that a family where one person earns 100k and the other nothing, pays far more tax, than a family where both earn 50k. This goes someway to correcting that, more akin to the joint tax returns allowed in the Us. My only concern is the complexity this is going to lead to, for example, situations where kids reside with two separated parents, can both do income splitting with their new spouses? I guess so, but its not clear.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        ^^^Better bus service would help the poor far more than LRT infrastructure would. $75m a year for Edmonton would get us a huge boost to service, but would only get us half-way to Millwoods in a decade.

                        But whatever.

                        Reality is that income tax, like any tax, isn't really levied on people. It's levied on the economy, with personal income simply being the most convenient point in the cycle.

                        So income is taxed and, thanks to the government understanding that taxing people with really low incomes is unjust and really bad PR they have provided a basic personal exemption, and outside of Alberta there are higher rates that kick in at higher incomes. Great, right? totally fair to everyone, right?

                        No Quite.

                        Because the 'personal exemption" applies to the income earner only (until now), and not to the person. It's convenient to tax income as it passes through the earner, but is there really any good reason that that's where the exemptions should lie? I mean, other than administrative convenience?

                        Not really.

                        Reality is that the basic costs of living that the personal exemption and progressive rate increases are intended to account for are not only incurred by income earners, but by all people. Babies have living expenses. Children have living expenses. The logical place for those exemptions to reside is a the level of the person. That's all people, including children and other dependents.
                        And since in many cases the income to sustain the household is not earned equitably by members of a family, or other household with members who are unable to work, it's not unreasonable to allow the income earning members of a family/household to claim the non-earner's exemption.

                        This could apply, honestly, to any household where expenses kept in common, but the vast majority of those are families.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by highlander View Post
                          ^^^Better bus service would help the poor far more than LRT infrastructure would. $75m a year for Edmonton would get us a huge boost to service, but would only get us half-way to Millwoods in a decade.

                          But whatever.

                          Reality is that income tax, like any tax, isn't really levied on people. It's levied on the economy, with personal income simply being the most convenient point in the cycle.

                          So income is taxed and, thanks to the government understanding that taxing people with really low incomes is unjust and really bad PR they have provided a basic personal exemption, and outside of Alberta there are higher rates that kick in at higher incomes. Great, right? totally fair to everyone, right?

                          No Quite.

                          Because the 'personal exemption" applies to the income earner only (until now), and not to the person. It's convenient to tax income as it passes through the earner, but is there really any good reason that that's where the exemptions should lie? I mean, other than administrative convenience?

                          Not really.

                          Reality is that the basic costs of living that the personal exemption and progressive rate increases are intended to account for are not only incurred by income earners, but by all people. Babies have living expenses. Children have living expenses. The logical place for those exemptions to reside is a the level of the person. That's all people, including children and other dependents.
                          And since in many cases the income to sustain the household is not earned equitably by members of a family, or other household with members who are unable to work, it's not unreasonable to allow the income earning members of a family/household to claim the non-earner's exemption.

                          This could apply, honestly, to any household where expenses kept in common, but the vast majority of those are families.
                          So do away with income taxes, and just increase the sales tax to match. That has always been touted as the most efficienct and fair way of doing things.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Gifts to $100,000 plus income earners by the government while poorer and homeless suffer sounds typical, after all who votes less?
                            Last edited by Drumbones; 31-10-2014, 09:25 AM.
                            Just enjoying another day in paradise.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by moahunter View Post
                              ^the fact is at the moment, tax laws are unfair, in that a family where one person earns 100k and the other nothing, pays far more tax, than a family where both earn 50k. This goes someway to correcting that, more akin to the joint tax returns allowed in the Us.
                              Ah, the largely bogus fairness argument. Two earner families incur substantial additional expenses compared to sole earner families making the same combined income, especially for child care and out of school care, but also for commuting costs to two workplaces rather than one, two sets of work related attire rather than one, etc.

                              Moreover, existing rules already allow for deductions sharing between spouses for charitable donations and political contributions for instance which confer a tax advantage to sole earner high income families compared to dual earner families.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by nobleea View Post
                                So do away with income taxes, and just increase the sales tax to match. That has always been touted as the most efficienct and fair way of doing things.
                                The problem with that, is that sales taxes are very regressive, hitting low income families much harder than higher (even if you eualize with payments, as the portion of income they "spend" is my higher relative to total pay).

                                A lot of people are going to benefit a lot from the income splitting. As with any tax reduction though, yes it will benefit high income earners as well. These cuts are clearly aimed bang at the middle class though, with some meaningful assistance to lower income earners through the enhanced child payments.

                                ^And its not bogus, you might think its fair that a couple with one earning 70k and one earning 30k pay more tax than a couple where both earn 50k, but I don't think it is.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X