The Canadian Conservative government never ceases to amaze, and delight me (in a forehead slapping “DOH!” kind of way).
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hi,
I'm new to this counrty -- well, I've been here over a year now, but I've mainly been paying attention to that country to the south of us. Now that they've started coming to their senses (possibly), I'm trying to get a handle on what's going on in my new home.
Regarding income splitting: looking at things over the very long term, I think I like this idea, but with some serious adjustment.
I am single, and live alone. I only need to look after myself, so I do. I don't need much to live, and I don't mind if a chunk of my income goes to services, as long as pension is part of where it goes. I don't want my subsistence to be taxed, but if my overs go toward building a better society that's fine by me.
However, I find it personally and collectively unhealthy to be single. I'd much rather be able to share the work of keeping a house. Also, being single promotes wastefulness -- it's better for the environment (all things being equal) to live communally. What if income splitting was universally applicable to all persons domiciled together (that's spouses, life-partners, children, roommates), with all those co-domiciled filing together (signatures required of each occupant, with allowances for the pre-literate etc.) and with an untaxed subsistence income allowance per person?
Too cumbersome? Economically non-viable? Too much social engineering? To me, this is a way to encourage actual family values (i.e. community values), without imposing any specific "family values" (i.e. religion).
You make a good point, Mezzoforte, and just reinforces what I'm trying to say.
When you look at it in isolation, the idea of income splitting is a good one. The question is, how far will it be applied? Will it only apply to married couples, will it apply to common law spouses? And what of single parents? Will they be able to income split with their children?
The other consideration depends on how far you take the application of income splitting. Invariably, there will be abuses. People trying to take advantage of the situation. If it only applies to married couples, will people be enticed to get married to reduce their tax burden? Will they delay divorce? Will there be sham marriages? Will this scenario not break down the traditional family values the Conservatives are trying to promote?
I think your definition of family values is right on! And some of your suggestions of income splitting application are good. For example, how do we keep kids out of gangs? Is it a case of one parent being able to stay at home and be there for them? Can a single parent income split with the child(ren) so that they can afford to be in a neighbourhood where it is less likely the child(ren) will join a gang, or that they have better access to community programs?
I don't know if there's a magic bullet. What I do believe though, is if you look at the big picture and see the federal Tories floating the idea of income splitting, combined with their previous stated policy of redefining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, then you have to cast a suspicious eye.
its not just for man and wife,, married is married even for same sex couples it can also be added single parents should be able to income split with their children as well. Do not assume because it is a conservative idea it is a bad idea. Many families need this.
Sara,
I agree with the first part of what you said. However, I did not say that income splitting was a "bad" idea, it's just the way I fear the Conservatives will apply this. I certainly didn't intend to convey that a stay-at-home parent is a bad idea and that the family shouldn't receive a tax break from it. I'm merely pointing out that putting two and two together, I believe the Conservatives are using Canadians' pocketbooks to promote marriage -- between a man and a woman, per their previously publically stated policy.
However, unless I've missed something, and maybe you can point me to a source that proves me wrong, Mr. Flaherty's income splitting scheme only applies to married couples. Therefore, the Conservatives only came up with HALF a good idea. As you rightly point out, what about single parents? And what will happen to the tax breaks for same sex couples when the Conservatives redefine marriage between a man and a woman?
Mr. Flaherty has obviously floated the idea of income splitting to gauge the population's reaction to it, before he prepares his budget, which is due in the spring (if the government doesn't fall before then). Now's your chance to make your voice heard. Contact Mr. Flaherty's office, or even Prime Minister Harper's office, and let your opinions be known.
The sloppy use of the word "discrimination" in your posting, reference the comments about single people, is a dangerous bad habit that takes the trivial meaning "not extended to" and extends it into a pejorative and a condemnation by the common negative connotation of the word. If, as you say in a response to a comment, income splitting is not necessarily a bad thing, then the single people must explain why their not receiving such a tax break makes it bad. Surely, not every tax break can or should be given to every taxpayer or citizen. The whole purpose of tax breaks is to target specific people and segments of the population. If the government wished to address single parents, it could create other tax breaks or direct subsidies, which might or might not extend to other parents.
Since income splitting for couples would almost surely be available to gay couples under current Canadian laws, income splitting could just as easily be characterized as favouring gays. That doesn't exactly fit what you define to be the Conservative agenda, n'est-ce pas?
Income splitting could also be seen as a benefit to retired couples, most of whom would have no children to support, to split the pension income between them.
And working couples would benefit too if such a measure simply allowed both incomes to be combined, whatever the amount. Overall, it seems that ascribing this potential measure as being solely or primarily about a supposed religious right agenda is excessive. Maybe its social policy objective could be stated as the favouring of couples who will financially support each other and not be a burden on the government (i.e. the rest of us taxpayers)?
A proposed tax break might be ineffective or wasteful in achieving its stated social policy objective but one should be debating the social policy objective not saying that it is bad merely because someone doesn't receive it.
With respect to social policy, it does not require one to be a religious fanatic to be in favour of government supports whose social objective is to encourage the raising of children by a man and a woman. What has been the best structure forever still is. Raising children in other arrangements can be done successfully just as raising them in a married heterosexual relationship doesn't always succeed, but on average it does better. That's what the government should encourage for social, not moral or religious reasons.
Post a Comment