[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

How much funding do you need / how much of an established start up?

Don't know; I don't think the details have been released yet.

[crazy canuck]

Looks like there is a contraversy brewing over spousal income splitting.  It was promised during the last election once the books were balanced but the Finance Minister has made some comments indicating there may be a rethink on that issue.

When it was first announced I favoured it.  But now I am not so sure.  I heard some numbers indicating that it is a measure that will benefit a very small percentage of the population - ie those who are wealthy enough to be in the top tax bracket (which granted isnt all that wealthy) and have a stay at home spouse.  The combination of those two significantly drops the numbers of people who will really benefit.

I have come to the view that the tax payor shouldnt be subsidizing the wealthy.

[Grey Fox]

It's a useless change really.

Wealthy folks will save 2-3k$ of income tax & regular middle class won't use it anyway.

[Neil]

I'm in favour of the changes to the visas.  People in Vancouver deserve affordable housing, and the Chinese are our enemies.

[crazy canuck]

It's a useless change really.

Wealthy folks will save 2-3k$ of income tax & regular middle class won't use it anyway.

GF, it would be a lot more than that.  If Mrs CC didnt earn income my savings from spitting income with her would be significant.  Alas I am burdened with a woman who earns a signficant amount and so I will not benefit at all.

[Grey Fox]

Share?

[Josephus]

It's a useless change really.

Wealthy folks will save 2-3k$ of income tax & regular middle class won't use it anyway.

GF, it would be a lot more than that.  If Mrs CC didnt earn income my savings from spitting income with her would be significant.  Alas I am burdened with a woman who earns a signficant amount and so I will not benefit at all.

Get her to quit. 

No, I hear you on the income-splitting.

[Malthus]

Income-splitting would benefit me big-time, but yeah, I suspect it is regressive.

[Barrister]

Why is something bad policy merely because it only affects a minority of people?

Obviously, income splitting would be a massive savings for me.

[crazy canuck]

Why is something bad policy merely because it only affects a minority of people?

That is not why it is bad policy.  It is bad policy because the minority of people it benefits the most are the wealthy.

Allowing you and I to income split with our kids would greatly benefit the both of us and our families but it would be really really bad tax policy.

[Josephus]

Why is something bad policy merely because it only affects a minority of people?

Obviously, income splitting would be a massive savings for me.

And that is why I don't understand why anybody with a household income of less than at least 100K votes for the Conservatives.

[crazy canuck]

Why is something bad policy merely because it only affects a minority of people?

Obviously, income splitting would be a massive savings for me.

And that is why I don't understand why anybody with a household income of less than at least 100K votes for the Conservatives.

Do you want the list in point form in an essay format?

[Josephus]

What would be easier for you?

[Neil]

Why is something bad policy merely because it only affects a minority of people?

Obviously, income splitting would be a massive savings for me.

And that is why I don't understand why anybody with a household income of less than at least 100K votes for the Conservatives.

They could live in Western Canada.

[Jacob]

Why is something bad policy merely because it only affects a minority of people?

The argument that income splitting is bad policy doesn't hinge solely on it affecting a minority of people.

However, if there is a limited amount of money available, spending it in a way such that it only affects a small section of the populace and the benefits primarily accrue to upper income families means that it's difficult to argue that it's effective social policy.

The fact that it only benefits a small section of the population that is well off (both relatively and absolutely speaking), means that the direct "it's to my benefit, so I support your party" payoff is relatively small and also that it's difficult to make the case for it being an appropriate usage of funds to the electorate at large. As such, it's not particularly effective electoral politics either. A tax break that primarily benefits a subsection of the upper income percentiles and costs money is a hard sell.

So the question is, on what grounds is income splitting good policy?