[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

What would be easier for you?

My preference is point form.

Having spoken with CC on the subject previously, I think the answer will primarily centre around prudent fiscal policy and stewardship of the economy; especially compared to the NDP. The argument being that whatever handouts you may get with an income below $100K won't make up for the hardships that'll come when the economy gets worse.

[Barrister]

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

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

[crazy canuck]

What would be easier for you?

The short list for why a reasonable intelligent person would vote Conservative:

1) They are not the NDP and so one need not be concerned about the socialists in that party who would would affect public policy;

2) They are not the Liberals - yet*.  And so one need not be overly concerned about corruption.

3) Harper removed the radical reformers one way or another and so to the extent one needed to worry about the radical right (read social conservatives) that was pretty much removed.  So when looking at the extreme wing of the NDP and the extreme wing of the Conservatives it becomes a much better choice.

4) Leadership.  Like him or not with Harper you pretty much get what you see.  Its safe and predictable - which is not particuarly surprising since he is a Conservative's conservative.  Incrimentalism has been his watchword and it works well.  Ironically Layton was beginning to achieve the status of being a safe predictable leader who was bringing the radical elements within his party under control. Unfortunately we lost him all too early.  It would have been interesting to see how he would have changed Canadian politics.  I had hopes for Trudeau but everytime he opens his mouth I feel foolish for my lack of judgment.  I trust Mulcair not at all.

5) The Conservatives have done a good job managing the budget but lately and particularly with the latest budget they are beginning to look like the Liberals of old.  This budget was actually in surplus but it is being dressed down to deliver really good news in an election year.  Also, it is in surplus through the magic of bringing EI surpluses into general revenue.

I realize that I have raised points why one would not vote Conservative but you run a newspaper so I thought I should be balanced. 


*I predict that will be their biggest problem in the next election

[Jacob]

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

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

I believe (from a conversation this morning) that the Conservative position (perhaps recently evolved) is that with the current skills shortage in Canada, one should not encourage skilled workers to withdraw from the labour market.

[crazy canuck]

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

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

Yeah, this is the social conservative argument that makes no sense at all.  If your wife chooses to stay at home to raise your children and that works best for you then great.  But dont ask the tax payor to fund your life choices.  Working women should not have to subsidize women who choose to stay home.

[Barrister]

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

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

Yeah, this is the social conservative argument that makes no sense at all.  If your wife chooses to stay at home to raise your children and that works best for you then great.  But dont ask the tax payor to fund your life choices.  Working women should not have to subsidize women who choose to stay home.

Not all "life choices" are equal from a public policy perspective.

[crazy canuck]

Not all "life choices" are equal from a public policy perspective.

You are absolutely correct.  And that is why I oppose income spliting.  Lets take your example.  You will obtain some benefit from such a policy.  But it will be small in monetary terms compared to many of the very wealthy families I know where the wife does not work because she never intended to work.  Why on earth would you ever have a policy that provides a tax break to those people simply to further an ideological goal of providing a slight incentive to working mothers not to work.

[Malthus]

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

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

Yeah, this is the social conservative argument that makes no sense at all.  If your wife chooses to stay at home to raise your children and that works best for you then great.  But dont ask the tax payor to fund your life choices.  Working women should not have to subsidize women who choose to stay home.

It is arguably more fair vis-a-vis two income couples in the same tax level, for child-rearing purposes as a matter of social policy. That's the argument, anyway.

The reason I don't find that argument persuasive is that to benefit from it, you have to be already so well off that the difference isn't significant to quality of life issues re: children. The same social policy would be better met by other, more tax-progressive means that lower-income couples could benefit from.

[Jacob]

Yeah, this is the social conservative argument that makes no sense at all.  If your wife chooses to stay at home to raise your children and that works best for you then great.  But dont ask the tax payor to fund your life choices.  Working women should not have to subsidize women who choose to stay home.

The way my stepfather put it (we were discussing it in the car this morning) is that it's a matter of equity. Why should a family that makes, say $200,000/ year tax split between a $170K salary and a $30K salary pay more in tax than one with two $100K incomes? Secondly, why should a family with a  $150K/ year income from one source not have access to the same family and childcare tax breaks as one with a $150K/ year income split evenly between two sources? It's not equitable.

Or if you consider a family with the $170/$30K income. If they chose to have the low income partner stay home to look after the children, they'll still be paying more taxes than the 2x$100K family even though the second family makes more money. It's unfair.

I'm not sure I buy it, since the analysis leaves out the cost of childcare incurred by the family of equal earners, but that's the argument.

[Jacob]

The short list for why a reasonable intelligent person would vote Conservative:

1) They are not the NDP and so one need not be concerned about the socilists in that party who would would affect public policy;

2) They are not the Liberals - yet*.  And so one need not be overly concerned about corruption.

3) Harper removed the radical reformers one way or another and so to the extent one needed to worry about the radical right (read social conservatives) that was pretty much removed.  So when looking at the extreme wing of the NDP and the extreme wing of the Conservatives it becomes a much better choice.

4) Leadership.  Like him or not with Harper you pretty much get what you see.  Its safe and predictable - which is not particuarly surprising since he is a Conservative's conservative.  Incrimentalism has been his watchword and it works well.  Ironically Layton was beginning to achieve the status of being a safe predictable leader who was bringing the radical elements within his party under control. Unfortunately we lost him all too early.  It would have been interesting to see how he would have changed Canadian politics.  I had hopes for Trudeau but everytime he opens his mouth I feel foolish for my lack of judgment.  I trust Mulcair not at all.

5) The Conservatives have done a good job managing the budget but lately and particularly with the latest budget they are beginning to look like the Liberals of old.  This budget was actually in surplus but it is being dressed down to deliver really good news in an election year.  Also, it is in surplus through the magic of bringing EI surpluses into general revenue.

I realize that I have raised points why one would not vote Conservative but you run a newspaper so I thought I should be balanced. 

*I predict that will be their biggest problem in the next election

I can't quibble with any of those, tbh.

[crazy canuck]

The main issue I have with the equality argument is that it is the government picking the equality winners to suit an ideological premise - that one parent (lets be honest the mother) should stay home.

But why pick that winner.  Why not pick families with lots of children so that they can income split with the whole household.  Why not pick grown children who are looking after a parent dependant. The list can go on but you get the point.

[Malthus]

The main issue I have with the equality argument is that it is the government picking the equality winners to suit an ideological premise - that one parent (lets be honest the mother) should stay home.

But why pick that winner.  Why not pick families with lots of children so that they can income split with the whole household.  Why not pick grown children who are looking after a parent dependant. The list can go on but you get the point.

Way I'd put it is not that the Cons. equality argument is wrong, but that there are equality policies out there that are better, as in not so regressive.

[crazy canuck]

The main issue I have with the equality argument is that it is the government picking the equality winners to suit an ideological premise - that one parent (lets be honest the mother) should stay home.

But why pick that winner.  Why not pick families with lots of children so that they can income split with the whole household.  Why not pick grown children who are looking after a parent dependant. The list can go on but you get the point.

Way I'd put it is not that the Cons. equality argument is wrong, but that there are equality policies out there that are better, as in not so regressive.

It is wrong if you are a conservative type who believes that government shouldnt be picking winners and losers.

[Neil]

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

It makes single income families more viable, which may be better for raising children.

Yeah, this is the social conservative argument that makes no sense at all.  If your wife chooses to stay at home to raise your children and that works best for you then great.  But dont ask the tax payor to fund your life choices.  Working women should not have to subsidize women who choose to stay home.

It is arguably more fair vis-a-vis two income couples in the same tax level, for child-rearing purposes as a matter of social policy. That's the argument, anyway.

The reason I don't find that argument persuasive is that to benefit from it, you have to be already so well off that the difference isn't significant to quality of life issues re: children. The same social policy would be better met by other, more tax-progressive means that lower-income couples could benefit from.

That's kind of where I come down on it as well.  I can accept that a single-income family is superior to the normal family, but I'm not sure that this is a good policy method to achieve the goal.

[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.

They could live in Western Canada.

yes, OK

Other than people who make over 100K

and people who live in Western CAnada

I don't know who else would vote for the Conservatives


and Jews.