# 2015 tax return - Income splitting



## jazzman (Dec 15, 2014)

I have a question by income splitting.

In last year (2014) tax return, I was able to get $2000 due to income splitting.

I know that the new government has promised to scrap income splitting and increase across the board tax cut.

My question is: when exactly will this income splitting be scrapped? Will it be scrapped in 2015 tax return? or will I be able to take advantage of it for 1 more year? I guess that depends on when is the next budget presented. Will that be in March/April 2016

I am just trying to plan ahead and wondering if I can count on that extra $2000 on my tax return.

Thank you


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

Parliament will be recalled next month and with a majority, the new government should be able to pass the legislation if they can get it ready on time. I have no doubt that the are already drafting it. The Senate will also have to pass it before it becomes law, and that might not occur before the new year. but an order in council should be sufficient for Revenue Canada to start preparing. Theoretically they could enforce it for the 2015 tax year but to avoid confusion I expect that it will begin in 2016.


----------



## jazzman (Dec 15, 2014)

Thank you for your reply

I seem to remember that income splitting was on 2014 tax return even before it became the "law", which means it can be scrapped in similar fashion

I guess it will be safe to assume that income splitting will not be available in next (2015) tax return

Bummer

Thank you though


----------



## cashinstinct (Apr 4, 2009)

According to a French newspaper I read, the Liberals "confirmed" to her it would still apply in 2015.
https://translate.google.com/transl...ri-fiscal-des-familles.php&edit-text=&act=url

Translation:


> For the abolition of income splitting for families, no question of acting from the 2015 tax year, assured me the Liberal Party.
> 
> It has been said repeatedly, this conservative measure benefited only 15% of families, especially the wealthy. Still, its abolition will lose up to $ 1,670 to some of them (considering the abatement for Quebec).
> 
> If you are the lot, use it well when making your tax return in spring 2016. This will be the last time you will receive this gift.


----------



## jazzman (Dec 15, 2014)

Thank you for this quote from French newspaper. 

If it still applies next tax return, that would be excellent. I could use a extra $2000

On a separate note, I must say that I did not vote conservative but this income splitting did help us financially. I am not a rich person (around 85K annual income). I am married with a 4 year old and this income splitting definitely helped us. I do no0t agree that it only helps the rich.

Thanks


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

How much does your wife make? If just using your salary alone your family is middle- upper middle class. if your wife makes at least 40K you're are in the highest 20% of households in Canada and that's a decent measure of 'rich'.


----------



## jazzman (Dec 15, 2014)

My wife earns 0 as she takes care of my 4 year old.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Then yes, I would consider you rich as you are well within the top 20% of income earners.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think I would classify the 2nd quintile of upper-middle class people as 'comfortably middle class', not rich per se. For instance, the tax increase for income earners about $200k only starts to bite after $216k in annual income, and I think that is closer to what most people are comfortable classifying as rich.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> On a separate note, I must say that I did not vote conservative but this income splitting did help us financially. I am not a rich person (around 85K annual income). I am married with a 4 year old and this income splitting definitely helped us. I do no0t agree that it only helps the rich.


 I was telling it thousand times! Income-split benefits majority working families with kids , except those where both spouses in the same tax bracket ... Instead of cancelling, make it applicable for all couples (regardless kids) and 70-80% families will benefit from it


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

jazzman said:


> On a separate note, I must say that I did not vote conservative but this income splitting did help us financially. I am not a rich person (around 85K annual income). I am married with a 4 year old and this income splitting definitely helped us. I do no0t agree that it only helps the rich.
> 
> Thanks


Well, as a person who makes less than $200k with no kids, I'll take the income tax cut.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^ Yup.

Families with kids are already getting huge resources thrown at them with various child benefits, health care and education. I have to roll my eyes a little when they complain about not getting even more.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Also having a partner NOT work and stay at home is a life-style choice. I'm all for a year paid leave when having a kid but effectively a 2K bonus for non-poor people to do this seems silly. It would make more sense if income splitting was reversed. The more you make the less you get for someone staying at home...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

"Lifestyle choice"...right..

Apparently some people think well adjusted children become successful adults and it just "happens". I for one believe the BEST family arrangement for successful child rearing is a husband that makes an average or higher income, and a wife who stays home to nurture the family. It is sickening that I can only express this basic common sense idea that so many people know to be true as an anonymous online poster. Expressing such thoughts publically would get me ostracized from many social and even professional networks.

It was a refreshing thing to see a policy enacted that actually gave *something* back to the very people that make up the fabric of a successful society (responsibly families that are willing to sacrifice a lot to raise their children the BEST), instead of the usual diverse group of degenerates that we are told have so much good to give to our culture that they need a **** load of free money to continue doing their good work on our behalf. But that was too much for the Liberals to bear. They wouldn't want to encourage such behavior, as it is evidently not progressive or diverse or equal enough...

It's all about incentives, and the old policy was a good incentive. It will be missed.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

peterk said:


> "Lifestyle choice"...right..
> 
> Apparently some people think well adjusted children become successful adults and it just "happens". I for one believe the BEST family arrangement for successful child rearing is a husband that makes an average or higher income, and a wife who stays home to nurture the family. It is sickening that I can only express this basic common sense idea that so many people know to be true as an anonymous online poster. Expressing such thoughts publically would get me ostracized from many social and even professional networks.
> 
> ...


It that's way because you're wrong. gay people, for example, easily have the capacity to raise successful children. What else? Do white people also raise better children? Is that where you're going next? <eye-roll>

"gave something back". I can tell you don't have kids. Do you have ANY idea how much parents with kids "get back"?? Jesus, it's crazy (and I know, I'm a parent).


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Do you have ANY idea how much parents with kids "get back"?? Jesus, it's crazy (and I know, I'm a parent).


 We got nothing ... as kids, as we got our education abroad...  our kids got nothing because government saying that we earn too much (except Harper's initiative that will be cancelled) ... maybe you mean "free schools" (I'm not even discussing "level" of education in Canadian school) ?! Find out what countries in the world don't have free schools  For university we have to pay again.... 
And .... we don't believe in Jesus


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Do you have ANY idea how much parents with kids "get back"??


 seriously , if you are not very poor family, for having kids in Canada you get nothing comparing to European countries, Israel or even current Russia ... It just doesn't worth having kids in Canada .... unless family getting welfare or just above minimum pay

peterk is definitely right!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think parents with children get reasonable support and the lower the income, the less that is clawed back. There should be no reason to treat families with children any differently than couples without children. The Harper tactic was simply appealing to the right wing base, i.e. keep the woman home barefoot and pregnant. Having children is a personal choice, nothing more, nothing less. I am perfectly fine with immigration keeping our population stable or growing slightly. As long as we have a society, lifestyle and wellbeing that continues to attract immigrants, we will be fine.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I am perfectly fine with immigration keeping our population stable or growing slightly. As long as we have a society, lifestyle and wellbeing that continues to attract immigrants, we will be fine.


 Don't you think that is kinda abnormal...don't care about Canadians have kids and just hope that educated young immigrants will come and support with their taxes our seniors?!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

gibor said:


> Don't you think that is kinda abnormal...don't care about Canadians have kids and just hope that educated young immigrants will come and support with their taxes our seniors?!


I am saying there is nothing particularly 'holier than thou' about having kids. While we chose to have kids ourselves, I never begrudged or looked down upon couples who did not have kids...and who, as a couple, contributed as much (or more) to our economy and society as any 'family'. IOW, there is no particular reason to reward/worship/adore families with kids by singling them out with yet more tax benefits. That was a major part of the Harper program I took exception with. 

IF we wanted to do more, provide more affordable day care so that our kids, many disadvantaged due to relative poverty through no choice of their own, have a fighting chance.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> I never begrudged or looked down upon couples who did not have kids...and who, as a couple, contributed as much (or more) to our economy and society as any 'family'. IOW, there is no particular reason to reward/worship/adore families with kids by singling them out with yet more tax benefits.


Me 2 , but when couples who hava children and who don't have are retired, somebody need to pay taxes , so they could get CPP, OAS, GIS etc
And to tell you the truth, It would be better for us , to cancel all benefits for kids (anyway we don't get any) and reduce taxes for everyone


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> I think parents with children get reasonable support and the lower the income, the less that is clawed back. There should be no reason to treat families with children any differently than couples without children. The Harper tactic was simply appealing to the right wing base, i.e. keep the woman home barefoot and pregnant. *Having children is a personal choice, nothing more, nothing less. I am perfectly fine with immigration keeping our population stable or growing slightly. As long as we have a society, lifestyle and wellbeing that continues to attract immigrants, we will be fine.*


*

How on earth could it be "nothing more, nothing less"? Our society in it's entirety will have completely different makeups and outcomes in 100 years based on all of these "personal choices" being made today...

To your childless friends who have made a great contribution as well, that is wonderful. But how could their contribution be as great as yours? You've got a whole 'nother generation of contributions coming down the line behind you, and if they all keep successfully having kids, then an infinite contribution attributed back to you. Your childless friends can't even begin to compete.

Obviously I'm getting a bit philosophical here now. I'm not implying the income spitting and $2000 benefit is going to make or break our culture. Only that it was a small step in the right direction of encouraging successful, responsible, connected families. *


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Way off-topic from thread title, but I am not worried about Canada having enough workers to keep our economy going and supporting all the old folk (via OAS and health care in particular). Too much is made of the pig moving through the python. As long as immigration is accepted as a form of labour supply AND Canada is sought out as a place to emigrate too, there will be no problem*. A philosophical argument for an Other Discussion thread.

* Global population continues to increase taxing this planet's ability to support it. The sooner population growth stabilizes to a relative constant, the better. If not, wars wll eventually be fought over scarce resources.


----------

