# Income Splitting proposal?



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

I couldn't find an income splitting thread, although I'm sure there is one but the search function isn't working for me. I'm curious if the claims that most (ie 80%+) Canadians will not benefit from income splitting is true?

In my husband and my instance, he makes considerably more employment income, but has (regularly) business losses (sole proprietorship with employees). I work generally two days a week but have a fair bit of rental income. We both have a decent amount of dividend income as well (mostly Canadian). I think we may benefit a bit from this income splitting proposal but I'm not really quite sure, until we see the hard numbers/details.

Here is the article I read this morning about Income Splitting and some claims that its mostly for high income earners with a stay at home spouse:

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...ng_plan_would_shortchange_ontarians_cohn.html

PS If there is an income splitting thread please post it here and I may delete my thread if it's redundant.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Yeah, well, you would expect the Toronto Star to rave & rant like this, what else is new?
All they are really doing in that article in pandering to the Liberal govt. of Ontario i.e. Kathleen McWynne & Souza.
The article reads almost as if it were authored by Souza himself - it contains the same phrases and rants as Souza has been crying all summer long.

Income splitting is good and much needed policy, IMHO.
Ideally, income splitting should be implemented for all couples, not just for families, but this is a good start, too.
Harper is trying to contain the left-wing backlash by implementing it only for families with kids at this time.

What % of people it benefits is only a secondary consideration, if at all.
There are many policies that benefit less than 20% of the tax-payers.
For instance, federal govt. pensions are available to barely 20% of the work-force.
We should scrap it pronto.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

and oh BTW, the Toronto Star needs a new target now that the two Fords are out of the political picture, at least for now.
And the PC Party of Ontario has been decimated by the unions, and licking their wounds for the next 4 years.

They gotta sell some more paper by writing inflammatory and fear mongering articles...look at their stock price, oh geez.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, the clock is ticking. Harper has less than a year to deliver on some of his promises from the last election until he is _at least_ reduced to a minority.

The argument against income splitting is not that it benefits a small %, but that it doesn't improve equity of the tax system (ie, benefits skew to the wealthy) nor does it increase efficiency (reduce deadweight losses). Given that it costs X billion annually, that X could be used elsewhere to reduce other taxes that actually do improve equity or efficiency. Income splitting is not on the 'efficient frontier' of tax cuts.


----------



## moisimplementmoi (Oct 20, 2014)

HaroldCrump said:


> and oh BTW, the Toronto Star needs a new target now that the two Fords are out of the political picture, at least for now.
> And the PC Party of Ontario has been decimated by the unions, and licking their wounds for the next 4 years.
> 
> They gotta sell some more paper by writing inflammatory and fear mongering articles...look at their stock price, oh geez.


Didn't they find one on the week-end?


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

moisimplementmoi said:


> Didn't they find one on the week-end?


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

The struggle I have with this income splitting proposal, or even the implementation of it is, where is the additional revenue going to come from to offset the losses from tax revenues? 

I recall the potential loss is about $2 B. 

That seems *like a ton of money to me*, to a government fighting its way out of deficit and debt.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

MOA, everyone on the left, right & center are screaming for spending the so-called surplus (which IMHO is starting to look like a fleeting fiction, going by the O&G prices), but anyway.
There is tremendous political pressure to leverage the excellent balance sheet.

There is a clear delineation between the right & the left on how to leverage the balance sheet.
Harper etc. want to use it to grant tax breaks (double TFSA, income splitting, doubling the activity credits, etc.)
The left want to leverage the balance sheet and spend away to glory on so-called social welfare, infrastructure projects, and in more wages & benefits to its unionized workforces.
So, the choice facing the voters is pretty clear...

I don't agree that a tax break is a "loss" - by that logic, any type of spending is also a "loss", and all new taxes imposed are "gains".
The TFSA is a huge loss to the treasury as well - should we scrap it pronto as well?
Can we instead claw back the salaries, benefits, and pensions of the public sector instead - that should be alright since it will save a lot more than this $2B "loss" via income splitting.

I don't think we should leverage the balance sheet to spend more.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

No Harold, don't take away the TFSA!!!

I'm just saying at some point, you provide all these tax breaks (which are good), there must be tax recovery/revenues elsewhere, or otherwise, major efficiency gains within the programs and services delivered by government themselves (i.e., reduce the highest costs associated with operating most businesses = headcount).


----------



## Echo (Apr 1, 2011)

Wouldn't the ability to split income help those families who are "on the bubble" about the choice to stay home versus return to work after a maternity leave? Daycare costs are insane and spaces are limited. Saving a couple thousand dollars on taxes could tip the scales toward staying at home full-time, which would ease the burden on child care providers and gov't subsidies.


----------



## YYC (Nov 12, 2012)

The article I just read said the per-family savings maybe be capped at $2000. This seems like a small enough number that it wouldn't sway anyone one way or the other. But maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Ihatetaxes (May 5, 2010)

The new caveat is a max tax savings of $2,000 per couple. BAH!! I hope my wife keeps her six figure job a few more years. She talks a little bit about quitting and working for me but at heart she likes what she does most of the time.


----------



## swoop_ds (Mar 2, 2010)

This will be of interest to my wife and I shortly. She is returning to work after mat leave in mid November. We will have to crunch some numbers to see if it really makes sense for both of us to work if this actually goes through.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

My Own Advisor said:


> I'm just saying at some point, you provide all these tax breaks (which are good), there must be tax recovery/revenues elsewhere, or otherwise, major efficiency gains within the programs and services delivered by government themselves (i.e., reduce the highest costs associated with operating most businesses = headcount).


I agree, but my point is that media like Toronto Star are quick to vilify and fear monger every single tax cut or tax credit, yet are completely silent when spending is increased.
How many articles do you see in the media every time governments hand out pay raises and bonuses to the public sector?
Are they calculating how much that is going to cost the treasury each time?

If income splitting is an inefficient tax policy, well so are many other types of spending by the govt., esp. related to compensation.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

It would be active for the 2014 tax year. $2K isn't a substantial amount. Amounts to anywhere from 5-20K transfer of income dependign on the marginal rates of each person. We would get the full amount each year, which is alright by me.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

Max of 2,000/yr savings?


What a crock!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Charles Souza's complaint isn't valid since in the 2014 budget, they already raised the marginal tax rates for so-called high income earners.
They are also conveniently revising Jim Flaherty after his demise - what he said is that he _prefers_ the federal govt. to pay off part of the national debt first, instead.
Sure, I'd be okay with that too - provided it is done by reducing expenses and not by raising taxes any more.
The Liberals, the NDP, and the anti-Harper media is latching on to the first part of his opinion, but conveniently ignoring the second part.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Addy said:


> Max of 2,000/yr savings?
> 
> 
> What a crock!


It's a way bigger savings than the drop in the GST ever was. For families at least.


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

swoop_ds said:


> This will be of interest to my wife and I shortly. She is returning to work after mat leave in mid November. We will have to crunch some numbers to see if it really makes sense for both of us to work if this actually goes through.


In my opinion the Basic "Child Care Expense deduction" of $7000 per child should be increased. My daughter returned to work after a year of Mat leave and has been paying $45 per day or $11,700 yearly ever since. The price will drop to $35 per day once my granddaughter is potty trained. If she is like me ... that may happen by the time she turns three.


----------



## swoop_ds (Mar 2, 2010)

$2000 is sort of peanuts but may sway some people who are on the fence, like us, about whether one person should stay at home with the children or not. Even if we were to get the full $2000, it still makes more sense to both work in terms of raw dollars and cents. However, we put value on one of us staying home so it's going to be a difficult decision. My workplace is discussing whether I can work from home for some of the winter this weekend at a board meeting, so that would be the best of both worlds. (If they allow it to happen!)

As for the discussion of whether this is a good move by the government in light of how much it'll cost and what could be done instead: I would personally much rather they take care of debt and balance the budget then roll out stuff like this, even though it may help me. My family is lucky in that we make enough money that we don't have to 'really' worry about money and I would be okay with tax raises or spending cuts. For example, our town has to save up a bunch of money to deal with infrastructure projects and the council is very leary of increasing taxes. I wish they would, and deal with the pipes/roads/etc that annoy me daily.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Addy said:


> Max of 2,000/yr savings?
> 
> 
> What a crock!


Yeap! $2,000 in annual saving is nothing!
Also from what I understand this will benefit only families where 1 parent stays home... this is completely unfair! If one spouse has income 200K and another 50K -> no any benifits?! Am i right?!
imho also unfair that it's applicable only to families with children until 18 y.o. So if anyone's child study in University and parents pay big $ , there is no tax break?!

It would be fair if any family regardless of children will be able to split their income without any cap, so in my example 200K and 50K , bith family mamber will pay taxes from 125K


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

gibor said:


> Yeap! $2,000 in annual saving is nothing!
> Also from what I understand this will benefit only families where 1 parent stays home... this is completely unfair! If one spouse has income 200K and another 50K -> no any benifits?! Am i right?!


no, it would apply in the situation you mention. You'd have to transfer about 20-25K from high income to low income to get the 2K tax break. Depends on your marginal rates and province.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

nobleea said:


> no, it would apply in the situation you mention. You'd have to transfer about 20-25K from high income to low income to get the 2K tax break. Depends on your marginal rates and province.


I read somewhere that low income spouse should have less than 50K in income to be eligible for split...maybe I misunderstood.....

So in example I gave above, why 200K spouse just won't transfer 75K to second spouse with 50K income?

Or maybe 50K is a maximum amont that one spouse can transfer to other? So in my example 200K cn transfer 50K to 2nd one, so 1str will pay taxes from 150K and 2nd from 100K?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

the 50K limit has something to do with the child care benefit I think. 

You can transfer the 75K if you want, but you only need to transfer 25K to hit the max 2K benefit. the rest wouldn't matter. I assume RRSP contributions would be based on your actual income, not the split income.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

nobleea said:


> the 50K limit has something to do with the child care benefit I think.
> 
> You can transfer the 75K if you want, but you only need to transfer 25K to hit the max 2K benefit. the rest wouldn't matter. I assume RRSP contributions would be based on your actual income, not the split income.


That what i found


> Parents with children under 18 would be allowed to split up to $50,000 in income for tax purposes. The platform said 1.8 million Canadian families would benefit, with an average savings of $1,300 per family.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-know-about-income-splitting/article21180088/ so you cannot split more than 50K? or you cannot split if lower income spouse has income 50K?

As per RRSP contribution, we don't really care as both of us anyway getting max room possible


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

looks like Trudeau wants another "sponsorship" scandal  



> Trudeau suggested in an interview today with CBC’s French-language service Radio-Canada that a Liberal government would prioritize investment in infrastructure, education, and research over any tax relief.


Not sure 100% if we gonna for for HArper, but definetely against Trudeau !


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

i run some numbers in income tax calculator
Currently Spouse with income 200K pays $72,541 in taxes and with income 50k - $8,694
Total = $81,235
If 1st spouse can split 50K, he will pay $48,557 and 2nd spouse $26,440
Total = $74,997

So potential benefit is $6,238
It would be really nice!


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

gibor said:


> i run some numbers in income tax calculator
> Currently Spouse with income 200K pays $72,541 in taxes and with income 50k - $8,694
> Total = $81,235
> If 1st spouse can split 50K, he will pay $48,557 and 2nd spouse $26,440
> ...


No potential benefit is $2K. It's capped.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

nobleea said:


> No potential benefit is $2K. It's capped.


I meant potential benefit is $6,238 and it would be nice,
but real benefit is $2,000 and it sux 

in any case so far it's only speculations, today we will figure it out after Harper speech in our center in Vaughan 

3:15 p.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will make an important announcement. He will be joined by Mrs. Laureen Harper. 

Joseph & Wolf Lebovic Jewish Community Campus
The Schwartz/Reisman Community Centre
9600 Bathurst Street
Vaughan, Ontario
- See more at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2014/10/29/public-events-october-30-2014#sthash.jUjF5EWc.dpuf


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

gibor said:


> Not sure 100% if we gonna for for HArper, but definetely against Trudeau !


So Mulcair?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Toronto.gal said:


> So Mulcair?


Who the hell is Mulcair?!


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

gibor said:


> looks like Trudeau wants another "sponsorship" scandal:
> a Liberal government would prioritize investment in infrastructure, education, and research over any tax relief.


Please allow me to translate that for you:

Invest in infrastructure = More raises for TTC, Metrolinx, & GO Transit union
Invest in education = More raises for Teachers' Union, and creation of the new ECE union
Invest in research = More grants to prove that oil sands is dirty oil, and that green energy is cheaper than natural gas


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Can we instead claw back the salaries, benefits, and pensions of the public sector instead - that should be alright since it will save a lot more than this $2B "loss" via income splitting.
> 
> .


No politician at the federal level has the balls to do exactly that....get these Public Sector Unions and their ridiculous pensions and benefits under control, even though that is exactly what needs to be dome in this country at EVERY level of government. 

All public sector unions, at every level, are strangling this country to a slow death.

As for this income splitting proposal....as a Conservative,I am honestly disappointed at Harper...just playing political games. This new income splitting is stupid. as it helps only a few, and usually only those at the higher end. 
Why not just lower tax rates for EVERYBODY??....or better yet just go to a Flat Tax!...even if you want to keep several tax brackets.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

warp said:


> Why not just lower tax rates for EVERYBODY??


100% agreed, that is the right solution - an across the board tax % cut.
Also increase the personal basic exemption amount to reduce the tax net and give some relief to the lower income earners.

I believe the original plan back in 2006 was indeed across the board tax cuts.
But they had minority govt. until 2012.
There was no way the tax-and-spend, and the progressive taxation crowd was going to stand for that.

So, the Harper administration worked around it by creation millions of marginal, smaller, targeted tax cuts, such as home renovation tax credit, children fitness credit, arts credit, adult fitness credit, etc. etc.
In fact, the TFSA was probably also a work-around to cutting income taxes across the board.

All of that complicates the tax code, and makes those that are left out of these tax cuts resentful.

A better solution is simple cuts to the tax rates.


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

Why not introduce joint returns?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

steve41 said:


> Why not introduce joint returns?


It disadvantages single folk and that is now becoming, or will be if the trend continues, the majority of taxpayers. At some point, although unlikely, the USA will have to address this issue IF single taxpayers rise up in revolt.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

HaroldCrump said:


> Please allow me to translate that for you:
> 
> Invest in infrastructure = More raises for TTC, Metrolinx, & GO Transit union
> Invest in education = More raises for Teachers' Union, and creation of the new ECE union
> Invest in research = More grants to prove that oil sands is dirty oil, and that green energy is cheaper than natural gas


i know it  and "education" also will mean - More money spend of "French Heritage"


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> It disadvantages single folk and that is now becoming, or will be if the trend continues, the majority of taxpayers. At some point, although unlikely, the USA will have to address this issue IF single taxpayers rise up in revolt.


Maybe on opposite, this will encoridge more people to get married and have kids?!


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

This announcement will mark a great occasion for Justin Trudeau and the Liberals.

More fodder for the "Harper's gifts to the wealthy" advertising campaign.

When 86% of the people don't gain from the policy........they are going to agree with the Liberals.

Keep the announcements coming..........the Liberals are giddy with joy over them.


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Hmm... one of the very few times I regret being a D.I.N.K. :biggrin:

Ah, heck, I'm still waaaaaaaay ahead of the game by being child-free.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Here we go 
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/topst...-cut-expands-monthly-child-benefit/ar-BBc5JMs

As expected


> The income splitting pledge will allow couples with children under the age of 18 to transfer up to $50,000 in income from the higher income earner to the lower income earner for tax purposes. It can be claimed for the 2014 tax year


 without cap we would get close to 5K, with cap we'll get only 2K ...still better than nothing (from Mr. Treadeau) 

Also


> Also, parents with children aged 6 to 17 would begin receiving monthly cheques worth $60 for each child in that category.


 - nice  another $720 in annual income ... just I don't understand why 17? and not 18? or legal drinking age....

P.S> I'd like to see Fiberal [email protected]#$rds will try to cancel children money and ...increase their salary....:stupid:


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Please allow me to translate that for you:
> 
> Invest in infrastructure = More raises for TTC, Metrolinx, & GO Transit union
> Invest in education = More raises for Teachers' Union, and creation of the new ECE union
> Invest in research = More grants to prove that oil sands is dirty oil, and that green energy is cheaper than natural gas


Your cynicism may amuse you, but it's not a basis for policy. I'm surprised you vote at all.

Also amazed that you blame Harper's boutique microcredits on the opposition. The Liberals were already cutting taxes (corporate and personal income taxes, broadly). Harper changed course and went with GST and targeted credits that didn't provide much value to tax payers and cost a fortune relatively to implement. This is because voters are not very savvy when it comes to tax cuts (they are bad at telling the difference between $100 million and $10 billion.

The Liberals' criticism of the tax cuts were that they were cutting the wrong taxes, and that they were creating a structural deficit, which became apparent when the cycle reversed in 2008. I don't understand why conservatives try to pretend that they are not accountable for the policies they put forward 2006 - 2011. There was very little bipartisanship going on in this period. It was marked by Liberal weakness and fear of going to the polls, with the Conservatives more or less doing what they wanted while daring the Liberals to bring down the government.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

I do vote in every type of election, incl. the municipal one this week.
Sometimes my chosen candidate wins, and sometimes he/she doesn't - but that's the way it works for everyone.

What you call cynicism is based on years of experience watching left-leaning political parties squander away tax dollars on their unionized vote banks time & time again.
What the ETFO, OPP, CUPE, and other unions have done (are doing) is shameful in my opinion.
You can of course feel otherwise.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

If their parents put the child care benefit cheques in their RESP, a child born in Jan 2015 would have over $25K saved up in their RESP by the time they are 18 without the parents having to put in a dime. Add a bit of growth and that's 35K.
Of course, most will squander the cheques on themselves, saying they 'deserve it'.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Not quite Gibor...............

The proposal is to eliminate the Child Tax Credit and replace it with a $60 a month raise to the Universal Child Tax Credit....which is currently $100 a month.

The Universal Child Tax Credit is commonly known as the "baby bonus".

The increase of $60 will be offset by the loss of the Child Tax Credit on income tax forms.

It is a bit of "sleight of hand" they are doing..........


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

nobleea said:


> If their parents put the child care benefit cheques in their RESP, a child born in Jan 2015 would have over $25K saved up in their RESP by the time they are 18 without the parents having to put in a dime. Add a bit of growth and that's 35K.
> Of course, most will squander the cheques on themselves, saying they 'deserve it'.


Does everyone qualify for the benefit ? 

When we raised our son we got 0 from the government, because we earned too much.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Harold, what do you think, then, of Harper growing spending at a faster rate than Martin or Chretien over their tenure? Borrow and spend Conservatives (as opposed to tax and spent Liberals)? You seem to uncritically support whatever team blue is doing.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

not everyone is eligible for the child tax credit, but everyone gets the child care benefit, or UCCB. I guess it's taxable, so that would be a bit out of pocket. Goes against the lower income earner, so it's not too bad.
It was started in 2006, so if your child was born in 2000 or earlier, you wouldn't have gotten anything.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It disadvantages single folk and that is now becoming, or will be if the trend continues, the majority of taxpayers. ...


Since single folk with good incomes and no dependents are at such an economic disadvantage in our society?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

A repetitive complaint about income splitting is that not everyone benefits equally. People are missing the point. It is not supposed to benefit everyone equally. It is about correcting an unfairness that makes a single-income family pay more tax than a two-income family on the same family income.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

But why do you have to have a child under 18 to qualify? Seems like not all families are created equal.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> A repetitive complaint about income splitting is that not everyone benefits equally. People are missing the point. It is not supposed to benefit everyone equally. It is about correcting an unfairness that makes a single-income family pay more tax than a two-income family on the same family income.


It's unfair only if you consider the home production of the other spouse to be worth nothing. I'm really not buying the unfairness argument. And there are people I sympathize for more than high single income couples.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Since single folk with good incomes and no dependents are at such an economic disadvantage in our society?


Couples are pooling expenses. Two singles earning a total of $X will have a lower standard of living than a couple with the same income.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> It's unfair only if you consider the home production of the other spouse to be worth nothing


Home production assumes that there is a fair market value of all the work that the stay-at-home spouse is doing, but there isn't.
We can't monetize everything.

Even in a two income household with all kids in daycare, there is a lot of housework & child rearing that both the partners do.
How do we begin to assign a value to that?

Similarly, there is no requirement that a stay-at-home mom be doing housework, cooking, cleaning & taking care of kids.
She could be watching Oprah & daytime TV all day long.

The whole "home production" idea implies that we can start assigning monetary value to every activity, and start calculating imputed income based on that.
And start taxing imputing income.

Where do you suppose it ends?
Tax every action, very breath?
Just tax & spend on vote banking and large bonanzas for lobby groups.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4953606-harper-unveils-tax-breaks-for-canadian-families/

...government is boosting the universal child care benefit — $160 a month for kids under six, up from $100, plus a new monthly benefit of $60 for children aged six through 17, effective in 2015.

The so-called "Family Tax Cut" will allow an eligible taxpayer to transfer up to $50,000 of income to his or her spouse for tax purposes in order to collect a non-refundable tax credit of up to $2,000 per year.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Harold, what do you think, then, of Harper growing spending at a faster rate than Martin or Chretien over their tenure? Borrow and spend Conservatives (as opposed to tax and spent Liberals)? You seem to uncritically support whatever team blue is doing.


Well, I can easily make the same argument about you supporting the LPO, and the reds in general.
All the waste, corruption, union pandering, perjury, and incompetence of the Libs are perfectly acceptable to you.

You make superficial, perfunctory statements about not agreeing with some completely useless policy of the LPO such as the FIT program, but that isn't fooling anyone.
You are just as dyed-in-the-wool LPO as possible.

But getting back on the matter of income splitting, at least try and understand why the govt. is being forced to implement these types of targeted tax cuts and credits.
I don't agree at all with all the marginal, surgically targeted tax cuts and credits, and I have said so many time before, going as far back as 2009 when the home renovation tax credit, and the various fitness & arts credits were introduced.

The best way to implement tax cuts is to cut income tax rates across the board.
Take every MTR and cut it by 2% (or whatever number).
Increase the basic personal exemption amount.
Raise the thresholds for each MTR tier.

Or some combination of the above.

How many Sunshine list levels bureaucrats must we have hired at the CRA to support and administer this increasingly fractured system of tax credits and deductions.
At this rate, we will be worse than the US sooner rather than later.

It is the ideological opposition of the tax-and-spend and progressive taxation crown (an extremely vocal group) that has prevented this govt. from implementing straight, across the board tax cuts.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Then why are you supporting this policy on fairness grounds? You and I would both rather have cuts in MTRs, which would be an efficient use of the resources that are instead being wasted on this measure.

With LPO, it's more a matter of them being least objectionable. I didn't vote for them this spring. I wish we had a decent centre-right alternative. The hard right voters in Ontario have no alternatives other than Christian Heritage. If the PCs want to win in Ontario they need to ignore these voters and cater to the centre. Red meat thrown to the base and bungling lost them an election they by rights should have won.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

warp said:


> As for this income splitting proposal....as a Conservative,I am honestly disappointed at Harper...just playing political games. This new income splitting is stupid. as it helps only a few, and usually only those at the higher end.
> Why not just lower tax rates for EVERYBODY??....or better yet just go to a Flat Tax!...even if you want to keep several tax brackets.


I am with you 100%, not only idiotic move, gets all the press and it benefits only very few. As for lowering tax, well they are actually increasing it already in some areas, effective tax on non eligible dividends is being increased (for ON this actually is about 4% increase, small corp owner will be most effected), and for folks in ON whatever savings anyone will have for the income splitting will be taken away from in the form of tax increase due to lower threshold for the highest income earner from $500K to $220K, and proposed huge increase in payroll taxes (Ontario pension plan).

Almost always voted PC, next time will for beer party if there is one.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

gibor said:


> Maybe on opposite, this will encoridge more people to get married and have kids?!


the planet is already grossly overpopulated, less children is part of natural evolution.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Homerhomer said:


> the planet is already grossly overpopulated, less children is part of natural evolution.


Except it's not 'across the board'...there are countries/areas with birthrates ~ 4 times that of Canada.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Except it's not 'across the board'...there are countries/areas with birthrates ~ 4 times that of Canada.


ofcourse, but average it out and we have a big problem affecting everyone.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Another "smoke and mirror" promise kept by the Harper gov't. 
So this only affects the federal portion of the individual tax payable and BOTH people have to file, even if the wife stays a home with the kids earning $0 dollars in income. 

It would be interesting to do a comparison against the old federal/provincial tax filing forms vs the new tax form when these new forms come out next year to see how much the savings would be. 

Right now..if one married partner doesn't have any income, they pay no tax or need to file, and the husband can claim her as a dependent. 

Now with Harper's income splitting scheme, if the husband is making, say $60k a year, transfers half ($30k) of his income to the wife, who now HAS taxable income (fed/prov), the wife has to declare this income,calculate the taxes payable and then subtract the calculated the income
splitting tax credit (max $2000)...a lot of complexity for the small savings realized and both end up paying more in taxes than a two income family filing separate returns. 

I can see why Jim Flaherty was against it...it is not very well thought out, and unfair to the rest of Canadian society that doesn't qualify.



> Because the credit is non-refundable, it can’t actually get you a tax refund. If, for example, after all your other deductions and exemptions you owed $1,800 in federal income tax, even a claim at the full meal deal value of $2,000 still just leads to $0 in federal taxes, not $200 back. New non-refundable credits don’t do much for families who already have very low taxable incomes.





> Years ago provinces stopped calculating their tax rates as a percentage of federal taxes but they kept the federal definition of taxable income (line 260 of your tax return). This change doesn’t muck with that because it kicks in to reduce the federal taxes payable, not the income on which those taxes are calculated.





> For couples who are separated, divorced and/or recoupled, and who share custody of children, who qualifies as “the couple with kids”? One child can’t be used to justify two couples splitting their incomes in two different homes–none of the other federal child credits work that way.


http://www.macleans.ca/economy/econ...g-program-isnt-great-policy-or-good-politics/


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Homerhomer said:


> the planet is already grossly overpopulated, less children is part of natural evolution.


Are you also in support of euthanizing old people?
That ought to reduce the burden on society...


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Are you also in support of euthanizing old people?
> ...


No, why would I be?

If you are asking if I support a right to die for people who wish to end their own pain and suffering it's a different story ;-)


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Your logic is completely wrong.
By discouraging (or worse, by forcing) less children in the current generation, we are reducing future consumption, future productivity, and future tax receipts.
A low birth rate is a terrible problem to have - just ask Japan, and the welfarist European countries.
It was thought that a high birth rate is a bad problem i.e. China, India, etc.
Yet today we can see who is economically further ahead - China & India vs. Japan.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

My logic is 100% correct because I was talking environmental impact not economic, and eventually the environmental impact will be greater than the high birth rate wealth effect. We are not far away from not having any tuna in the oceans and drinking water in Arizona/California, the band can only stretch so much before it breaks.

Anyway this is light years removed from Harper's income splitting ;-) back to the topic?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

carverman said:


> It would be interesting to do a comparison against the old federal/provincial tax filing forms vs the new tax form when these new forms come out next year to see how much the savings would be.
> Now with Harper's income splitting scheme, if the husband is making, say $60k a year, transfers half ($30k) of his income to the wife, who now HAS taxable income (fed/prov), the wife has to declare this income,calculate the taxes payable and then subtract the calculated the income
> splitting tax credit (max $2000)...a lot of complexity for the small savings realized and both end up paying more in taxes than a two income family filing separate returns.
> 
> I can see why Jim Flaherty was against it...it is not very well thought out, and unfair to the rest of Canadian society that doesn't qualify.


The comparison has already been done by a few people. You come out ahead in the new plan by a little bit. More so, the more kids you have.

There's no way you will end up paying more taxes as a family. That's the whole point.

Jim Flaherty wasn't against it. Most media sites seem to be truncating his full comments. He wanted to put something against the debt first before doing this.
There's a lot of tax breaks that don't apply to everyone, yet we still keep those. Farmers, clergy, disabled, GST rebates.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> My logic is 100% correct because I was *talking environmental impact not economic*, and eventually the environmental impact will be greater than the high birth rate wealth effect.


The destruct effect one has on the other, so you can't separate the two given the corresponding relationship. 

Wonder what the Chinese population would be today if not for its 3 decade+ one-child policy. Seniors today represent about 10% of the population in China, and the figure will increase with the decrease in fertility rates, to about 1.5 billion globally in just another 30+ years. 

With urbanization/education growth [hence income increase], fertility rates will continue to decline everywhere, with or without draconian policies to curb population. 

The estimated world population by 2100 is said to be around 12 billion, and that's surely not a rosy figure for the planet's limited resources & hungry appetites [not just talking about food].


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Your logic is completely wrong.
> By discouraging (or worse, by forcing) less children in the current generation, we are reducing future consumption, future productivity, and future tax receipts.
> A low birth rate is a terrible problem to have - just ask Japan, and the welfarist European countries.
> It was thought that a high birth rate is a bad problem i.e. China, India, etc.
> Yet today we can see who is economically further ahead - China & India vs. Japan.


Err, Japan is vastly wealthier than China and India and will continue to be for decades. Not sure you proved your point there.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Except it's not 'across the board'...there are countries/areas with birthrates ~ 4 times that of Canada.


They are all, every last one, poor developing countries. They have lots of children because of high infant mortality, lack of social safety net and private savings, and unavailability of modern contraceptives.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> Err, Japan is vastly wealthier than China and India and will continue to be for decades. Not sure you proved your point there.


Both China and India are growing many X times faster than Japan.
Last year, China passed Japan in terms of GDP, so now it is already #2.
China is expected to be #1 economy by 2020 (or similar date).

Japan has huge demographic problems.

Low birth rate, esp. combined with an anti-immigration ideology, is a downward spiral.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.........as to the timing.

People filing in the spring will know if the proposal has helped them or not.........and by how much.

Will they be happy or disappointed ?

Will there be an election before or after the results are known ?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Canada increases "kids population" artificially , by bringing about 300K immigrants per year and giving preference for young families with kids....


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

The only fair tax cuts for everyone will be if any family can split their income without limitation and any cap should be eliminated.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You are right Gibor..........if it wasn't for immigrants from all over the world, it would be a ghost town around here.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> They are all, every last one, poor developing countries. They have lots of children because of high infant mortality, lack of social safety net and private savings, and unavailability of modern contraceptives.


I realize that.....I was just looking at overall numbers......that, despite high infant mortality, keep rising.

(I was talking to someone recently about how the world's total population has more than doubled since I did a lot of traveling in the 1960s.)


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> You are right Gibor..........if it wasn't for immigrants from all over the world, it would be a ghost town around here.


However, it cannot continue forever.... with a time level/quality of life is improving in many countries.... thus it will be less and less qualified workers who wishes to immigrate.... take for example Russia...in late 80's early 90's a huge number of people wanted to immigrate... now this number is much much less especially among qualified workers... so Canada should encoridge canadians to have more kids especially in mid-higher clase parents.... as let's face the truth, kids from delinquent or stupid parent , most lekely will be the same ...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

btw, all this talks about poverty in canada is nonsense.... there is no poverty in canada and who talks about is DOESN'T know what poverty is  And families claiming poverty just live not per their means, they should just spend less


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sags said:


> It will be interesting to see how this plays out.........as to the timing.
> People filing in the spring will know if the proposal has helped them or not.........and by how much.
> Will they be happy or disappointed ?
> Will there be an election before or after the results are known ?


It has been made clear repeatedly that this is expected to benefit a relatively smaller group of people.
And now the benefits have been capped at $2,000 max.

I don't see why most people should be disappointed.

Regardless, there is a lot of rhetoric and backlash going on against the Harper administration.
It seems they may not fare well in the next elections.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

gibor said:


> so Canada should encoridge canadians to have more kids especially in mid-higher clase parents.... as let's face the truth, kids from delinquent or stupid parent , most lekely will be the same ...


problem is stupid people don't know they are stupid ;-), self-assessment won't work here, so how do you think it should be regulated ;-) IQ tests, income levels, castrated if not attempting university by the age of 25........?

Not sure if you were kidding, if not a strong disagreement from me about encouraging to have kids.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> (I was talking to someone recently about how the world's total population has more than doubled since I did a lot of traveling in the 1960s.)


The figure was 3 billion in 1959, so yes, more than doubled in just 1/2 a century. 

Now the increase is about a billion every dozen years: 4, 5, 6 & 7 billion back in 1974/1987/1999/2011 respectively, and expected to hit 8 billion by 2024.

I'm glad I won't be around by 2100.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

LOL *Homerhomer. * :biggrin:


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

gibor said:


> The only *fair tax cuts for everyone will be if any family* can split their income without limitation and any cap should be eliminated.


No, how fair is it for single, divorced, widowed couples with no children, couples with older children with or no disabilities..... the only fair tax cut will be if everyone gets a piece of it.


----------



## OurBigFatWallet (Jan 20, 2014)

Based on my calculations due to the cap of $2k savings maximum it really only benefits people with a combined annual income of 60-75k. Anything beyond that and they won't see as much savings. If they didn't have a cap on it the savings would be huge for some people, but not for all, which is why they put on a cap to make it more fair for everyone


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

gibor said:


> Canada increases "kids population" artificially , by bringing about 300K immigrants per year and giving preference for young families with kids....


Well, _someone _has to pay the tax liabilities that we are deferring to the future.

We can already see that an increasing portion of GDP is going towards interest payments esp. in provinces like Ontario, but also nationally.
This problem is particularly sharp in the US & UK, both of which have significantly increased their debt in recent years.

Add in the unfunded, or underfunded liabilities, such as public pensions (in Canada), social security (in the US), healthcare (everywhere) and there is a massive transfer of liabilities going on to future unborn generations.

In Canada, our cushy comfy paper pushers want to retire at 50 and expect to be paid generous pensions for another 40 years.
Someone's gotta bear that liability.

Supporting this system requires massive immigration and increasing the birth rate, or both.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Homerhomer said:


> problem is stupid people don't know they are stupid ;-), self-assessment won't work here, so how do you think it should be regulated ;-) IQ tests, income levels, castrated if not attempting university by the age of 25........?
> 
> Not sure if you were kidding, if not a strong disagreement from me about encouraging to have kids.


Everything much simplier  Give to mid-high class families same benefits like "poor" gets, it will encourage mid-high class families have more kids... we never get any child credits, we paid for kindergarten more than $1,000 per months when "poor" family have it heavily subsidized , maternity leave cap should be increased significantly etc...

Just look ar Russia


> Vladimir Putin, alarmed at Russia's declining population, which is falling thanks to short life expectancy and a plummeting birthrate (1.17 children per woman, down from about 2 in 1990), offered a bonus of 250,000 rubles (about $9,200) to women who would have a second child.


 and this is regardless of income and egual


> So giving a Russian $9,200 in cash is like giving an American $36,112


 even more now, even though


> Obviously, it costs much less to raise a child in Russia


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2006/05/children_for_sale.html 
and I can tell that if we were getting 40K bonus, most likely we'd have a 3rd child 
Australia also giving bonus cash for children...


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Homerhomer said:


> No, how fair is it for single, divorced, widowed couples with no children, couples with older children with or no disabilities..... the only fair tax cut will be if everyone gets a piece of it.


mostly that what I said  - split should be allowed regardless of children AT ALL , widowed getting and can get another benefits, single don't have with who to split income , so it's N/A... the point is couples manage budget together like one unit and their income should be counted like one unit. Singles - manages singles budget....
btw, earlier I mentioned that this is stupid to limit splits with children ONLY under 18, as the biggest spendings are for kids under 7 and when they go to university...
I'm gonna combine email and drop to my MO with all suggestions... 
and it's completely fair that families that earn more, have more refund as they already paying higher taxes


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Yea Harold......but you know how people are.........

They hear a wisp of $2000 on the news and the next thing you know.........the government is giving everyone $2000.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Both China and India are growing many X times faster than Japan.
> Last year, China passed Japan in terms of GDP, so now it is already #2.
> China is expected to be #1 economy by 2020 (or similar date).
> 
> ...


The Japanese are better off by almost every welfare metric. You are confusing level vs rate of change.


----------



## warp (Sep 4, 2010)

Quote Originally Posted by Nemo2 

(I was talking to someone recently about how the world's total population has more than doubled since I did a lot of traveling in the 1960s.)

Overpopulation is a myth.

I was reading in a book, last night in fact, that said that you could take the entire population of the world...and dump them ALL in Texas, and you would still have less population density than we have in New York City right now.

Back to the topic of these income-splitting proposals...I really am tired of Harper and his boutique tax cuts for this and that , that just complicate matters further. Just CUT TAXES across the board, and while you are at it..CUT SPENDING too..and get these union retirement costs under control!

I once had lunch with Jim Flaherty years ago,for several hours...he would not have liked these new tax changes.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^ Yes, I've heard that.......but I was merely commenting on a fact....(also, if you put every vehicle in the world end-to-end......someone would pull out and try to pass. :wink: )


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

nemo2 said:


> ^ yes, i've heard that.......but i was merely commenting on a fact....(also, if you put every vehicle in the world end-to-end......someone would pull out and try to pass. :wink: )


lol.................


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Income splitting.......increased child benefits..........just the opening salvos for the upcoming election.

What do you think might come further along the election trail ?

I doubt all their ammo has been spent..........


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

sags said:


> Income splitting.......increased child benefits..........just the opening salvos for the upcoming election.
> 
> What do you think might come further along the election trail ?
> 
> I doubt all their ammo has been spent..........


Hopefully double increase for TFSA room! I like it! 
Ontario Fiberals stole from our bugdet some money by increasing taxes, Harper will give us back 2K + $720 for child benefit


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

gibor said:


> Hopefully double increase for TFSA room! I like it!
> Ontario Fiberals stole from our bugdet some money by increasing taxes, Harper will give us back 2K + $720 for child benefit


Nah....the TFSA is too complicated......and it doesn't help everybody.

Just keep it simple and double the OAS..........:biggrin:

After all.......everybody gets old.


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

andrewf said:


> Well, the clock is ticking. Harper has less than a year to deliver on some of his promises from the last election until he is _at least_ reduced to a minority.
> 
> The argument against income splitting is not that it benefits a small %, but that it doesn't improve equity of the tax system (ie, benefits skew to the wealthy) nor does it increase efficiency (reduce deadweight losses). Given that it costs X billion annually, that X could be used elsewhere to reduce other taxes that actually do improve equity or efficiency. Income splitting is not on the 'efficient frontier' of tax cuts.


What major promises hasn't he delivered on that were within his control? (i.e. not dictated by the unaccountable Supreme Court)?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> The argument against income splitting is not that it benefits a small %....


 so called "poor" would be yelling in any case that "wealthy" get all benefits.... "poor" don't want to understand that all benefits they have exist "wealthy"


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, he's not delivering on his income splitting proposal from the last election. This policy is substantially different.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Come on gibor..........us poor old retired folks would like to get a little something something......you know ?

Surely Mr. Harper can find a few bones in his chicken bucket to toss over our way.

We ain't asking for much.....say, maybe he could just send us a "End of Deficit" cheque for $1000 and we will call it square.


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

I can't believe the ten pages of discussion on this topic hasn't generated a move to do some thing truly responsible with the fiscal surplus, and that is to pay down the debt. Instead, there is a call for the PM to throw bones at different special interest groups. Paying down the debt won't give an immediate boost to any one group, but in the long term we will be much better off, and tax cuts and scraps can be thrown out to all. Are we really that short sighted, that we are arguing amongst ourselves on who should be bought for the next election? That is exactly what I see happening in this thread. The PM has us looking out for our own personal short term biases. This is democracy at the worst.

It seems as if we are on the Titanic, and the captain asks what song we would like the band to play. Stop fighting about the distractions, and tell the captain to correct the ship's course!

Or maybe it is just me, and everybody else out there thinks that things are fine. Would you really run your households this way? Spend a surplus, when you have a huge debt hanging over your family?


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

^ +1


----------



## gt_23 (Jan 18, 2014)

andrewf said:


> Well, he's not delivering on his income splitting proposal from the last election. This policy is substantially different.


Perhaps. I'm generally not a fan of excuses for anyone, but stick-handling the greatest recession in 80 years ought to count for something.

That aside, his record for delivering on what he says is quite impressive by political standards.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Guban,

I suspect everyone on the thread agrees with you about paying down the debt, but we know it isn't going to happen in an election year.

So if the money is being spent regardless........it would be nice to make the greatest impact with it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

For a variety of reasons, it was a fairly moderate recession for Canada. Mainly because our housing bubble remained inflated. We pretty much delayed the pain.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

andrewf said:


> The Japanese are better off by almost every welfare metric. You are confusing level vs rate of change.


I am saying having a low birth rate does not ensure prosperity. If the pie is shrinking, eventually everyone's share will shrink.
When the pie is increasing, sooner or later there will be trickle-down effect and tier by tier various levels of society will benefit.

Secondly, overpopulation is perhaps not as big a problem as it was expected to be about 30 - 40 years back.
Technology and globalization have solved a lot of problems.

While the Japanese may have a better quality of life, their demographic problems are unsustainable and leading to massive socio-economic distortions.
It has basically become a welfare state for the geriatric.

On the other hand, the dire predictions about the Chinese and Indian overpopulation has not panned out.
They have done rather well for themselves.


----------



## Homerhomer (Oct 18, 2010)

HaroldCrump said:


> Technology and globalization have solved a lot of problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The technology and information has at the same time created another problem, now parents in China and India think their children should be as spoiled as ours and should have the same right to consume and waste as much as we do.

Just imagine every family in Asia and Africa would have a at least two cars, live in comparable conditions, buy few carts of groceries each week and waste half of it, and have three or more bins for the weekly garbage pick up.

Either over population or over consumption, one or both are or will be the problem, you pick your poison. With smaller population over consumption can continue, with over population the consumption will increase to unsustainable levels as it's more likely that the consumption level in developing countries will increase as oppose to developed regions drastically decreasing it. 

There is a limit to what the planet can handle we just don't know if the band will break in 50, 100 or 500 years, but the signs are here already (human created droughts, loss of habitat for wildlife, loss of green areas like amazons, extinctions of thousands of species due to our activities, over fishing, rising temperatures, bee problem, toxic pollution.... and on and on and on).


----------



## Guban (Jul 5, 2011)

sags said:


> Guban,
> 
> I suspect everyone on the thread agrees with you about paying down the debt, but we know it isn't going to happen in an election year.
> 
> So if the money is being spent regardless........it would be nice to make the greatest impact with it.


Isn't this sad then. It is not really voiced during a time where our voices actually have a chance of being heard. If we can't dictate what should be done during an election year, then when?!? It seems that voters would rather be bought by our own (borrowed) money.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Homerhomer said:


> Either over population or over consumption, one or both are or will be the problem, you pick your poison. With smaller population over consumption can continue, with over population the consumption will increase to unsustainable levels as it's more likely that the consumption level in developing countries will increase as oppose to developed regions drastically decreasing it.
> 
> There is a limit to what the planet can handle we just don't know if the band will break in 50, 100 or 500 years, but the signs are here already (human created droughts, loss of habitat for wildlife, loss of green areas like amazons, extinctions of thousands of species due to our activities, over fishing, rising temperatures, bee problem, toxic pollution.... and on and on and on).


I couldn't agree more. Gotta find ways to cap global population before our planet turns on us. The main problem facing the global economy is how to adjust to a static or decreasing population and still provide the standard of living to which we have become accustomed WITHOUT additional bodies creating 'artificial' demand, i.e. GDP growth per person, not GDP growth due to population growth.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

Homerhomer said:


> *There is a limit to what the planet can handle* we just don't know if the band will break in 50, 100 or 500 years, but the signs are here already (human created droughts, loss of habitat for wildlife, loss of green areas like amazons, extinctions of thousands of species due to our activities, over fishing, rising temperatures, bee problem, toxic pollution.... and on and on and on).


Some believe that Earth's largesse is limitless.

Another view - population: 29 billion.

http://business.financialpost.com/2...y-to-popular-belief-that-may-be-a-good-thing/


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Then there are wingnuts like http://www.people.com/article/family-12-boys-expecting-13-baby


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Kind of neat to have your own ball and hockey teams...........

Wonder if they collect baby bonus there..........

In Ontario they would get............almost $6000 a month, probably don't pay much income tax with all the deductions ?

I remember a story about a woman with a lot of kids, was asked why she had so many.

"Well actually", she said........."the train goes by our house and blows it's whistle at 5 am each morning and it is too early to go to work and too late to go back to sleep...........so........."


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

sags said:


> I remember a story about a woman with a lot of kids, was asked why she had so many.
> 
> "Well actually", she said........."the train goes by our house and blows it's whistle at 5 am each morning and it is too early to go to work and too late to go back to sleep...........so........."


Her sister attributed _her_ fecundity to her partial deafness......said that, when they got into bed, her husband would ask "Do you want to go to sleep or what?"......and she'd reply "What?"


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

Had some email correspondence with our MP....  He mentioned:


> Thursday’s announcement was a start. Other items are on the table and will be announced in due course.


We'll see


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Nemo2 said:


> Her sister attributed _her_ fecundity to her partial deafness......said that, when they got into bed, her husband would ask "Do you want to go to sleep or what?"......and she'd reply "What?"


LOL........and as Paul Harvey would say........."And now you know........the rest... of the story".......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QblkQ-J6zio


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Some believe that Earth's largesse is limitless.
> 
> Another view - population: 29 billion.
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/2...y-to-popular-belief-that-may-be-a-good-thing/


I'm no malthusian, but I think Solomon is advancing some dangerously incorrect ideas. Arguing that it would be desirable to raise the population density of the entire globe to that of the Netherlands because that particular patch of earth is reasonably agriculturally productive is foolish. Also, he claims that the Netherlands exports more food than Australia, Russia or Canada, which I find too incredible. The only evidence I could find to support those claims are the $ exports, which is perhaps true because of all the high value produce (often grown in greenhouses) that passes through the Netherlands. This does not mean it is all produced there nor is it indicative of calorie production.

He also failed to make any argument for why raising the world's population to 29 billion by accelerating birth rates is desirable. He seems to hold the odd idea that women being highly educated and having high workforce participation being a passing fad that it currently reducing birthrates. Soon women will be barefoot and back in the kitchen, having 6 kids by age 24 rather than pursuing that advanced degree. Not sure how intends to make that come about without adopting the model of Saudi Arabia's treatment of women.


----------

