Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Policy alert

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, March 28, 2011 1:05pm - 155 Comments

Stephen Harper promises to allow income-splitting for families with children. So long as he’s Prime Minister in 2016.

Writing Monday on The Globe’s Economy Lab blog, Carleton University professor Frances Wooley said the policy risks triggering a “Mommy War.” “People sometimes think ‘the work done by parents who stay home looking after their children is valuable, therefore those people deserve a tax break.’ They’re already getting an enormous tax break. They’re getting thousands of dollars worth of in-kind income – the value of the work that is being in the home – and not being taxed on it,” the professor writes. “Mommy Wars, that pit at-home mothers against working mothers, women against women, are bitter and destructive,” she adds. “If we want to support families with children, then we can just introduce tax measures that support families with children, for example, an enhanced child tax amount. It’s that simple.”

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Newer Comments →
  • McC_

    aren't we frequently admonished for having a productivity problem in Canada? should we really be pursuing policies that encourage half of all parent couples to work less? oh wait, sorry, no one's pursuing anything, this policy is the Tories equivalent (literally) of the Liberal's National Day Care strategy, one that is always on the horizon, after the next election.

    • OriginalEmily1

      Day Care had been signed by all 10 provinces and was underway until Harper cancelled it.

    • McC_

      I hasten to clarify that even though by "work" I meant paid employment that gets captured by GDP, I was not trying to say that work in the home isn't "work"

      signed,
      someone who cleans the toilets

  • OriginalEmily1

    If people have to wait until we eliminate the deficit, it'll be the 12th of Never the way the Cons are going about it.

    Empty policy.

    • Horatio

      OriginalEmily1 for PM. She will slay the deficit tomorrow. No to US-style Prisons, and no to 20th-century military spending on war planes. Yes to Always Being Right, yes to having the Best Ideas, and yes to Knowing Better Than Everyone.

      • OriginalEmily1

        Thenk you, thenk you….the lawn signs will be up shortly. LOL

      • brooster2

        "No to US-style Prisons, and no to 20th-century military spending on war planes."

        I'm good with that.

        "Yes to Always Being Right, yes to having the Best Ideas, and yes to Knowing Better Than Everyone."

        Pretty much the same as the PM we've had for the last five years.

        I might just write her onto my ballot.

  • Stewart_Smith

    LOL, fixed elections.

    • NorthernPoV

      With the media and push-pollsters playing bridesmaid to Harper's Frankenstein Persona, it might as well be a "fixed election".

  • McC_

    Evil Policy Wonk rubs hands together with glee: "They will vote for it now, but by the time it's implemented their children will be too old for them to benefit, mwahahahaha!"

  • Mike T.

    It's actually a better idea to treat all income in a family the same but give more generous personal deductions where there are more people in the household (the hardest hit in such a situation is income from a live at home teen working part time, though).

    • Jan

      That makes sense,therefore, it will never fly.

  • Reverend_Blair

    I'm going to have to adopt a child before the 2016 election. How old do kids have to be before you can make them shovel?

    • McC_

      I don't know if you can ever make them shovel… stoopid child protection laws, I blame Queen Victoria.

  • Reverend_Blair

    It belongs in the next campaign, but it won't make it into the next campaign. It will be cancelled to pay for more corporate tax cuts.

    • TJCook

      Or it will simply never happen because the budget will never be balanced on Harper's watch.

      Why is nobody asking how much this will cost, or how Harper will pay for it?

      • Reverend_Blair

        When it comes to holding Harper's feet to the fire, the media seems to have a policy of don't ask, don't tell.

    • burlivespipe

      "It will be cancelled to pay for more corporate tax cuts."
      Actually, it will be cancelled then because the Harper gov't will be purchasing billion dollar jets for corporations…

  • WDM

    Why win just the 2011 election, when you can win the 2015 one as well! Genius!

    • McC_

      it's lifted straight from the Payless Shoes' BOGO School of Election Strategy (fun fact: the school's founder used to be a senior advisor in the Howard Government).

    • craigola

      I have it on good authority that he is a chessmaster. Haven't actually been hearing as much about that lately, but still.

    • madeyoulook

      How do you know 2015? What, is there a law that says every four years or something?

      • McC_

        there's also a bigger law that says at least every 5 years… and then we have elections every 2 or 3 years… it's all so confusing!

  • Reverend_Blair

    Why does Stephen Harper hate childless couples and the parents of adult children?

    • OriginalEmily1

      It's just another way of avoiding day care while trying to encourage Canadian birth rates.

    • TheRealKuri

      By that reasoning, he hates single parents the most: they have the highest financial burden when it comes to childcare, but with only one income, they can't benefit from income splitting at all.

    • burlivespipe

      and single parent families, and same-sex families…

  • Mike T.

    I am hereby starting a new partywhich will give everyone who votes for me $1,000,000 in 2067 – it's a bicentennial gift and frankly you all deserve it.

  • SanDiegoDave

    "Well", said the politician, "So long as 90% of one of those groups votes for ME, I see no problem whatsoever". It's always about the votes- screw the country at large.

    PS- Has anyone else been experiencing script loading errors on Macleans.ca using either Chrome or Firefox?

    • john g

      PS- Has anyone else been experiencing script loading errors on Macleans.ca using either Chrome or Firefox?

      Hell yes. Half the time ID comments don't load, half the time they are hidden. Browsing the site is quite broken from Chrome.

    • Douglass

      Yes, same problem as John G.

    • jonatwitan

      Yes, for a long time now.

      I have to refresh at least once, sometimes twice.

      P.S. I'm on Safari

    • BGLong

      Yup. Have to reload at least once with either Firefox or Chrome.
      Been a couple of weeks now. I blame the Heritage Minister.

    • brooster2

      PS- Has anyone else been experiencing script loading errors on Macleans.ca using either Chrome or Firefox?

      Major problems here. First glitchy, now refusing to load at all. When I emailed intensedebate about it, I got this back:

      Macleans is a VIP customer, and Jonathan is VIP support contact.

      All our VIP customers' own technical teams are asked to provide 1st level support on each issue. We're happy to receive any inquiry, but want to help set expectations if we suggest an issue be first pursued by your team.
      http://static.rogersdigitalmedia.com/libs/writeCa… is stalling, preventing other JS from loading, and ID is always the last script to load (to avoid conflicts).

      I interpret this to mean rogers, not intensedebate, is initially responsible for fixifying the problem.

      I'm now accessing the comments boards on IE (which I haven't otherwise used for years).

  • Anon

    Or perhaps could have been announced last week in the budget that was so important that the government should not have been defeated …

    Oh wait …

  • madeyoulook

    They’re already getting an enormous tax break. They’re getting thousands of dollars worth of in-kind income – the value of the work that is being in the home – and not being taxed on it.

    Duh, because there was no income associated with it. Even if the sole breadwinner was able to earn MORE because his or her spouse stayed home for more of the domestic responsibilities, that more is already taxed, at the marginal rate of the primary breadwinner. Show me the tax break in that, Professor Wooley.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      You're right. Professor Wooley is women-hating feminist.

      • madeyoulook

        If you have anything useful to add, you really should not hold back.

        • Andrew (not PorC)

          If a single-income family had one spouse bringing in $100k per year and the other spouse staying at home generating home production of a value of say, $40k per year (above what they would have produced if they were both working), then that family is earning that $40k tax free, for a tax break of in the area of 8 grand. In addition, that lack of employment income is not held against that spouse for CPP (free CPP contributions) provided they worked at some points outside the period they stayed home.

          So, we're proposing that a couple earning $50k each (total $100k income) should pay as much tax as a couple bringing in $100k in employment income and $40k in home production. That, is not 'fair'.

          • madeyoulook

            Thank you for this more relevant effort.

            Do you want to look at all the tax-and-subsidy programs currently in place for the dual-income families shipping the kids off to daycare? The roads and bridges and public transit that gets the second earner off to work at rush hour? The lower tax brackets on the first chunks of income for each of them? Or do you just want to count the "untaxed non-income" as some sort of twisted "gift" to single-earner families?

            Do you think the dual-income couple produces zero "home production" value, or do you just want to tag the stay-at-home spouse with this fictional "tax break" nonsense?

            So, we're proposing that a couple bringing in $100K in employment income and keeping the kids off the hands of the state should pay as much tax as a couple earning $50K each (total $100K). This, you somehow manage to claim, is not fair.

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            Firstly, you didn't read what I wrote. I said $40k in home production more than they would have produced if both were working. So, I didn't say that dual income couples have no home production. You are the one who seems to be implying that the stay-at-home spouse doesn't generate anything of value to be exempted from paying tax on. I don't think it's fair to say that they are sitting at home eating bon-bons. They are doing work that has value and would be paid for dearly if it needed to be procured from outside the home. Since they have the ability to not work and produce these things in the home, they have the benefit of getting these services as if they were tax deductible. It's not rocket science, and we should be able to agree on this (we're talking about things as they are, not as they should be).

            Now, couples with stay at home spouses already receive tax breaks, including the spousal amount (for eligible dependents) so the argument about the dual income couple receiving tax breaks falls a bit flat. As things are now, they are pretty well balanced. This proposed change tilts the field in favour of staying at home. One wonders if this is motivated by more traditional gender roles and a desire for spouses to be at home rather than being all assertive and empowered in the work place.

          • madeyoulook

            It's not rocket science

            It's also not INCOME. We call it income tax. We can agree on that much, can't we?

            Agreed that it might be just as simple to up the spousal amount. But, without even peeking at my tax papers procrastinating over there in the corner, I am pretty confident that this amount does not, at present, come anywhere near what the basic personal amount and the lower tax brackets offer in savings to the 2nd earner.

          • Guest #1

            Next they will be taxing us on our "Home Production Income".

          • Mike T.

            and reeeeeeeeeeeach of the week goes to this post!

        • Andrew (not PorC)

          And of course, we know that this is moot, as this policy is a head fake and won't be implemented. We're going to have another election before it can be enacted.

          • madeyoulook

            Agreed.

  • john g

    Pretty bad, but not unprecedented. Paul Martin in 2006 campaigned on "doubling" his 5 year national child care program…except all he did was add on 5 additional years at the same funding to the original 5 years (i.e. he extended it…he didn't double it), meaning he was also promising something that would not take effect until after the next election.

    While I applaud the income splitting policy here, I'd say this promise is about as useful as Martin's was…which is to say, completely useless.

    • OriginalEmily1

      Except Martin's was already underway.

    • AT1

      I agree, JG, might be good policy for parents of young children, but it's next to useless to offer us goodies that may be several elections away.

    • Mike T.

      I can't support a child care program whose greatest beneficiaries would be households with a large, single income. They should find a way to spread the $ around more equitably.

      • madeyoulook

        It doesn't have to be all that large for there to be a benefit, only $50K can move over (so the really high income families have limited benefit and would not be the greatest beneficiaries), and double-income families together earning as much as a single-income family earns have already effectively split their income.

        I can support the program. The timing of it is what sucks.

        • Mike T.

          yeah but the two earner family split their income by having two split incomes. and 50K by itself is a full salary! Being able to move it from the highest tax bracket into the two lowest and gain another personal exemption is huge!

          there has to be a better way to spend the same amount on the same class of intended beneficiaries.

          • Mike T.

            oh wait, I just got it. It's NOT about treating parent's equally. It's about giving an advantage to families with one stay at home parent, the benefits of which will be greater as the other single RISES.

          • madeyoulook

            If "removing a disadvantage" equals "giving an advantage" in your mind, then you're definitely on a roll. In your mind.

          • Thwim

            On the other hand, families where one parent stays at home has less expenses and time taken up on the necessities of life. Child care being the primary one. So income splitting definitely does give an advantage to the one income family.

            The only way income splitting can be really a legitimate strategy is if we start taxing people the same way we tax corporations — on their net income.

          • Mike T.

            I find wasting money bothersome, is all. This plan has ridiculous inequities which should be rectified by a smarter plan.

  • Douglass

    I'll preface this by saying this tax program is designed for families like mine. I'm a stay at home mom with three kids and a husband who is the sole bread winner.

    Now that that's done, this is the stupidest tax plan I have ever heard of! In 5 years we will help you out??? Really? What a load! The help I could use today? Affordable childcare! I watched the perfect job posting go by last week, a dream job really. Still when I crunched the numbers I would not be able to afford the childcare. I am home because I cannot afford to work. Their tax splitting does nothing to help people like me. It does nothing to help make it easier to go back to work! With our aging population, do they really want to encourage more of us to stay home, unemployed?

    Is this their vision for the future? That woman should be barefoot and pregnant?

    • madeyoulook

      In 5 years we will help you out??? Really? What a load!
      But the Economic Action! Plan put new tiles in the employee bathroom at the Canada Revenue Agency's regional audit office, and there's a sign in front to prove it! Priorities, Douglass. Priorities!

      Still when I crunched the numbers I would not be able to afford the childcare. I am home because I cannot afford to work… Is this their vision for the future? That woman should be barefoot and pregnant?
      Encouraging the option of one spouse staying home is not evil, and the taxpayer does not owe you subsidized childcare to make your life easier as you seek a job. The tax splitting does will, if anyone remembers this in five years, help your family, unless you find a job that pays so well it can at least cover the extra wardrobe, the commuting, the childcare, etc. In which case, congratulations, take the job. But taking a lowish-paying job away from someone else while feeling entitled to making other taxpayers going halfsies on your daycare is a moral participation in society, how, exactly?

      • Andrew (not PorC)

        A better use of the $2.5 billion would be to increase the National Child Benefit. This would be fair to all families, and allow them to decide whether they use it for child care or to help one spouse stay at home. and would not create a disincentive to work as this policy does. Why do only those families with a stay at home spouse deserve a break?

        • madeyoulook

          Fair enough on the Child Benefit alternative. But where is today's announcement a DISincentive to work?

          Families with a stay at home spouse deserve a break because for years families with a stay at home spouse have been paying a penalty. You can mistakenly yell out the "barefoot and pregnant" canard all you like, but if you truly cannot see the historical penalty for single-earner, two-parent families, I guess I cannot help you much further.

      • Mike T.

        Encouraging the option of one spouse staying home is not evil

        ***

        Spending extra money on it for its own sake is bad policy, however. Funny how choice has suddenly gone out the window as the CPC watchword!

        • madeyoulook

          Choice out the window? Hello?

          • Mike T.

            think back, wayyyyyy back…..

      • Douglass

        I don't know MYL, but I think there is an economic benefit to getting more women into the workforce. It's all about the economy, isn't it? Subsidized childcare allows more productive and skilled employees into the workforce. Aren't all those thing currently in high demand, what with the boomers retiring?

        Keeping work skills, and your resume fresh is also a very important part of a keeping a personal identity. It is entirely encouraged with good reason for woman to stay independent, and not be entirely financially dependent on a spouse. Certainly you can't be saying that we should go unemployed if we're not making the big bucks.

        • madeyoulook

          I wish I could see how your mind reads that I am saying "we should go unemployed if we're not making the big bucks." What I am saying is that if a job is so low-paying that it actually costs more to a family (once additional expenses are taken into account) than the second spouse staying home, it is beyond stupid for your fellow taxpayers to be forced to subsidize your economically non-viable choice.

          If productive and skilled employees are in high demand, then the wages offered should rise to reflect that. And Boom! The market has just offered an incentive for couples to weight their decision a bit more towards two jobs.

          And I still have not seen the requested link that proves this mild tax relief for families with a single breadwinner is a misogynist plot hatched by the barefoot-and-pregnant crowd. Your own toxic imagination should not try to influence public policy. Reality should. And reality of public policy is "spouse," not "wife."

          • Douglass

            You seem to be under the mistaken impression that when one has been off work for years raising young children that said person (granted, not always wife) is able to jump back into a high level, high paying position. We're not talking maternity time off here, but unemployment. That blank spot in a resume costs something. You start at a lower position, or at a lower wage. The lower paying, barely break even job is a foot in the door, and should not be discounted by those like yourself that feel we should stay home if we can't make a higher earning.

            This pie-in-the-sky policy announcement does nothing to help drive our economy. It seems more reflective of their ideal social policies. That is where I get the impression that they are trying to keep me barefoot and pregnant. I don't have a link for you, nor do I need one. It's my personal opinion. Which you shouldn't discount so quickly. As noted above, I'm their target market with this announcement.

          • madeyoulook

            So think a little: If you really want to preserve your position because it's a high level and it pays well, don't take the time off! See how easy that is? And look: absolutely nothing changes for you!

            If you are willing to let a little income-splitting tax break convince you to act so much against your own economic interests ("oh, those naughty neo-cons, look how they are forcing me to stay barefoot and pregnant!"), maybe you should look in the mirror when it comes to looking at the source of poor life choices.

            But I believe you are smarter than that. I believe you are quite capable of weighing all the benefits and costs of the two choices, and figuring out what is best for you and your family. It seems you may not be willing to believe this next part, but I believe other Canadians are just as capable of weighing all the benefits and costs of the two choices, too, and of figuring out what is best for their families.

          • Andrew (notPorC)

            Nonetheless, this is subsidizing stay-at-home parenting at the expense of dual-income families and single parent families.

          • madeyoulook

            No. It is reducing the tax burden of stay-at-home parent families in lieu of all other policy options that such forgone confiscated wealth could have offered.

          • Andrew (notPorC)

            This is why I don't really support subsidized child care. Increase the National Child Benefit and let the parents choose.

          • madeyoulook

            And fair enough. But that is even more of a "subsidy" of stay-at-home parenting than this tax measure would be.

    • Jan

      That appears to be what Harper wants you to do. Then when you're an elderly widow without a pension you will be criticized for not having planned for your 'retirement'.

      • Reverend_Blair

        In Harperland women only count as long as they are fertile.

        • madeyoulook

          I guess I missed the part where that evil woman-hating Harper denied the wife/mother the option of being the primary breadwinner. I will have to take your word for it that this was part of his platform. But a link would be appreciated.

  • McC_

    I still won't have a jet pack or a hover car though… stoopid future, I blame Queen Victoria.

    • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

      Ah, yes, Queen Victoria, that's your answer for everything! Tattoo it on your forehead!

      Your revolution is over, Mr McC_! Condolences, the colonists lost!

  • Andrew (not PorC)

    Terrible policy, great politics. Hooray for team stupid and cynical!

  • Reverend_Blair

    Maybe he's like that Vonnegut character who came loose in time?

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      Slaughterhouse V.

  • Reverend_Blair

    Just our Harper government (TM) trying to socially engineer us back to 1952.

  • tedbetts

    That's a policy platform hole big enough for a Liberal bus to drive through and Iggy already has.

    Corporate tax cuts for the most profitable corporations NOW; assistance for families LATER!!

    Nice campaign slogan Mr. Say Anything Steve.

  • tedbetts

    Except, even if he got the majority he covets, this plan is not guaranteed.

    He is promising a tax break for 2 elections from now.

    The corner he's painted himself into with this is – and note that I would love this policy, it is good policy for a change – that the Liberals are already highlighting the mega-billions he's spending on lots of other stuff including in particular tax cuts for corporations. So Harper is saying that families have to wait, because they are not as big a priority as corporations, military aircraft manufacturers and prisons. It plays right into the Liberal's framing.

    What is really odd, is that this is his chosen first policy announcement and it plays right into the Liberal's framing.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      I think there's some wishful thinking in that analysis. So far, Liberals haven't been able to frame anything except themselves in a box on coalition, election justification, and just about everything else. That could change, but I have to see it to believe it.

  • noob_goldberg

    This policy actually sparked my interest when I saw it announced elsewhere. Then I got past the lede and realized that my spouse will almost certainly be back at work by the time this takes effect.

    EDIT:

    We've been trying to make it on a single salary while the kids are young; it's really tough and this would have helped.

    But the timing is completely useless. I can support the policy, but it certainly doesn't make my vote a slam dunk. Many of the couples who would benefit most don't yet have any kids (or are only thinking about it) so they don't know how valuable this would be to them. Certainly it wouldn't be a huge vote changer for the younger crowd.

    By delaying the implementation they managed to almost completely neuter the political benefits of this policy suggestion.

    • Mike T.

      If we already had national affordable daycare, this would be OK. In the current situation, it's only sensble to distribute money roughly equally, or claw it back at higher incomes.

      • AT1

        "national affordable daycare"

        Who's proposing that? If you mean something akin to Quebec's $7/day plan (total provincial cost $2.5B), a comparale national plan would cost approximately $10B.

        • auntie-em-m

          The daycare policy negotiated by PM Martin involved the provinces and indigenous nations, too. Of course, The harper Government TM cannot be relied on to negotiate … not in their DNA.

          A new government would better deal with health care shared costs, too. That agreement expires soon.

      • noob_goldberg

        I can appreciate that, Mike T. This is certainly not an unbiased policy, and there are probably policy tools that would be more balanced. Perhaps another party will raise those later in the campaign?

        • Mike T.

          "Do it better, do it now!"

  • Jan

    By then Harper will be buying aircraft carriers and setting up military bases around the world.

  • tedbetts

    Just focusing on the tactics of this, I'm very surprised by the Conservatives. I like the policy but they've bungled this badly.

    It fits perfectly within the framing the Liberals were trying to build up. Billions and billions for corporations NOW. Billions and billions for prisons NOW (even though crime is going down). Billions and billions for military aircraft. Billions for G20 photo ops. Oh, but you families, if you elect me to a majority and then elect me to a second majority, then I'll see what I can do for you… maybe… if I get this deficit I created out of the way. But you and this policy are really really important to me, honest, nevermind that I haven't done anything about it since the last 3 times I promised this or that I didn't do anything about it in the last budget.

    And that is his very first policy announcement?

    • Jan

      You think it's easy to set priorities?

  • Proud canadian

    POLICY ALERT! Tories do not own the rights to our government. They are not the only party that can legislate when in power. They all can! and my vote goes to a party with compassion. Something dearly lacking in the tory fold as witnessed in this announcement. there's always a catch with the Tories!!! Unatainable promises.

Newer Comments →

Previous

Next

From Macleans