THIS MAGAZINE: BECAUSE EVERTHING IS POLITICAL

Search for:

• FEATURES
• THIS & THAT
• ARTS & IDEAS
• FICTION & POETRY
• LETTERS
• BLOG THIS
•  
• SUBSCRIBE
• BACK ISSUES
• SUPPORT THIS
•  
• ABOUT THIS
• CONTRIBUTORS
• CONTACT THIS
• ADVERTISE
• SITE MAP

Home » Blog This

September 24, 2008

If only I had someone to split my income with

Posted by Melita Kuburas at 11:50 AM ET

There needs to be more debate on the issue of income splitting this election. Conservatives have flirted with the idea in years past, and Stephen Harper promised last week he would allow income splitting in homes where one person stays home to care for a family member with a disability. Jack Layton was quick to blast the announcement, giving us an idea of his official stance on the issue.

Meanwhile, the Greens are outright supporting the taxing method, as stated in Part 4 of their vision, aptly titled: People: "It will allow one spouse to work from home in growing a garden, in developing artistic talents, in writing for perilously low income."

Even though income splitting is allowed in many industrialized countries, including the United States (since 1948), France, Germany and Switzerland, Canada remains opposed. The big split would allow couples to pool their income and bring the breadwinner into a lower tax bracket, potentially saving them thousands of dollars per year. It's criticized for being of little to no benefit to lower-income earners, while potentially costing the government up to $5 billion a year.

Some think throwing his support behind income-splitting would give Stephane Dion more pull with the middle-class, family-oriented voters, however apart from musing over his position last year, he hasn't turned pro yet.

In this in-depth CBC feature from 2006 (which also explains in what capacity Canadians are able to employ the income split), then-independent (now Liberal) MP Garth Turner is cited for his support, saying it is "a tacit acknowledgment that the family, and not the individual, is the basic unit of the economy." The argument is further explained in the feature: Why should a family where both partners earn $40,000 pay $3,500 less tax than a family where one earner makes $80,000 and the other stays home?

More entries on: Election 2008

Previous: Long Live the Election Lawn Sign
Next: Arts cuts and "ordinary people"

---

Reader comments:

---

Post your own comment:

Name:

Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

---

 Subscribe to the feed

---

Blog This Must-Reads

---

---

---

Blog This Archives

May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
March 2000

---