Forum

Wealth Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Wealth Professional | 06 Nov 2014, 11:53 AM Agree 0
Justin Trudeau believes they’re only for the rich. Is he right?
  • Chris Nicola | 06 Nov 2014, 01:12 PM Agree 0
    The primary issue some of us have with income splitting is that it benefits a very specific subset of Canadian families, those where one person either doesn't work at all, or where there is a large difference between their incomes. Even the Conservatives can't seem to be bothered to explain why they have designed it this way, and we're all aware of their former finance minister's position on it.

    The new rules specifically exclude: childless couples, single parents and couples where both partners have similar paying jobs. On the other hand it doesn't exclude the wealthy in any way, it simply limits the benefit anyone can receive.

    I'm also not sure why it matters if the benefit is limited in size if, in the end, it is unfairly portioned out to only those Canadians who fit the Conservatives definition of a traditional family.
  • Will Ashworth | 06 Nov 2014, 02:47 PM Agree 0
    These are great comments.

    My wife and I are childless -- although we do have pets but I doubt they would ever count when it comes to income splitting.

    When speaking with a tax expert at Investors Group he admitted that these rules are discriminatory when it comes to couples without kids, etc.

    With less people having kids today it seems this would be an obvious group to appease.

    It's a politically charged issue for sure.
  • John Fries | 06 Nov 2014, 06:29 PM Agree 0
    Most programs benefit one group over another. I don't think that is a relative argument. If it is then all programs should be eliminated and we should go to a flat tax system. I will agree "rich people" should be excluded, and that could be simply done. Where do you define "rich"? Roughly 90% of Canadians earn less than $100,000 per year.
    I think it is a good benefit. My son, who has three small children, will be able to take advantage of this. His spouse cannot go back to work for the simple reason that child care expenses would eat up more than what her take home pay would be. By her staying home they do not have to tax child care facilities which are hard to access by already. Why shouldn't he be able to minimize the loss of her not working by being able to split his income? In any event, he only gets a maximum of $2000 tax credit, so it's not like a big windfall anyway. But the $2000 will help.
Post a reply