Income splitting helps fewer than 1 in 6 families, PBO says

income plitting is one of the best ideas out there. I don't care if it 'only' helps that many people, my wife and I do not have kids so all your dam 'kids tax benefits' don't mean shit to us..

With no kids, what does your wife do all day, eat bon bons? ie Do you earn so much more than your wife that splitting makes a big difference in the taxes you pay? The closer your two incomes are, the less splitting makes a diff. If you're both in the same tax bracket, it makes no diff at all.

what do you care? overall this is a sound and good policy people may not be in the position to benefit right now, but one day they will. My wife and I have a 5 year age difference so there will be a time when she will likely still be working and I will not be.

Allowing people to keep their money isn't a "cost" to government.

WEll, then, let's just eliminate taxes all together, since it doesn't cost the government (what government) anything. Wee hooo, free lunch.

current-events-f59/sam-brownback-s-kansas-experiment-putting-the-voodoo-back-t111983.html

Fixed that for you!

When I made that exact proposal I recall you opposed it because you see taxes as a means of using government power to engineer society into an egalitarian paradise where everyone is lowered to the least common denominator.

I'm not advocating for no taxes but let's stop referring to people keeping more of their money as a 'cost' to government.

When you give back something that's not yours, it's not a cost.

Of course it's a cost. The govt needs the money to function. The more they give back the less there is for government needs. Pretty simple really.

Read the link I provided on how well it works out to drastically cut taxes. We're running into the same dilemma, where education is squeezed, healthcare is squeezed, infrastructure is allowed to deteriorate, we can't fund the military or coast guard properly etc.

considering income tax was only supposed to be a 'short term measure' to fund the war, I think they have had enough of mine.

an on average %40 tax bracket is enough to make anyone choke, I pay more than my fair share...

You're waging an ideological argument, not a factual argument.

That fact is, for accounting purposes, whether you are a business or a government or a charity or a private citizen, deciding to take in less income is a cost. It is a cost that must be balanced out somewhere.

Typical leftard thinking.

You do realise that when we have more money, we spend it! Tax cuts or reductions don't mean automatically lead to lower revenues.

We're not drastically cutting taxes.

Since you're having problems with English language comprehension again I am providing this valuable service to you:



A reduction in income is not a cost.

Incorrect.

For accounting purposes, revenue is not a cost...nor is a a dip in revenue a cost to that business.