A new report shows 86% of Canadian families will find nothing to be gained from the Conservative government’s long-promised plan to allow some of them to split their incomeDynamic (Income) for tax purposes.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives says it looked at the potential impact of income splitting in three scenarios: on pensions, for those families with children under 18, and for all families across the board.
The left-leaning think tank says the impact in all three cases is very unequal, while the cost to Canadian governments would be substantial.
Senior economist David Macdonald says income-splitting for families with minor children would cost Ottawa $3 billion in lost revenue and another $1.9 billion provincially. He adds it wouldn’t help the middle class either, since the top third of Canada’s richest families would receive $3 of every $4 spent on income splitting.
Macdonald says seven out of ten senior families get no benefit at all from pension income splitting, while the richest 10% of senior families receive more than the bottom 70% combined.
“Income splitting creates a tax loophole big enough to drive a Rolls Royce through,” Macdonald says. “It’s pitched as a program for the middle class but in reality it’s an expensive tax gift for the rich.”
The report estimates pension income splitting — which was implemented in 2007 — will cost about $1.7 billion in 2015. Income-splitting to all families would cost about $11.8 billion.
University of Calgary economist Jack Mintz has argued the current tax system is unfair because it penalizes single-earner families with higher tax rates than those faced by couples bringing hope the same amount of total pay. But he says reforms should also recognize that single-earner families have some advantages that dual earners do not, such as more unpaid time spent raising children and taking care of the home.
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has promised to balance the books and post a surplus in 2015, just before Canadians go to the polls. The money would help them deliver on previous campaign promises, such as partial income splitting for families.
They pitched the idea in the 2011 federal election campaign, saying they would allow individuals to transfer up to $50,000 to a spouse as long as they had at least one dependent child under 18.
However, since the measure would cost billions every year in foregone tax revenue, the Conservatives say they would not implement the measures until the federal deficit was eliminated.
Any surplus money would be better spent providing universal child care or help lift seniors out of poverty, Macdonald says. “Income splitting is a policy choice that would purposely exacerbate already high income inequality in Canada. This is inequality by design, not by accident.”
Others say income-splitting makes a lot of sense, as long as it is accompanied by other measures so that the benefits would be shared by all kinds of families.
MORE EQUITY INCOME.
Dynamic’s Equity Income team introduces four new funds designed to take advantage of opportunities in the U.S. and around the world to help deliver the income your clients need.
LEARN MORE >>>