Are Conservatives using tax policy to push for traditional families?

The Conservatives laid the groundwork on Tuesday to extend income splitting for married and common-law couples, with confirmation in the economic and fiscal update that a balanced budget is coming in 2015.

During the 2011 election, Stephen Harper pledged that once the federal budget was balanced, parents with children under 18 would be allowed to split up to $50,000 of income with their partner. This means that some additional income could be declared for tax purposes by the spouse in the lower tax bracket, reducing the overall taxes paid by the couple.
 
But dig into the details, and the policy is a one-two punch for conservatives.
 
First, the initiative will cost Canadians billions of dollars. For conservatives who want to starve the public treasury so there's less money to invest in public services, spending surpluses on tax cuts is pure gold.
 
Second, social conservatives love the idea because they hope it encourages women to stay at home and take care of the kids. You know, just like the perfect middle-class family from the 1950s. It amounts to a tax policy that discourages mothers from entering, returning to or remaining in the workforce.
 
That's why the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, the research arm of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family Canada, is doing its part to promote what is expected to be the Conservatives' big-ticket promise for the 2015 election campaign. The Manning Centre, whose senior staff includes Dave Quist, the former executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, will likely promote the idea at every turn.
 
Let's take a closer look at this "family-friendly" idea.
 
The largest share of the benefit would go to high-income families where one partner is in the top tax bracket and the other has no earned income (think Leave it to Beaver). The Conservative approach to income splitting would provide no benefit at all to single-parent families – even though more than a quarter (28%) of all children live in single-parent families. The same holds true for families where both partners work and have incomes below $43,561.
 

In other words, income-splitting provides zero relief to families with children who are most in need, including those who live in poverty. Rather, what it does is transfer more of the tax burden onto single-parent families and lower- and middle-income families. It promises to exacerbate – not reduce – existing income and gender inequality.

Maybe that's the point.

Photo: erjkrpunczky. Used under a Creative Commons BY 2.0 licence.

Time yet to revisit mandatory minimums?

Tuesday was not a good day for the Conservative government's so-called "tough on crime" agenda.

Ontario's highest court ruled that a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for possessing a loaded prohibited gun, a key part of the government's 2008 omnibus bill, is unconstitutional.

This would be a good time for the Conservative government to re-read this brief from the John Howard Society about why mandatory minimums for gun-related offences are bad public policy, exacerbate racial bias, and are potentially unconstitutional.

And to prepare for what's likely to come from the courts about the government's mandatory minimums for drug-related charges, the Conservatives should re-watch this:

//www.youtube.com/embed/HA12sqAvPoU

Photo: YouTube

Workers hitting back at Wal-Mart

 

Why not prosecute executives for white-collar crime?

 

DFO cuts not just fishy... they stink!

 

Philippine delegate on hunger strike, pleas for climate action

 

"It's business that really rules us now"

 

Harper versus Harper: the Senate edition

It’s Senate week at the Supreme Court of Canada. The judges are hearing arguments about Senate reform and how Canada could go about getting rid of the whole thing.

After seven years in power, the Conservative government kick started the process earlier this year, when it sent reference questions to the top court, just as the Senate spending scandal was about to heat up.

What better time to review what Stephen Harper has had to say about the upper chamber over the years -- and what he has done since becoming Prime Minister.

 

1993


That was then: "I don’t think they really stand for any kind of viewpoint, other than the viewpoint of die-hard appointed hacks representing the incompetent former government." (18 November, 1993)

This is now: Speaking of die-hard appointed hacks, Harper has appointed his fair share of party bagmen, former staffers and failed candidates to the Senate. They include Irving Gerstein, Carolyn Stewart Olsen and Larry Smith.

 

 

2004


That was then: "I will not name appointed people to the Senate. Anyone who sits in the Parliament of Canada must be elected by the people they represent." (14 March, 2004)

This is now: Harper has made 59 appointments to the Senate since 2006.

 

 

2005


That was then: "An appointed Senate is a relic of the 19th century." (15 December, 2005)

This is now: Still true in 2013.

 

 

2006

That was then: "Cabinet positions should only be filled from the ranks of elected parliamentarians." (12 January, 2006)

This is now: Harper named Senator Marjory Lebreton to his Cabinet in 2006. Lebreton, a party hack appointed to the Senate back in 1993 by Brian Mulroney before he was swept out of power, stepped down from Cabinet this past July, one day after she was interviewed by the RCMP about the ongoing Senate scandal. Harper's appointment of Michael Fortier to the Senate after the 2006 election for the sole purpose of appointing him to Cabinet was even more egregious. Fortier ran Harper’s leadership campaign for the new Conservative Party in 2003 and served as co-chair of the national campaign in 2006. Prior to the 2008 election, Fortier resigned from the Senate to run for a Quebec seat in the House of Commons. He lost.



Harper

That was then: “I remain convinced the country deserves a reformed Senate, and an elected Senate for that matter, but the country needs the Senate to change, and if the Senate cannot be reformed, I think most Canadians will eventually conclude that it should be abolished.” (17 October, 2007)

This is now: It’s probably fair to say most Canadians have come to this conclusion, after the spectacle that has become the Canadian Senate. We can all thank Harper’s own appointees and the shaddy behaviour of the Prime Minister's Office in managing the scandal for this. After all, it's not the 19th century anymore.

In their own words: veterans talk about "back office" cuts

Watch this short video about the Conservative government's plan to shut down nine Veterans Affairs offices and try not to tear up.

//www.youtube.com/embed/YKuGWYFwfsU

Photo: PSAC

Income inequality and what to do about it

This week, the Globe and Mail launched an in-depth series on income inequality in Canada entitled the Wealth Paradox. The two-week series will investigate various negative impacts of inequality on the lives of Canadians, highlighting how and why unequal societies provide less opportunity, less social mobility and a blinkered democracy. 

This is an important – and long overdue – journalistic investment by the self-styled national paper of record, one worth checking out.   
 
Inequality has worsened in Canada as a result of political choices governments have made. But as the series points out, the trend can be reversed with other political choices.
 
The Globe puts forward several meaningful options, including making Canada's tax system fairer, investing in skills training, boosting support for the working poor and precarious workers, and investing in early childhood education. All worthwhile ideas.
 
Curiously missing from the list is a discussion of wages and labour rights. The Globe, like other mainstream outlets such as the Economist, duly identify the weakening of unions and the stagnation of wages as an important factor in rising inequality. Strengthening unions, collective bargaining rights and promoting a living wage for all ought to be added to the Globe's policy considerations.
 
There's no better time to talk about this, given the Harper government is girding for a fight with oganised labour over collective bargaining rights. The Conservative Party just adopted a series of radical policies at its convention that advocate optional union membership, an opt-out provision when it comes to paying for union activities, and so-called "right-to-work" legislation.
 
Inside the House of Commons, Conservatives are doing their part to advance the same agenda. One bill winding its ways through the legislative process would change the rules for forming and dissolving a union, making it harder to form one and allow a minority (45 per cent vote) to decertify one. Another bill, widely criticized as unconstitutional, seeks to silence unions to requiring every union and union local to post detailed financial reports.
 
You can't have a national conversation on income inequality without talking about this, because unions contribute an equalizing effect and help to create broad-based prosperity by successfully promoting fair wages, decent working conditions, social programs and public services that benefit all citizens – not just unionized workers.