Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Boom, Bust and Consolidation November 9, 2018
    The five largest bitumen-extractive corporations in Canada control 79.3 per cent of Canada’s productive capacity of bitumen. The Big Five—Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Husky Energy—collectively control 90 per cent of existing bitumen upgrading capacity and are positioned to dominate Canada’s future oil sands development. In a sense they […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • A new Director for CCPA's BC Office: Message from Mary Childs, Board Chair October 24, 2018
    The CCPA-BC Board of Directors is delighted to share the news that Shannon Daub will be the next BC Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Last spring, Seth Klein announced that, after 22 years, he would be stepping down as founding Director of the CCPA-BC at the end of 2018. The CCPA-BC’s board […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Who Owns Canada’s Fossil-Fuel Sector? October 15, 2018
    The major investors in Canada’s fossil-fuel sector have high stakes in maintaining business as usual rather than addressing the industry’s serious climate issues, says a new Corporate Mapping Project study.  And as alarms ring over our continued dependence on natural gas, coal and oil, these investors have both an interest in the continued growth of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Pharmacare consensus principles released today September 24, 2018
    A diverse coalition representing health care providers, non-profit organizations, workers, seniors, patients and academics has come together to issue a statement of consensus principles for the establishment of National Pharmacare in Canada. Our coalition believes that National Pharmacare should be a seamless extension of the existing universal health care system in Canada, which covers medically […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice September 19, 2018
    The CCPA is pleased to announce the creation of the Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice.This Fellowship is created to honour the legacy of senior researcher Kate McInturff who passed away in July 2018. Kate was a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research and achieved national acclaim for researching, writing, and producing CCPA’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Distributional impact of Tory Income Splitting

I recently posted on the CCPA’s “Making it Count” blog covering election 2011 issues. In that post, I calculated the distributional impacts of the “Family Tax Cut” proposed by the Conservatives that would allow couples with children under 18yrs old to split up to $50,000 of their income. The “Making it Count” post is meant for popular consumption, but I figured readers might be interested in the full shebang so below is a more complete breakdown of who would benefit from the “Family Tax Cut” and by how much.

You’ll note that my estimates put the total cost at $2.7 billlion slightly higher than the Conservatives at $2.5 billion but the most important piece is how strongly the distribution of benefits skews to the wealthiest families.

(Click on thumbnail to see the full table)Distributional Impact


Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from Iglika Ivanova
Time: April 1, 2011, 9:40 am

Wow.

Nice work, David. What dataset did you use for this?

Comment from David Macdonald
Time: April 1, 2011, 9:44 am

Largely the census data for the number of families. As for distribution of household earnings the Library of Parliament study on income distribution was useful. From there I constructed a simplified tax model to calculate before and after savings.

Comment from Joan
Time: April 1, 2011, 3:00 pm

What is also very interesting is the source of this bizarre policy to come into effect if and when the budget is balanced. Yesterday I heard a spokesperson from that most religious, right, American of institutions, the Council for Marriage and Families, state that he has been advocating this for the 5 years since it has been welcomed into Canada by our most religious, right government. This is very concerning, especially as, if given a majority, this particular group will be given ever more influence on the way our country is governed.

Comment from Kathleen Lahey
Time: April 3, 2011, 1:23 pm

Joan — See my comment in the Apr. 2 2010 Ottawa Citizen on the genealogy of income splitting in Canada. The Institute on Marriage and the Family Canada is just the tip of the iceberg. They plus Harper plus Mintz have created the claim of a ‘movement’ in support of this issue; in reality, this is just an old Reformer dream. (Of Harper’s?)

Comment from Angela Browne
Time: April 4, 2011, 12:42 pm

… and even if the shoe were on the other foot and my husband were the sole earner, I would not be staying at home, as nobody gave me any kind of financial guarantee for my marriage. Something can happen to him and we are both S-O-L, or he can decide to trade me in for a newer model, while I stayed home most of the time and thus, no job skills … I grew up in a household like that. My father earned great money and my mom stayed home; they divorced when I was eight, and she spent several years in poverty until she was able to finally secure a job in the civil service. A policy like this encouraged and aids and abets child poverty in the future, and is certainly not acceptable to me.

Write a comment





Related articles