International Family Childcare Association -

Queen’s Park Bureau Chief

VANCOUVER–The New Democrats will today unveil an ambitious new $17 billion child benefit plan that will pay families up to $400 a month per child, sources told the Star.

NDP Leader Jack Layton will announce the cornerstone pledge of his Oct. 14 election campaign when he launches the party’s platform this afternoon in Toronto.

Under the plan, which expands the $100-a-month “baby bonus” program the Conservatives introduced in 2006, every Canadian family would receive a monthly cheque.

Sources said the scheme “gives everyone a raise.”

“(But) families who are most in need will receive greatest increased benefit.”

Families with a household income of $38,000 or less would receive $400 a month per child.

Those earning less than $188,000 a household would get $250 a month per child.

And families making more than $188,000 a year would receive $100 a month per child.

Unlike the current Tory “universal child care benefit” policy, the money wouldn’t be taxed.

Also, the eligibility threshold would be extended from the existing cut-off when a child turns 6 to 18 years old.

“It’s to help every family,” said a senior New Democrat yesterday, adding parents need financial help for child care long after kids are 6.

“This will help with everything from daycare to hockey (fees).”

When fully phased in by 2012, it should cost $17 billion a year – up from the $13 billion the Conservatives spend on various child benefits, including tax credits and the monthly baby bonus.

Layton was coy when asked about his platform yesterday after a rally with more than 600 raucous supporters at the historic Commodore Ballroom.

“I’m very excited about the platform that we’re releasing. It’s balanced. It’s really going to offer a very different choice for Canadians,” he said.

“We’ve made a commitment that every year the budget needs to be balanced and that’s the record we would take.”

Big-ticket items in the NDP platform will be funded by the planned cancellation of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s $50 billion in corporate tax cuts.

By offering “mainstream” policies designed to appeal to a wide swath of the Canadian electorate, Layton believes he can supplant the Liberals as the viable progressive alternative to the Conservatives.

The NDP leader is tied with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion at 21 per cent apiece in the latest Star-Angus Reid poll, well behind Harper at 40 per cent.

However, New Democrats believe they have the momentum – they claim the Liberals are tanking and the Tories have reached a plateau.

Layton has been drawing large crowds on this four-day swing through British Columbia, where the NDP holds 10 of 36 seats and hopes to pick up several more as a result of a collapsing Liberal vote here.

On Wednesday in Kamloops, 400 people packed a town-hall meeting at Thompson Rivers University. A similar forum in Victoria on Thursday also attracted 400 people.

He said the enthusiastic audiences are because “people are taking a deeper look” at the NDP.

“I think that people are coming to the conclusion that there isn’t just the same old set of choices and they’re opening their door to the idea that maybe there isn’t just one party that has the entitlement to perpetually be the alternate to the Conservatives,” said Layton.

“I think that’s because we’ve seen many years of problems. Some of the same problems that we talk about today emerged, as I’ve often said, over the past 25 years, not just the past 25 months.”

Here is a Nice offer!!

Roy Green was doing a one hour radio show on AM900 CMHL Sunday Sept 14 at 4pm EST.
This show was regarding childcare and the 2008 election. Roy featured, Yvonne Coupal, Helen Ward, Michelle Olson and Sara Landriault as guest panels discussing childcare.

Each of us run our own group and/or association but most of all we are all mothers.

Click here for more info
(I will like all of your sites to your names)
Yvonne Coupal
Helen Ward
Michelle Olson
Sara Landriault

During the show Helen Ward, President of Kids First Canada explained how she called each of the political parties to discuss their policies in childcare.

On Sept 12, 2008 mid afternoon Helen called,

Conservative Party
In which they did not respond to Helen’s phone call

Liberal Party
The Liberal representative explained their childcare views politely and professionally to Helen. Though Helen does not agree with the Liberal childcare plan, she is grateful for the respect they have given to her.

Green Party
Helen had a long indepth conversation regarding childcare policies in which the Green showed interest in expanding their minimal childcare policy already in place.

NDP Party
Helen discussed in length with Ian Capstick the importance of the NDP acknowledging parental care in all of its form through childcare.
At one point Helen Ward stated “every mother is a working mother”
Ian Capstick, who is the press secretary to Jack Layton leader of the NDP, slammed back at Helen with a sharp tone “THAT IS POPPY COCK AND YOU KNOW IT!”.

Well you have it all now folks, beer and popcorn has been bumped and poppy cock leads the way!

I spoke with Helen Ward and she was flabbergasted that the NDP would even have such an opinion on motherhood in that form.
Helen emphasized to Ian Capstick that she personally supports many other NDP’s policies and has been raised in an NDP family environment.

Helen also said this after our conversation,

“The purpose of our advocating is to generate discussion about the issue. Is every mother a working mother, and does childcare include parental care?”

Feel free to email Ian Capstick
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

New Democrat Campaign Headquarters:
Ian Capstick
Senior Campaign Press Secretary
613-720-6400
ian@ndp.ca

My personal view,

Just because you do not belong to a union or bring home the bacon, does not mean you do not work. EVERY MOTHER AND FATHER ARE WORKING PARENTS!

Stephane Dion

Liberal Party

Conservatives repeat lies on child care cheques

ISSUE:

After being challenged by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to end his campaign of “piling lies upon lies,” Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party launched more attack ads claiming Mr. Dion would eliminate the Universal Child Care Benefit.

REALITY:

Stéphane Dion has repeatedly said that he will not eliminate the $1,200 child care benefit. This is clearly a matter of public record and Liberals even released an official statement clarifying this in unequivocal language before the Conservatives launched their ads. And yet, Stephen Harper is repeating these baseless fabrications.

Universal Child Care Benefit

* While Mr. Dion has criticized Mr. Harper for cancelling billions in child care funding agreements with the provinces and breaking his promise to create child care spaces, the Liberal leader has never committed to ending or reducing the Universal Child Care Benefit. Period.

“The leader has not said at all that the $1,200 [a year] now being given to parents would be taken away….We don’t want to take it away.”

(Liberal Social Development Critic, Ruby Dhalla, National Post, March 26, 2007)

* Liberals will maintain this benefit and will augment it with real support to create quality child care spaces.

WHAT DION SAID

The Conservatives hand their whole claim that Dion would cancel child care cheques based on Mr. Dion’s response in a 2006 interview with the National Post before Mr. Dion was elected as Liberal leader. Here is the full exchange:

National Post: Would you cancel the Tory daycare plan? What would you replace it with?

Stéphane Dion: Yes. The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It’s a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home. (National Post, October 21, 2006)

REALITY

The question is not specifically about the $1,200 benefit. Mr. Dion is asked about Mr. Harper’s child care plan in general, including the cancellation of Liberal child care agreements with all 10 provinces, and his failed plan to create 125,000 child care spaces.

However, Liberals have repeatedly pointed out, cheques alone are not child care.

Further, since becoming leader, Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party have been clear that we will not take away the $1,200 family child care allowance. The Liberal Party will in fact add a new refundable tax credit worth $350 per child per year and will invest to create more child care spaces for Canadians.

In addition, the Liberal Party has committed to increasing the National Child Care Benefit Supplement and creating a new Guaranteed Family Supplement worth up to $1,225 per child for lower-income families.

The Conservatives broke their promise to Canadian families that they would create 25,000 new spaces annually.

The Liberal Party opposed the Conservatives’ slashing $750 million in annual investments in child care spaces.

And yes, while keeping the cheques, Liberals do intend to replace the Conservative plan to create child care spaces, because their plan didn’t work.

Choice in Childcare opinion,

So here it is, Dion wants to up the Universal Childcare benefit about $300 a year and put more money into daycare spaces. This money will not go to the parents it will go to the daycare workers.

Why would sending money to the daycare workers be the only way to create daycare spaces?
When accountants, lawyers etc… go to University do they have a guarantee of a government well paid, benefits, and union backed job?

Paying the daycare workers directly is for the comfort of the daycare employment, not the children.
One style daycare does not fit all children.
Send the money to the parents to make a true choice in childcare.

Stephen Harper

Conservative

Many families struggle with the cost of child care. For 13 years, Liberals promised but never delivered new child care spaces. Conservatives are giving parents choice in childcare – direct support to fit each family’s unique needs – and investing in new child care spaces.

Conservatives are building a stronger, safer, better Canada for families and children.

The Conservative Record

Delivered choice and support to parents through the Universal Child Care Benefit: $1,200 per year in direct support for every child under six – over $3.7 billion in 2006 and 2007 to help parents with the cost of child care
Invested $250 million per year to assist the provinces and territories in creating new child care spaces

The Liberal Record

For 13 years, Liberals promised new child care spaces but never delivered.
Liberals oppose the new $1,200 Universal Child Care Benefit and have promised to take it away from thousands of families.
Liberals voted against $250 million per year for the provinces to create new child care spaces.

The NDP Record

New Democrats joined the Liberals in opposing the 2006 and 2007 budgets including the Universal Child Care Benefit and $250 million per year for new child care spaces.
The NDP plan for child care puts interest groups, bureaucrats, and politicians ahead of parents when it comes to federal funding assistance.

The Bloc Record

The Bloc talks a lot about child care. But what can they actually do other than talk? With the BLOC, we can’t achieve anything.

For Canadians, the choice is clear: strong leadership and the real support with the Conservatives or weak leadership and no support with the Liberals.

Choice in Childcare opinion,

Nothing new.

No Income Splitting, no tax breaks for parents at home… nothing new

Remember,

Parents at home at paying up to 42% higher taxes than the double income families, this included single parents!
Parents at home are only eligible for tax breaks if they use outside sources for childcare.

In the 2006 election I specifically said $100 was better than nothing the Liberals were offering. Well today we are being offered nothing from both sides.

Only the rich are allowed to income split,
Some of you may have read my article about “Why do I have to divorce to Income Split?”, well below explains why I would have to die or become very rich to income split.
These laws are for Ontario as well as Canada in the tax revenue, please ask your local MP one question next time you email/phone he or she, “Why are only specific Canadians allowed to Income Split?”

Dentists

1. The Corporation would be taxed at a much lower rate and personal taxes would be deferred on retained earnings until paid out from the Corporation in dividends, salaries or bonuses.

2. Persons other than the dentist (usually family members and/or a family trust) are not prohibited from owning shares of corporations that deliver non-dental services. Therefore, the income could be taxed in the hands of persons other than the dentist, often resulting in substantial reductions in overall taxes (i. e. income splitting).

3. Selling shares of a small business corporation may qualify for taxfree treatment whereas the sale of an unincorporated business does not. Ancillary corporations could allow a dentist to lower the total tax paid on the sale of a practice.

General

Q. I have a question regarding tax implications on investment accounts.

I currently have a non-registered investment account under my name only. My spouse and I have joint bank accounts. If I were to add my spouse’s name to my investment account and make it a joint account, who can or has to report the capital gains or loss and at what percentage?

- Terence C.

A. In general, from the Canada Revenue Agency standpoint, any asset can be registered jointly for legal ownership. However for income tax purposes, CRA considers who the beneficial owner of the asset is, as opposed to the legal owner.

Generally the split for capital gains, capital losses and other income (interest, dividends) would be in the proportion of funds that each spouse has contributed to the account.

In the case of a joint bank account, you might want to factor the income earned by each of you and split accordingly.

Death Estates

2. Income Splitting. Since individuals are taxed at progressive tax rates, a family trust is an ideal mechanism for high income earners to reduce their annual tax liability by transferring income to persons taxed at a lower, marginal rate. Generally, people think of minor children as the ideal beneficiaries under a discretionary family trust as they generally have little or no income. However, low income earning spouses, dependent parents, adult children and other individuals are also common beneficiaries named in discretionary family trusts. By transferring income through a discretionary family trust to a low income beneficiary, a substantial tax saving is possible.

Physicians

How Can You Income Split with a PC

Physicians are allowed to split income with other family members, such as a spouse, parents, children and trusts for minor children. The income splitting is achieved by having the family members own non-voting shares of the PC that can receive dividends as determined by the physician. Dividends are taxed more favourably than other types of income. An individual with no other income can receive up to approximately $30,000 of dividends tax-free. Dividends can be paid most tax-efficiently to family members who do not have significant other income.

What Factors do you need to Consider when setting up the Share Structure:

It is extremely important that the share structure of the PC be set up with advance planning at the outset, in consideration of the following:

1. Flexibility for changing circumstances of family members;
2. Flexibility to pay dividends to whatever family members are selected each year by the physician;
3. Ensuring that the physician retains complete control of the PC;
4. Allowing the physician to cancel the shares of family members if the circumstances warrant (i.e. marital problems);
5. Establishment at the time of incorporation of multiple classes of shares, so there is a separate class for each family member (allowing complete flexibility as to dividends payable to each family member); and
6. Establishing special classes of shares to be issued to the physician on the transfer of goodwill and other assets relating to the practice, such as equipment.

Professional Corporations

(b) Professional Corporations

Prior to 2001, only a handful of professionals (such as engineers) were permitted to incorporate their practices. In 2001 the majority of professions were given this similar right – but it came with restrictions. There are two major restrictions. The first restriction is that a “shareholder” in a professional corporation does not have limited liability like a shareholder in a “regular” corporation – at least for professional liability. Thus, if a law firm becomes a professional corporation, the shareholders will be protected from claims by their landlord for the failure to pay the rent for the offices, but they will not be protected from claims for negligence in providing legal advice. The second restriction is that the shareholders of a professional corporation are restricted to members of the applicable profession. Thus, for example, a professional corporation established by several accountants is restricted to having only the accountants as shareholders. One of the large advantages of corporations is the possibility for what is known as an “income split”. Suppose Timmy makes $50,000 in salary from TimCo. If Timmy is married with two children, he may be able to make his wife and children shareholders of TimCo and pay the same $50,000 to himself and his family with the result that the tax paid by the four family members will be less than the tax Timmy would have to pay if he received the full $50,000. (It should be mentioned, of course, that the Canada Revenue Agency does not like income splitting and uses what are called “attribution rules” to negate such attempts. However, with careful tax planning by one’s accountant, even a minor income split may produce significant results.) Under the current rules for professional corporations, if Timmy was a social worker, he would not be able to effect an income split with his family unless they were all social workers. However, an important exception to this rule came into place in 2005 which permitted physicians and surgeons and dentists to have family members (ie. spouse and children) as shareholders of professional corporations – so there is hope that this will someday be extended to all other professional corporations. At the moment, the primary persons who would consider professional corporations are: accountants, audiologists, chiropodists, chiropractors, dental hygenists, dental surgeons, dental technologists, denturists, dieticians, lawyers, massage therapists, medical laboratory technologists, medical radiation technologists, midwives, nurses, occupational therapists, opticians, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians and surgeons, physiotherapists, psychologists, respiratory therapists, social workers, social service workers, speech language pathologists, and veterinarians.

National Family Childcare Association

NEWS RELEASE

May 20, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Private Members Bill C542 – Family fair policies!

Ottawa— The National Family Childcare Associations Private Members Bill
C-542 will be a beginning to supporting all families in times of stress
caused by financial disadvantages through our unfriendly tax system.

“Bill C-542 is created to put the needs of our sick children first and
that is what the NFCA is all about.” explained Sara Landriault,
president the NFCA. “It is great to see a movement towards putting our
children first rather than leaving them with crumbs left over from our
bureaucracy”

Private Members Bill C-542 was created by Gord Brown Leeds- Grenville MP
of the Conservative Party.
Bill C-542 is designed to change the labour code to enhance benefits for
parents with gravely ill children.
This bill will ease the parent’s financial burden while they struggle to
save their child’s life mentally and physically. Bill C542 will allow
parental leave to care for a sick child.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3478372&Language=e&Mode=1&File=36#4

The introduction of the Private Members Bill C-542 is a necessary
vehicle for families caring for sick children. Up to now, these families
have struggled to save for their children’s future under the burden of
medical and related costs. Unfortunately, they face such a huge cost
burden compared to many other parents. In some cases these families will
not have home for their sick children to return to after treatment.

“I’ve heard about a mother who spent 2 hours a day in the hospital with
her sick child and left him alone after that. Who could be so heartless
to not be with their child during this critical time, I thought. Well,
this mother was a single mother with no family around and had the threat
of losing her job if she took any time off work. So yah I think twice
now about who the heartless ones truly are”, says
Sara Landriault stay at home mom of 3.

Sharon Ruth and Fiona McKenney have started a movement for sick kids in
Leeds Grenville and would like to see National support for our
children’s needs. Both Sharon and Fiona are passionate and experienced
in advocating for this issue due to the fact they have surviving
children of cancer. The NFCA strongly throws all support into helping
Sharon, Fionna and any other parents of sick children across Canada to
create policy change on a Federal level.

The National Family Childcare Association is a grassroots movement
fighting to bring about policy change that will allow all families the
opportunity and the means to care for their children in a way that fits
their life.
–30–
Further information contact:
Sara Landriault, President
National Family Childcare Association

landriault@ripnet.com

NATIONAL FAMILY CHILDCARE ASSOCIATION

JOB POSTING

As you know Canada lacks in support of stay at home parents, we are fully discriminated against in the tax system and degraded among our peers due to pressure from the governments to release our children to non-profit daycare. The non-profit daycare claim through studies and union funding that non-profit daycare is higher quality than a stay at home parents.
The NFCA feels it is time that we are all equally respected but unfortunately we have no champion. Female MP’s are only dictating childcare as a non-profit daycare, and other MP’s do not believe that stay at home parents are a necessity in Canada’s economic growth. The NFCA is strongly searching for an MP who will stand up and be our CHAMPION.

Wanted:

Position:
Champion of Stay at home parents!

Qualifications:

Standing Member of Parliament

Either opposition or in government

Location:

Canada

Overall responsibility:

* Publicly demand equality for stay at home parents
* Make speeches in the house of commons regarding stay at home parents equality
* Support income splitting, vouchers and tax credits for stay at home parents
* Policy alternatives to childcare to include all children
* Giving parents a shoulder to cry on.

Duties:

* Media and public relations
* Federal & Provincial relations
* Changing diapers, walking in parks and some cooking

Please send resumes to landriault@ripnet.com or phone 613-720-6609 if you are qualified for this position.

All resumes will be accepted but do to limited time of a stay at home mom, not all applicants will be called back.
–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com
613-720-6609

Call to pay parents to stay at home

Parents should be paid to stay at home and look after their children instead of being forced to return to work, a headteachers’ leader has said.

The current benefits system “entraps” vulnerable families and leaves schools and nurseries to bring up children, according to Clarissa Williams, the new president of the National Association of Head Teachers.

She said it was “chilling” that ministers felt it necessary to produce a “strategy” for play as children had become little more than percentages counting towards Government targets.

Speaking at the NAHT’s annual conference in Liverpool, Ms Williams said she had written to Gordon Brown calling for reforms to the benefits system to allow more parents to stay at home.

“There is a paradox between the current benefits culture which entraps the vulnerable, whilst insisting that all young mothers should find a job, leaving schools and other agencies to bring up the children,” she said.

“Why do we feel the need to send children into an educational environment at the age of two?

“Are parents so distrusted that we want to separate them from their children at the earliest opportunity?”

Ms Williams said “real communication” takes place “at home” around the dinner table, without the distractions of television and video games.

“In my letters to the PM I suggested a more creative approach to the benefits system - one which provides incentives for changing the deficit model of child-rearing; one based on rewarding parents who spend quality time with their children reading and talking to them and turning up to support their children’s schools.”

The NFCA has sent Teacher Associations across Canada this plea,

Press Release by the National Head Teachers Association from the UK

{Parents should be paid to stay at home and look after their children instead of being forced to return to work, a headteachers’ leader has said.
The current benefits system “entraps” vulnerable families and leaves schools and nurseries to bring up children, according to Clarissa Williams, the new president of the National Association of Head Teachers.
She said it was “chilling” that ministers felt it necessary to produce a “strategy” for play as children had become little more than percentages counting towards Government targets.
Speaking at the NAHT’s annual conference in Liverpool, Ms Williams said she had written to Gordon Brown calling for reforms to the benefits system to allow more parents to stay at home.
“There is a paradox between the current benefits culture which entraps the vulnerable, whilst insisting that all young mothers should find a job, leaving schools and other agencies to bring up the children,” she said.
“Why do we feel the need to send children into an educational environment at the age of two?
“Are parents so distrusted that we want to separate them from their children at the earliest opportunity?”
Ms Williams said “real communication” takes place “at home” around the dinner table, without the distractions of television and video games.
“In my letters to the PM I suggested a more creative approach to the benefits system - one which provides incentives for changing the deficit model of child-rearing; one based on rewarding parents who spend quality time with their children reading and talking to them and turning up to support their children’s schools.”}

The National Family Childcare Association wishes to extend its appreciation to the Head Teachers Association in the UK for promoting the advancement of paying parents to childcare their own children.
Canada seems to be behind the times, and many advocates accuse women who are at home with their own children of being a bad influence on the economic society of Canada, we at the NFCA believe that parental choice in childcare is a truly progressive concept for the 21st century around the world.

The National Family Childcare Association would like to invite all teachers associations to join our affiliation and help fight for parents at home as well as daycare situations.
If we pool our resources we may be able achieve goals for all childcare across Canada (please see attached release).

Please contact us for more information.

–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association

Special needs kids may be forced into foster care

Updated Fri. May. 2 2008 9:26 AM ET

ctvwinnipeg.ca

Government infighting has families in a northern Manitoba community in anguish about how to best care for their children.

The Norway House Cree Nation has told the families of children with special needs that they may be forced to give up their children because the First Nation can no longer pay for their care, and federal and provincial governments can’t agree on who should pay.

For mother Crystal Hart, it means she may have to say good-bye to her daughter, Priscilla.

“I want her to get the services that she can get,” she said while wiping tears from her eyes.

Priscilla Hart has Ritscher-Schinzel Syndrome. She can’t speak or eat and needs to be fed through a tube. She requires constant care from a respite worker who looks after Priscilla when her parents go to work.

The Norway House Cree Nation has been paying for those services, which are required by 37 children on the reserve.

However, the band said the money has run out and the services will end May 31.

“Bureaucracy is what you call a nightmare, I guess,” said band councillor Mike Muswagon. “Trying to get what you can for your community and for your people.”

Muswagon said the First Nation has been fighting for funding from the province and the federal government for years. He said each side argues the other should pay for Status Indian children.

Jordan River Anderson

It’s a familiar story. In 2005, the community rallied around another sick child named Jordan River Anderson.

Jordan spent the first part of his life hooked up to machines in a Winnipeg hospital. When he was two years old, doctors were ready to send him to a medical foster home, but for two years provincial and federal government officials argued over who should pay for it. They couldn’t even decide who would cover the cost of a special showerhead he needed.

Jordan never left the hospital and eventually died in February, 2005. He was five years old.

In December, Members of Parliament in Ottawa vowed never to let that happen again. They unanimously voted in favour of a private members motion called Jordan’s Principle; children should come first when it comes to funding disputes.

On December 12, 2007, Minister of Health Tony Clement wrote this letter of support:

“Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is working closely with Health Canada as well as provincial and First Nations partners to ensure that jurisdictional issues do not impact a child’s quality of care. Governments need to work together to see that First Nations and Inuit children have access to the same services available to other children.”

Native children ’short-changed’

Charlene Ducharme works with the Kinosao Sipi Minisowin Agency, a social agency on the reserve, and said she has yet to see Jordan’s Principle in action. She said the children of Norway House deserve the same care that other Manitoba children get.

“Our premier said Manitoba would be the first one to implement Jordan’s Principle… we’re still waiting.”

In an interview with CTV News, Manitoba Health Minister Keri Irvin Ross said the provincial government is not required to pay for the children’s care. “These issues are a federal responsibility,” she said. “We need to make sure the federal government is held accountable for it, but we are committed to supporting this community and these children.”

But not with any funding. Irvin Ross said the provincial government is offering its support by working with the Norway House Cree Nation in its negotiations with Ottawa. Irvin Ross said the fact that the provincial government is at the negotiating table is “new ground”, and is a signal of its support for Jordan’s Principle. She said the federal government has yet to respond to numerous letters requesting its involvement in finding a solution.

CTV News contacted Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In an email, Senior Communications Advisor Patricia Valladao said “I was informed that we’ve recently met with our partners including the province on this matter, and we’re working diligently to respond on an urgent basis. We will be meeting with the First Nation very soon.”

Neither the federal or provincial response is very reassuring for the Harts. Little Priscilla’s parents said they may quit their jobs to care for her. They said they’ll find a way to make it work and keep their family together.

With a report from CTV’s Caroline Barghou

Split income, not hairs

Families with the same income should be taxed the same. So why do critics try to write off income splitting?

Peter Shawn Taylor, Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 03, 2008

British jurist Lord Bowen once said defining equity reminded him of “a blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat which isn’t there.” Why so difficult? Because people keep messing with what equity means. Just consider the current debate on income splitting in Canada.

This week economist Jonathan Kesselman weighed in on the topic for The Globe and Mail, recapping a paper he wrote in February for the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Kesselman’s answer to whether it’s fair to allow spouses to split labour income for tax purposes is a firm no. But to get to there, he must define equity in a way that most people should find surprising. And his preference for contradictory conclusions opens up the tax system to even greater chaos. All this to argue against what even he admits is a wildly popular idea for reducing taxes on Canadian families.

Income splitting allows a couple to pool their earnings for tax purposes. While the tax system uses family income as the basis for awarding numerous social benefits — and while it seems obvious that households are the basic decision-making unit in an economy –married Canadians have always filed taxes as individuals. This quirk creates issues of equity.

The archetypal income-splitting example involves two families with identical incomes. Family A has one earner making $80,000 a year. Family B has two earners making $40,000 each. Both households have the same income, but Family A will pay thousands more in tax, thanks to Canada’s progressive tax structure. Supporters of income splitting argue this is unfair since it violates the principle of horizontal equity. Two families with identical incomes should face identical levels of tax. Seems simple. Not for Kesselman.

Our scholar argues these two families are vastly unequal. The family with two earners is much poorer than the one with a stay-at-home spouse, he claims. That second job entails more spending on transportation, clothing, dry-cleaning and take-out food. If children are involved, the two-earner family must shell out for child care, while the other family gets it free. All this adds up to substantial savings for the one-earner family. Says Kesselman: “If horizontal equity is to be judged by real living standards, one cannot compare two-earner couples and one-earner couples with the same money income.”

Kesselman ignores the many ways in which the tax system already recognizes the extra costs of the two-income family. The $7,000 child care expenses deduction, for instance, only compensates families for child care costs when both parents work and is mentioned nowhere in his report. At-home parents face real costs as well, including forgone earnings. But his broader point is far more interesting: Kesselman argues that since one-income families have a more pleasant lifestyle

than two-income families, they deserve to pay more taxes. He’s probably right with the first half of this assumption. The attraction of a less-stressed life is undoubtedly the reason why income splitting is so popular. Polls typically show support in the 75% range, a phenomenal level for an allegedly controversial notion.

But claiming that two families with the same income should not be equal in the eyes of the tax system creates some worrying implications. The Canada Revenue Agency uses income as its basis for applying taxes because it’s a dispassionate standard that everyone can agree on. If we abandon this and instead apply taxes on “real living standards,” how will anyone ever see eye to eye on equity? And why just focus on who’s getting home-baked cookies and free daycare? Dropping income as the basis for taxation opens up a host of new and exciting opportunities for the Canada Revenue Agency. Life in balmy Victoria easily rates higher on a lifestyle scale than snowy Sudbury, Ont. So tax that West Coast slacker more!

In fact, Kesselman has in mind a far broader tax revolution than most people could possibly imagine. He would prefer to tax everyone’s potential income as a way of bypassing actual income and getting directly at their lifestyle choices. Those lucky stay-at-home parents would thus have to cough up for the work they aren’t doing because they’re home looking after the kids. Allowing governments to get their share of income you don’t earn is his “economic ideal.”

Further confusing his outlook, Kesselman supports splitting pension income and investment income, which benefit the elderly and the wealthy, but not labour income, which has the biggest appeal for middle-class working Canadians. He obsesses over picayune issue of gender equity, ignoring the fact that the most vocal supporters of income splitting tend to be women. And he curiously accepts the notion of income splitting in cases where one spouse drops out of the workforce to assist the career of the other. The political wife is thus deserving of a tax break, the at-home mom is not.

To be fair, Kesselman provides a handy summary of the current debate, as well as a nice historical summary of the tax treatment of families in Canada and other countries. And his point that income splitting could lead to a reduction in the female labour supply is both correct and important. If we are going to have a discussion on the merits of income splitting, this should be the contentious issue: Does society have a stake in keeping women in the workforce or should we allow families to make their own decisions on labour supply without bias from the tax system? But twisting the definition of equal and plotting ways to tax lifestyles rather than earnings are of little use to Canadian public policy and will no nothing to staunch the popularity of income splitting.

-Peter Shawn Taylor is editor-at-large, Maclean’s magazine.

Sara Landriault , President of the National Family Childcare Association was able to attend a photo opportunity with Prime Minister Harper on Feb 12th.
The NFCA would like to thank the PMO’s for the opportunity!