Comments on: Open mike 12/12/2009

By: Olwyn

Olwyn — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:30:27 +0000

Yes, the figures alone suggested that few would be helped. As to the rest of what you say, I couldn’t agree more.

By: prism

prism — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:14:03 +0000

Anne Else: A fair adjectival cow
This article on Scoop has some really good background about the cow stall matter.

By: mickysavage

mickysavage — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:46:54 +0000

“Balance” means putting idiocy next to reasoned conclusions.

By: prism

prism — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:19:57 +0000

Olwyn – the point stands that income splitting for tax purposes can mean pressure to stay home for ever for the lower earning partner.
The trouble is that since the 1970′s the role and practices of parenthood have been downgraded in people’s and the government’s minds. This has been replaced by a desire to get mothers of young children out to paid work, to raise GDP and fuel the consumer bubble we have just had.
All this time we are crying out about the children poorly brought up, or stressed out by too many goals, or spoiled by indulgent wealthy parents with goods but no guidance. If parenting was properly supported and educated offered, with results of good socialised, children happy in themselves achieving their potential it would be great. But just bringing in split taxation won’t do that.

By: Marty G

Marty G — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:59:33 +0000

nice brainless comment there gitmo

By: Bill

Bill — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 05:52:50 +0000

“The Climate justice newspaper is produced every two days during the Copenhagen climate talks, reporting and decoding what is going on both inside and outside the climate negotiations. Find out what is really going on behind the media headlines.”

http://www.tni.org/briefing/newspaper-climate-chronicle

By: Olwyn

Olwyn — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:55:03 +0000

I stand corrected – it is true I had not thought the tax thing through properly.

By: gitmo

gitmo — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:31:13 +0000

More like worthless, fruitless or pointless

By: wtl

wtl — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:04:05 +0000

$40000 and $3000 are in the same tax brackets

By: Lanthanide

Lanthanide — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:01:30 +0000

Yes, that is an argument. However in the example you have given, the tax difference between the two cases ($40k + $20k and $30k + $30k) amounts to only a measly $120/year saving: the couple would pay $10,960 tax for the first case and $10,840 in the latter. So you forgo $20k in gross income in return for a $120 tax savings?

So again, the biggest beneficiaries of this tax change will be those on the highest incomes. Of course this makes sense mathematically, because what this tax change is doing is taking a portion of income that would have been taxed at a high rate and taxing it at a lower rate instead.

By: outofbed

outofbed — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:26:53 +0000

Cost to get from London to Copenhagen by train? £480 (approx $1000)

Cost to get from London to Copenhagen by plane? £18 (approx $40)

Cost of a binding Agreement at Copenhagen? Priceless

By: Olwyn

Olwyn — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 01:05:03 +0000

I am far from being Peter Dunne’s greatest fan but: Lanthanide, wouldn’t tax splitting give the couple on $40,000 each greater flexibility, so that one of them (and not necessarily the woman) would be more free to work part time and then pay tax on $30,000 each? And prism, don’t high incomes mean more choice anyway? Hence you might choose to continue a loved career for little material gain – your household income already being high this move will not drive you to penury, it will merely be comparatively less remunerative than it otherwise would have been. You people seem to be taking an odd view of feminism – that it is somehow not fair if a parent who prefers to stay home and care for young children is not punished economically for doing so.

By: Lanthanide

Lanthanide — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:29:11 +0000

Clearly Peter Dunne is more interested in women staying home to look after the kids.

By: prism

prism — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 00:03:37 +0000

Tax/income splitting also has an affect on women’s chances for paid work. It can be disadvantageous for the main income earner who is earning well to have some tax advantage taken away if the other partner, usually wife, wants to work.

It can make women especially married to high-income husbands, more dependent and unable to transition into the work environment when their children are older. There is a respect given and felt when being an income-earner in one’s own right.

By: Lanthanide

Lanthanide — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:54:19 +0000

Also, here’s an example of why this is very much favourable to high income earners:

Suppose you have both parents earning $40k year, doing full time work. This means there is no one at home to look after the kids when they come home from school at 3pm, and mornings could be a bit of a rush to get the kids off to school and the parents to work at the same time, and all the other things that come as a result of having 2 full time parents. A family like this would receive no benefit from the tax change.

On the other hand, a family with a stay-at-home mum and a father earning $80k a year will have the tax split to become $40k each and hence a tax savings. This family would now pay the same tax as the first family, but they would also have the stay-at-home mum to look after the kids.

Now this second family arguably had a much easier time than the first family in terms of raising the children, but the tax policy as it is implemented will give help to the second family and no help at all to the first family. Seems a bit backwards.