Stories

TFSAs & income splitting: Starving the beast or feeding the rich?

D’Arcy Jenish
March 31, 2015
Expect to hear a lot about taxes in the coming federal election. The ruling Conservatives will be flogging expanded TFSAs and family income splitting; the opposition parties will insist they only benefit the rich. The truth will be the first casualty of the election tax war, but in the long run Tory tax changes are going to provide some shelter for younger generations from the government debts, health costs and public sector pension liabilities racked up by the baby boomers. D’Arcy Jenish explains…
Stories

TFSAs & income splitting: Starving the beast or feeding the rich?

D’Arcy Jenish
March 31, 2015
Expect to hear a lot about taxes in the coming federal election. The ruling Conservatives will be flogging expanded TFSAs and family income splitting; the opposition parties will insist they only benefit the rich. The truth will be the first casualty of the election tax war, but in the long run Tory tax changes are going to provide some shelter for younger generations from the government debts, health costs and public sector pension liabilities racked up by the baby boomers. D’Arcy Jenish explains…
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

C2CJournal-Jenish

The federal government is expected to double contribution limits for Tax Free Savings Accounts from $5,500 to $11,000 in its April pre-election budget. No doubt it will be a central plank in the Conservative economic platform, touted as a great way for millions of “ordinary Canadians” to earn investment income without ever having to pay tax on it. Bundled with income splitting for seniors and families with children, enriched family and child care tax credits, and reminders of their two-point cut to the GST, you can expect to hear electioneering Tories crowing ad nauseum that thanks to them, the tax burden on Canadians “is the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

The Tories flogged this horse pretty successfully in the 2008 and 2011 elections, but the opposition parties and their allies think they have finally come up with a way to euthanize the old nag. Their election mantra is that the Tory tax cuts are a huge giveaway to “the rich” that won’t benefit the vast majority of the “middle class” at all.

Their cause got a boost recently from a Broadbent Institute report called Double Trouble: The Case Against Expanding The Tax Free Savings Account. The author, Simon Fraser University professor Rhys Kesselman, argued that the Harper government’s plan to double the contribution limits would cost Ottawa and the provinces billions of dollars in lost tax revenues, and almost all of it would wind up in the fat pockets of rich, older Canadians.

The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) weighed in on the subject in late February with a report that made essentially the same points. Then the PBO (a Tory creation they have increasing reason to regret) took aim at family income splitting, warning that it would cost the federal treasury $2.2 billion in 2015, versus the Department of Finance estimate of $1.9 billion, and disproportionately benefit the filthy rich.

The PBO says the measure will benefit just two million households, only 15 percent of the Canadian total, most of them in the middle to middle high income brackets. The government contends that when income-splitting is combined with its significant increases to the Universal Child Care Benefit, two-thirds of the benefits will flow to low and middle income families.

The truth of the matter will be the first casualty of the election campaign. But the bottom line is that the critics have worked themselves into a lather over very little.

Whether income-splitting costs the federal treasury $1.9 billion as the government says, or $2.2 billion as the PBO contends, it represents less than one percent of a budget approaching $300 billion a year. Even if Ottawa had an extra $2 billion to spend, few Canadians would notice the difference.

As for TFSAs, Prof. Kesselman and the PBO have a point about the wealthy. They have more money than most and therefore a greater capacity to save and invest. But the professor and the PBO are missing the bigger point: TFSAs have encouraged Canadians at all income levels to save, which can only be positive at a time when household debt has reached record levels.

Former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced the program in his 2008 budget and it came into effect on January 1, 2009. By 2012, contributions to TFSAs surpassed RRSP deposits for that year. By 2013, Canadians had opened an estimated 13 million TFSAs.

Research by the C.D. Howe Institute reveals that some 40 percent of Canadians over age 65 have TFSAs, but 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds are also contributing. More women than men have opened accounts, and mid- to low-income Canadians hold about half of them.

Moreover the critics are ignoring the long-term social and economic benefits of TFSAs and income-splitting. There is more to the issue of equity than this year’s winners and losers. Governments must also provide inter-generational balance. It is fundamentally fair and equitable to assist younger families, through such measures as TFSAs and income-splitting, because the baby boomers are starting to foist some substantial burdens upon their children and grandchildren.

For decades Ottawa and the provinces have routinely resorted to borrowing and budgetary deficits to finance current consumption. Each year’s deficits add to government debts and interest charges that will be paid by future taxpayers.

It is also a fact that Canada’s aging population is driving up the cost of our universal public pensions and health care programs. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, public health spending hit $215 billion in 2014, or 11 percent of GDP.

Canadian over the age of 65 represent 15 percent of the population but consume 45 percent of all public health care dollars. Furthermore, spending per patient increases with age. Those aged 65 to 69 consumed $6,368 per capita in 2014 while those aged 75 to 79 consumed $11,692 and beyond age 80 spending per person rose to $21,054.

Then there are public sector pension plans, many of which have unfunded liabilities which will have to be covered by the taxpayers of the future. According to a study by Ted Mallet, vice-president and chief economist with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, there are some 300 such plans in Canada, covering federal, provincial and territorial civil servants as well as employees in the broader public sector referred to as MUSH—municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals. Mallett put the unfunded liabilities at $300 billion or $9,000 per capita.

Unfunded public sector pension liabilities are a financial black hole, but when the bills come due they will be paid because no government, or municipality, university, school district or hospital for that matter, can afford to default on such obligations.

They will be paid by out of the budgets of the day by the taxpayers of the day – namely the children and grandchildren of the baby boomers. Is that fair? Hardly. That’s why TFSAs, income-splitting for young parents with children and other measures that assist the next generation in some small way are fundamentally fair and equitable.

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

The Housing Market Isn’t Racist. Blame Your Parents Instead

Diversity may be our strength. But it is now alarmingly commonplace in Canada to blame any perceived diversity in outcomes between racial groups on vaguely-defined “systemic racism” or “white supremacy”. Case in point: the Federal Housing Advocate’s allegations of rampant racism in Canada’s housing market, and the need to address it with outlandishly disruptive policies. Delving deep into Statistics Canada’s ample supply of race-based data, Peter Shawn Taylor considers the evidence for racism in Canadian housing, education, income and poverty statistics, and finds a more convincing explanation much closer to home.

Young Offenders: Meet the Angry Socialists Poisoning Our Politics

Social media is widely blamed for poisoning the public conversation on a range of topics – especially politics and contentious social questions. But there’s a possibly even more dangerous force growing on the internet: an online community of YouTubers and livestreamers spouting far-left dogma, praising political violence and denigrating their opponents as evil, far-right fascists. Using fallacious arguments, psychological manipulation and overheated rhetoric, they seek to radicalize young people and convert them to their cause. Millions are tuning in, and mainstream “progressive” politicians are jumping on their bandwagons. Noah Jarvis profiles three of these socialist crusaders and explains why they are such a threat.

The Worrisome Wave of Politicized Prosecutions

Shaping criminal charges, bail decisions or prison sentences around an accused person’s political or religious beliefs is utterly odious – a hallmark of tinpot tyrannies and totalitarian hellholes. Such practices have no place in any constitutional nation, let alone a mature democracy that presents itself as a model to the world. But that is increasingly the situation in Canada, writes Gwyn Morgan. Comparing the treatment of protesters accused of minor infractions to those of incorrigible criminals who maim and kill, Morgan finds a yawning mismatch that suggests political motivations are increasingly a factor in today’s criminal justice system.

More from this author

So much for the Peaceable Kingdom

Depending how they manage the federation, Canadian prime ministers have been variously described as headwaiters, cheerleaders, referees or dictators. The latter was often attached to Stephen Harper, the supposed autocrat who shunned first ministers’ meetings and allegedly ran roughshod over the provinces. But on his watch, especially compared to the tumult of the Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney eras, there was relative peace in the kingdom: Western alienation and Quebec nationalism both receded. It may be a tough act to follow for new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau – the self-described “referee” of the federation – who is already facing a nasty East-West divide over pipelines. D’Arcy Jenish explains.

The Coming State of Pot

Like it or not, marijuana decriminalization and probably legalization is coming. Prohibition is toppling like dominoes in U.S. states, the grey market in medicinal herb is flourishing in Vancouver and Justin Trudeau is promising a bud in every bowl. But if legalization means government regulation, taxation and monopolization from seed bed to storefront, a lot of stoners fear a major buzz kill. If we must go down this road, writes D’Arcy Jenish, it would far better to privatize the pot business than socialize it.

Share This Story

Donate

Subscribe to the C2C Weekly
It's Free!

* indicates required
Interests
By providing your email you consent to receive news and updates from C2C Journal. You may unsubscribe at any time.