Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Wading into an ideological tar pit

One mildy diverting alternative to watching snow melt this half-spring is the spectacle of Stephen Harper`s Tories boiling in the juices of ill-conceived pandering, smug short-sightedness and manic, caustic nostalgia.

One mildy diverting alternative to watching snow melt this half-spring is the spectacle of Stephen Harper`s Tories boiling in the juices of ill-conceived pandering, smug short-sightedness and manic, caustic nostalgia.

The source of their distress is income splitting, a cheque written to the Conservatives' hard-c base the prime minister`s pasty political posterior shouldn't cash. It`s a cherished notion of certain portions of the right, up there with free guns for the right people and prayers to creationism in schools. The Tories campaigned extensively on income splitting in 2011 - "We will soon be in a position," the party platform exulted, "to take an historic [sic] step forward to achieve greater fairness for families," said Andrew Coyne on the Conservative doctrine.

But in February, according to the Globe and Mail, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty wondered aloud about the wisdom of a policy that benefits a few Canadian households a lot and others "not at all." Discomfort followed for Harper, the Tories; Flaherty followed, out the door and into private life. Both Harper and social-conservative darling Jason Kenney made soothing noises about how peachy an income-split Canada would be; now all anybody asks Flaherty's successor, the more appropriately orthodox Joe Oliver, is will-he-or-won't-he on income splitting.

Now, to hear some Tories talk, the issue is fairness: according to Jason Heath, under Canadian tax law, a two-income family in Ontario where both parents earn $50,000 pays around $17,388 in income tax; the same family where one parent earned $100,000, pays around $26,440. To fix this aching inequity, the Tories would allow the second family, if it had kids under the age of 18, to share up to $50,000 of income for tax purposes, thus taking them to a lower tax bracket and allowing them to pay less tax.

There is an idle debate to be had here - isn't the tax system supposed to be unfair, i.e. progressive, in the higher contributions of higher wage earners; didn't the parents who both earn $50,000 effectively work harder, in arranging child care, commuting, stress, for every dollar the single wage earner makes? But that's the kind of ideological tar pit in which the Tories love to fight; in simpler terms, according to various pundits, media outlets, think tanks, economists, etc., income splitting is just terrible policy. Under the plan, the richest fifteen per cent of Canadian families would receive around $1,100-$5,000 in tax breaks; the remaining 85 per cent get nothing.

The cost of this absurd exercise: around $3 billion.

The only families that seem to benefit from income splitting would be: Celine Dion's, if she moved back to Canada; Noah's, if he sold the ark and the animals; and Harper's, if he remains prime minister. The fairness argument suffers when one considers representatives of the Tory government are currently in federal court arguing vehemently that Canada has no special obligation to help veterans or Harper's Mother Hubbard approach to First Nations; even if income splitting rights a wrong, it's not exactly prominent on the list of historical or current injustices Canada must address. Regardless, frittering away $3 billion on a Grey Poupon tax cut when so many more pressing needs come to mind - infrastructure, affordable housing, health care - isn't just perverse economic policy but speaks to a government bereft of the imagination, care, and common sense required to run the country.

So why even entertain it? Income splitting speaks to the coal-fired, iron-clad Victorian paternalism that lurks at the core of modern Canadian Conservatives and the need to use government as a fantasy vehicle to journey to halycon days. One Conservative pundit, Lawrence Solomon, argued income splitting would encourage marriage, meaning "fewer women... would be abandoned singles, fewer... men would be footloose and irresponsible"; Jason Kenney said the scheme will benefit 'stable' families. It's a view that conjures up a mythical Canadian family - a Leave it to Beaver clan with one hefty income, a house and a stay-at-home mom - that insults the reality most Canadians face, of divource, of debt, of living paycheque to paycheque, of being in love but being unable to marry.

The problem is the Tory base, the hard-c social conservatives, have been given precious little red meat to chew on. They could excuse Harper for his minority government and have been somewhat sated by the death of the gun registry and a Liberal war in Afghanistan. But on a host of cultural fronts - abortion, same-sex marriage- they've seen precious little to be energized about. Income splitting and its accompanying fantasy of supporting so-called traditional families would seem to be the perfect right-wing sop.

According to CTV News, after Flaherty spoke, Parliament broke for two weeks, during which MPs allegedly heard from party faithful adamant the income splitting promise be fulfilled. Shortly after, Harper, said it would be "good policy." The prime minister no doubt realizes how flawed income splitting is - but there's also no doubt he'll spend $3 billion to keep his most loyal supporters rabid and happy.