(Quotes are included in their original language)
“It’s my wife’s birthday next month, and I have a great idea for a present. I’m going to give her a trip to Bora Bora. There’s a slight hitch, though, in that we will not go until we have eliminated our household debt. And put aside a little money for the children’s education. Plus I need some new golf clubs. But after those things are sorted out — I’ll start with the golf clubs, and hopefully knock the other things off in four years or so — then it’s off to the South Pacific. She might be thrilled with this gift, but more likely she will have me sleeping on the couch. Substitute “my wife” for “the Canadian taxpayer” and you have the essence of the promise from Conservative leader Stephen Harper on Monday, who introduced a Family Tax Cut designed to allow couples with dependent children to split their income between them for tax purposes… Except the tax cut won’t kick in until the budget is balanced, which is presently scheduled to happen four years from now. That is, if the government’s rosy projections prove true.”(Postdated pledges — Don’t try this at home, Scott Stinson, National Post, March 28, 2011)
« L’annonce faite lundi par Stephen Harper illustre à la perfection la philosophie de son gouvernement en matière de fiscalité des particuliers. (On est en droit de se demander si elle verra le jour puisqu’il attendra le retour à l’équilibre budgétaire en 2015 pour la mettre en oeuvre. Qui sait combien d’élections auront lieu d’ici là.) » (Papa n’a pas raison, Manon Comellier, Le Devoir, le 30 mars 2011)
“Tantalizing voters with the prospect of a tax break in 2016 is a waste of time, and likely to upset the very constituency the Tories are hoping to court: middle income families with preschool children.” (National Post Editorial board, March 30, 2011)
« Comme première promesse électorale, celle-là est plutôt inusitée: Stephen Harper s’engage à baisser les impôts des familles… dans trois ou quatre ans! … Déjà que les électeurs se méfient des promesses électorales, si, en plus, vous repoussez leur réalisation dans trois ou quatre ans… Et encore, cela dépendra de la santé économique du gouvernement du Canada. » (Votez maintenant, payez moins plus tard (peut-être), Le Blogue de Vinceent Marissal, Cyberpress.ca, le 28 Mars 2011).
“Low income people are not going to benefit at all. At all. Period… To give this (tax break) that will just benefit such a limited set of families and such a relatively privileged set of families, it just seems wrong.” (Frances Woolley, Carleton University economist, Canadian Press, March 30, 2011)
« En apparence sensée et séduisante, cette mesure pourrait avoir des effets pervers. En premier lieu, elle profiterait davantage aux familles aisées. Par exemple… une famille où un conjoint gagne 40 000$ et l’autre est sans revenu ne tirerait aucun bénéfice. Deuxièmement, plusieurs pensent qu’une telle mesure aurait pour effet d’inciter les femmes à rester à la maison. En effet, la conjointe d’un homme dont le salaire est relativement élevé pénaliserait le ménage si elle entrait sur le marché du travail. Non seulement les femmes seraient désavantagées mais la pénurie de main-d’oeuvre appréhendée pourrait être aggravée. La promesse des conservateurs soulève une question fondamentale et difficile à trancher: l’État devrait-il aider seulement les femmes qui travaillent à l’extérieur, par exemple en subventionnant les garderies? Ou devrait-il venir en aide à toutes les familles, peu importe comment les conjoints se partagent les tâches? » (Le temps d’y penser, André Pratte, La Presse, le 30 mars 2011)
“The Conservatives’ news release says it will happen when the budget is balanced, within our next full term of office. That line alone contains two big “ifs”: if the budget can be balanced in the next four years, and if the Conservatives win a full term, in other words, a majority. So why promise it now?” (Diana Swain, CBC’s The National, March 28, 2011)
“Who will benefit from $2.2-billion or more in giveaways? Single parents certainly won’t. Single parents account for almost one in five families with young children (19 per cent), and have the highest rate of poverty in Canada. Single parents have the most difficulty making ends meet precisely because there isn’t a second income earner in the family. Income splitting means nothing for them. Most two-parent families won’t benefit from income splitting either. They just can’t afford to keep one earner at home.” (Income splitting won’t help families in need, Armine Yalnizyan, Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Globe and Mail, March 28, 2011)
« Mais voilà, cela n’aurait pas permis aux conservateurs d’afficher leur préjugé favorable envers les mères au foyer, comme l’a fait l’annonce de cette semaine. Cette proposition de fractionnement du revenu aux fins d’impôt profitera d’abord aux familles où un des deux parents ne travaille pas et où l’autre gagne un revenu élevé. Les femmes risquent d’en faire les frais… Pour cela, Ottawa dépenserait 2,5 milliards par année sans qu’un cent aille aux familles monoparentales ou à celles dont les deux parents travaillent et gagnent un salaire à peu près équivalent. » (Papa n’a pas raison, Manon Comellier, Le Devoir, le 30 mars 2011)
“Low-income families who pay little in taxes, for example, would see little or no benefit, even if only one spouse was working. … Families with two working parents with similar incomes — both working for $40,000 per year, for example — would also not benefit in any way. Their taxes would be unchanged.” (Times Colonist, March 28, 2011)
“First of all, it was presented in a very misleading and factually-incorrect way. The basic premise for this proposal is being described as parents… are being treated as if they were just roommates and there’s no recognition of the mutual expenses of raising a family. This is simply not true… It’s being presented as if this is something that’s going to benefit all parents all across the country and nothing could be further from the truth. This is really traditionally only available to parents who can afford to live on one income that is large enough to support the whole family and that’s already a minority of parents. It’s also racially-exclusive, demographically a very narrow category of parents.” (Kathleen Leahy, Queen’s University, CBC’s Lang and O’Leary Exchange, March 28, 2011)
