Well, boys n girls, Jason Kenney, still feverishly defending 2011 Harpercon election promise of income splitting for wealthier families, now says that it will help “stable” families.
“All of the social research indicates that folks who come from stable families tend to do better in terms of their economic prospects, and income-splitting supports families who are investing in their kids,” the federal employment minister said.
On the surface, this may seem reasonable, but this is Jason Kenney, Socon darling of the Harpercons here. Also, he does not cite any particular study, but one has to assume it does not come from any experts, but rather, some socon outfit. It is also a given that this income splitting scheme that was promised in 2011 only benefits a small margin of Canadians that even Jimbo Flaherty admitted while expressing misgivings of this undertaking. 86% of families would not benefit — not single parents, families where both parents work nor even less affluent families with a single income. We all knew this. However, after reading Jason Kenney’s blatherings in the Huffington Post last night, I’ve found his reasoning disturbing.
For openers, Jason, what in your warped world constitutes a “stable” family? Only an affluent single income couple? A single parent cannot be stable? A family where both parents work cannot be stable? Or even a lower single income family cannot be stable? Is that it, Jason? Furthermore, Jason, do these families, the majority, I just mentioned, not “invest” in their children? Presumably, same sex couples raising children would also not be beneficiaries. Again, Jason, are they not “stable” families?
By now, we all know that one Harpercon way is to go back to where the wimmin folk all are at home, barefoot and pregnant and that is about all they contribute to society. Jason Kenney is parroting this.
He claims that ‘all kinds of families’ do benefit from his boss’s government, bragging about that 100$ per month child benefit. Given that 100$ per month goes nowhere these days, what choices do most families really have? A national day care program is needed and if those Harpercons really cared about families, that is, all families and not a small percentage of them, projects like that, would be more helpful. With a family that is struggling with stability, that is, struggling to meet their children’s basic needs, that 100$ per month really does not go far at all.
Another thing would be more money for low income housing. The reason most families struggle is the cost of housing, which for many, is half their monthly revenue.
“Everyone agrees that we want to give every kid the best possible opportunity in life and we should be supporting families who are making sacrifices to help their kids,” he said. “Income-splitting doesn’t benefit any particular family model; what it does is eliminate a form of unfairness.”
Again, Jason, don’t most families make sacrifices for their children? Or is it only affluent single income households? Also, I think we’ve already established that your party’s income splitting scheme would not eliminate any form of unfairness. Your colleague, Jimbo Flaherty, who really cannot be accused of being fair to average Canadians, said as much. And yes, even right winged think tanks like the CD Howe group have come out swinging against it.
Stevie Spiteful is now on record as supporting this income splitting scheme, again.
While income splitting would benefit only a small percentage of families to the tune of 1,300$ tax credit, the rest of us would be left holding the 2.7 billion$ price tag. Tell me, Jason, how is this “fair”?