Thanks for your question.
There are many ways to do income splitting. In the United States they have tax brackets, so the wealthy do pay more than the poor. That helps address some of that concern you have about a windfall for the rich. The other suggestion has been to put a cap on it, so it would not be available for people above a certain income or for households above a certain income, I suppose. The other is that you make it voluntary. I suppose that might help a little bit.
It's seems to me that maybe there's a misperception that income splitting is for the single-income family. Income splitting is for all families, most of which are dual-income. If you earn only a little bit of money and someone else you are living with earns a lot more money, you're actually probably living at the same living standard because you share the same home. So it's ridiculous to not treat you as if you are partners. Currently, the tax law treats you as an earner and a useless dependant, if you have no income, or an earner and a lot less worthy person. The psychological message of income splitting is that you're equal, you're sharing, you're partners. You're not dependent on each other, you're interdependent. So it's a big, powerful message of women's equality. That's one point.
I think, too, when you look at it as what it would cost the government, that's a very financial way of looking at something that is basically, as Ms. Lysack points out, an investment. If you are able to recognize caregiving—and that's one way to do it—you're saving billions of dollars in the health care system. You're keeping some of the handicapped in their own homes and able to get loving care and keeping children, teenagers, for example, off the streets and maybe reducing your criminal justice costs.
So to look at it as only a cost is not the whole picture, I think.