Mr. Duclos, I want to respond to your comments about income splitting, and then have you respond in turn, if that's all right.
You raised the issue of simplicity, and I find this a little odd because many, if not most, countries in the western world have some form of income splitting, including France, Ireland, Germany, Poland, Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, and the United States. There are other examples. I think if they can figure it out, we can too. It's pretty simple: families that are making the same family income pay the same rate of taxes.
You said this doesn't help the worst-off. It was a tax fairness measure that was capped, you'll remember, at $2,000 in terms of the benefit it paid out, which ensured that the benefits were proportionately for those at the middle and low end.
Doesn't this comment about the higher marginal tax rate discouraging workforce participation contradict your whole justification for raising taxes on top-income earners? You're raising taxes on top-income earners on the basis, presumably, that it won't have a negative effect on their participation in the workforce and their productivity, and yet in the context of income splitting you're arguing that having that same marginal tax rate on potential new entrants to the workforce has a negative effect. You can't have your cake and eat it too on those points. Right? You have to choose one or the other.
I'd be curious for your comments on those points.