That was a really good summary of the issue, I completely agree 🙂

Ultimately, I am falling on the individual side because of the structural changes we are experiencing with what constitutes “a household”.

Furthermore, if we want to promote household structure, or pay them for externalities associated with forming that sort of social structure it seems more efficient to do it directly, rather than mess around with the structure of taxes.

presumeably if you think the supply side is important than individuals are the relevant economic unit since they supply labor (mum and dad do, kids don’t which I guess makes them pretty useless economic units here!), where as when you look at the demand side you have consumption coming from the entire household and thus you might argue that it is the household.

interesting stuff, not really sure where I stand on the issue.

I’m not a fan of the income splitting idea either – the economists I know seem torn though.

Ultimately, the debate between economists is about whether we view the household (however we define it 😛 ) or the individual as the economic unit.

I wonder if since it’s united future policy it doesn’t apply to same sex couples?

I wonder how much he would support the idea if there was 1 high earner and 6 wifes/husbands involved 😀

Silly idea as it effectively penalizes singles.

The “future” element has gone now – I think that United is still conservative, but they probably won’t exclude same sex couples now.

Nice quote from Patrick Nolan, I hear he’s a smart guy;)

I wonder if since it’s united future policy it doesn’t apply to same sex couples?