jamest@themepark.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) (08/10/89)
It infuriates me to no end that the government considers the middle class a endless source of capital for financing their relentless spending. Canada being the most overtaxed country in the western world, surely has had enough! With taxes consuming over 50 percent of our income the time has come for a tax revolt. Too much complacency has given the politicos the idea that no one really cares, when Scrooge Wilson states that he wants to tax everything that moves and offers no breaks except to those on welfare I say enough!!. Gov't retoric on belt tightening is a joke when ministers are spending 50,000 dollars to redecorate their offices. (Bouchard) Government spending should be cut DRASTICALLY; But what about the those all social programs, well to use a favorite quote: You don't work, You don't get paid!!! We owe it to ourselves to phone our MP's and let them know that the ride is over!! If we don't, we deserve what we get. TAX REVOLT NOW!!!! -- James H. Tinkess "On the 8th day he documented" Cognos Incorporated (613)738-1440 Ottawa, Ontario Canada USENET: uunet!mitel!sce!!cognos!jamest
garym@ulysses.UUCP (Gary Murphy) (08/10/89)
In article <6758@themepark.UUCP> jamest@cognos.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) writes: >With taxes consuming over 50 percent of our income the time has come for >a tax revolt. Compare the 1934 price of aluminum vs the cost of the hydro power to produce it, and compare THAT to the 1989 prices: the figure is more like 95% with governments getting less than you think. Why stop at tax? What about price fixing? >Government spending should be cut DRASTICALLY; But what about the those all >social programs, well to use a favorite quote: You don't work, You don't get >paid!!! Anyone I've ever known on social services spends all day trying to get by on the pittance we more affluent (and wasteful) types are willing to share. If you think I'm being a bleeding heart, I dare you to repeat the above sentence in any of our nation's nursing homes. There's also this matter of the $1million cost per gallon of gasoline (in nature's energy-investment terms) that suggests we should pay people NOT to work. >We owe it to ourselves to phone our MP's and let them know that the ride is >over!! If we don't, we deserve what we get. Isn't "political solution" a contradiction in terms? -- | Gary Murphy - Cognos Incorporated - (613) 738-1338 x5537 | |3755 Riverside Dr - P.O. Box 9707 - Ottawa Ont - CANADA K1G 3N3| | e-mail: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!garym | |Cosmic Irreversibility: 1 pot T -> 1 pot P, 1 pot P /-> 1 pot T|
jamest@cognos.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) (08/10/89)
> I dare you to repeat the above sentence in any of our nation's > nursing homes I don't think people in nursing homes represent the bilking of the tax payer. The failure (re: inability ) of the government to spend wisely has had a negative impact on the entire country. What concerns me is how much of my money is required by these clowns before I pack my bags and go south where the maximum federal income tax rate is 26 percent. Just as sidebar there is no US federal tax on anyone making less that 20K per year. There are indeed many problems in todays Canadian society but I don't see them being solved by taking away 65 percent the money I work to earn. This is not directed at the conservatives directly, all the goverments and parties have lost their minds. (e.g Regional Gov't headquarters 100 million smackers!!) The liberals and ndp would probably be worse;it alway open season on the middle class. TAX REVOLT NOW! -- James H. Tinkess "On the 8th day he documented" Cognos Incorporated (613)738-1440 Ottawa, Ontario Canada USENET: uunet!mitel!sce!!cognos!jamest
ycsgue08@yunexus.yorku.ca (Michele Marques) (08/10/89)
James H. Tinkess (jamest@cognos.UUCP) in article (6763@cognos.UUCP) wants taxes like in the U.S.. He claims: > Just as sidebar there is no US federal tax on anyone making less that 20K > per year. I'm a U.S. citizen and last year I made considerably less than 20K and I certainly had to pay federal (& state & local) taxes on it. And remember that if you do pack your bags and go to the States that you'll probably pay a lot for medical insurance which won't cover nearly as much as here (insurance doesn't cover checkups & HMO's usually don't have good serious illness/emergency coverage). -- Michele Marques (until recently Milgram) ycsague08@nexus.yorku.ca
dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) (08/11/89)
In article <6763@cognos.UUCP> jamest@cognos.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) writes: > What concerns me is how much >of my money is required by these clowns before I pack my bags and go south >where the maximum federal income tax rate is 26 percent. For your information, the maximum federal income tax rate in the U.S. is 28%, while the maximum federal rate in Canada is 29%. Taking surtaxes ito account, it's 30.595% in 1989, but you only hit that level when you top about $72K in income. Provincial tax brings the maximum rate up to over 47%, but your statement did not take state income tax into account. Some US cities have an income tax as well. The above doesn't deal with consumption taxes, such as provincial sales taxes or the new GST, which I agree add to your tax burden. On the other hand, the federal deficit of ~$100 million per day does need to be dealt with, through some combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Followups to can.politics. David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave@lsuc.on.ca
jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) (08/11/89)
one thing i love about someone screaming "tax revolt" is: just how do we revolt against the taxation? stop buying cigarettes? (i've been trying for 6 months) tell the gas attendant that you are only giving him $5 for the $10 of gas and he can just not remit that $5 of tax? go to payroll and say "well, gee. i'm revolting against taxation. so, could you please not deduct income tax from my pay?" if we're going to revolt, it's not enough to say "the government should do this or that", we must come up with ways in which individuals can get involved. [ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.on.ca || utzoo!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-3378 ] [ System Facilitator - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ] [ "Have you ever read the instructions on a packet of toothpicks?" ] [ - Arcane Jill Watson, wife of Wonko the Sane ] [ The opinions expressed here may or may not be those of my employer ] -- [ Jim Mercer jim@lsuc.on.ca || utzoo!lsuc!jim +1 416 947-3378 ] [ System Facilitator - Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA ] [ "Have you ever read the instructions on a packet of toothpicks?" ] [ - Arcane Jill Watson, wife of Wonko the Sane ]
steven@.ucalgary.ca (Steven Leikeim) (08/11/89)
In article <6758@themepark.UUCP> jamest@cognos.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) writes: >It infuriates me to no end that the government considers the middle class >a endless source of capital for financing their relentless spending. >Canada being the most overtaxed country in the western world, surely has >had enough! >With taxes consuming over 50 percent of our income the time has come for >a tax revolt. Too much complacency has given the politicos the idea that Are you sure that Canada is the most overtaxed country in the "western" world. As I recall, in some of the scandanavian countries (e.g. Sweden) the overall tax rate (Income, sales and other taxes) amounts to a total of about 95%. Unfortunately, I do not have any references handy to check this out. >-- >James H. Tinkess "On the 8th day he documented" > >Cognos Incorporated (613)738-1440 Ottawa, Ontario Canada >USENET: uunet!mitel!sce!!cognos!jamest Steven Leikeim | University of Calgary | Under pro-duck-tion Department of Electrical Engineering | .uunet!{ubc-cs,utai,alberta}!calgary!enel!steven
gfroyle@water.waterloo.edu (Gordon Royle) (08/11/89)
In article <6763@cognos.UUCP>, jamest@cognos.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) writes: > What concerns me is how much > of my money is required by these clowns before I pack my bags and go south > where the maximum federal income tax rate is 26 percent. > Just as sidebar there is no US federal tax on anyone making less that 20K > per year. and do you think that the US is a better society to live in? As far as I'm concerned taxes are levied to provide benefits: roads, health care, welfare for those unwilling or unable to take care of themselves. If you are confident that you will ALWAYS be able to take care of yourself, then why not go? Just hope you don't have a heart attack - no nice OHIP to cover all the costs for you. And do you feel happy living in a country where you know many people live in desperate poverty? They say that to judge a society you should look at how it treats its weakest members - does it let them go under or take care of them? I know what the US does and I know what I want my country to do. Gordon
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/11/89)
What the heck do you mean by "Tax Revolt Now!!"? Do you mean, "everyone stop paying taxes and go to jail"? Seems like a silly thing to tell people to do. How about looking for tax shelters? That's a more direct solution. No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed. -- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) (08/11/89)
In article <6758@themepark.UUCP>, jamest@themepark.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) writes: > It infuriates me to no end that the government considers the middle class > a endless source of capital for financing their relentless spending. They do that because that is where the money is, almost by definition. > Canada being the most overtaxed country in the western world, surely has > had enough! You wouldn't be a closet-American would you? I thought they wre the only people who thought that My-Country == World. [Sorry, I just couldn't resist that one!] In most of Northern Western Europe, taxation is equal if not higher than in Canada. I'll venture the following list of countries: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourgh, Switzerland. And I'm wondering about Australia, and certainly New Zealand. Someone asked about tax freedom days. I have some answers there. I'll repost part of an article I wrote a month ago: ----------------- Partial repost from early July ------------------ I found the following numbers in the local newspaper (the London Free Press). They got the numbers from the Fraser Institue, in Vancouver. Based on an "avarage" family (income $50,500), today, Friday July 7, is tax freedom day in Ontario. This means that the income earned so far went to taxes, now we are working for ourselves. This is an increase of three days since last year, and of 12 days since 1986. These are Ontario numbers; nationally tax freedom day is July 3, an increase of two days since last year. The avarage family mentioned above pays a total of 51.3% of their gross salary in taxes. This number breaks down as follows: Type of tax % of income % of tax paid Income 19.6 38.1 Sales 9.1 17.1 UIC, CPP 7.2 14.1 Profits (?) 5.3 10.3 Property, education 3.7 7.3 Import duties etc. 3.1 6.0 Sin 2.0 3.9 Gasoline, licences 1.3 2.6 ---- ----- Total 51.3 100.0 I put a question mark behind the profits, because I don't quite understand what that catagory means.
garym@ulysses.UUCP (Gary Murphy) (08/11/89)
"A Man was chief only as long as he did the will of the people. If
he got to be too chiefy, he'd go to sleep one night and wake up the
next morning to find he was chief all to himself. The tribe would
move away in the night, and they didn't wait four years to do it
either"
-- Sun Bear, "Buffalo Hearts"
--
Gary Murphy - Cognos Incorporated - (613) 738-1338 x5537
3755 Riverside Dr - P.O. Box 9707 - Ottawa Ont - CANADA K1G 3N3
e-mail: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!garym
Cosmic Irreversibility: 1 pot T -> 1 pot P, 1 pot P /-> 1 pot Trwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (08/12/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug11021601@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: [what to do about it] >How about looking for tax shelters? That's a more direct solution. >No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed. >Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu While I think Kim's solution is the first suggestion that does not simply advocate screaming at someone else to do something, I am not so sure that the implications are that desirable. Under a regime in which the people have no say in their government, it might be justifiable to blame government greed for excessive taxation. But in Canada, government policy is a reflection of the will of the people, at least as portrayed by the pollsters, pressure groups and media which are trying to mould it into their own shape. The lack of fiscal responsibility in demands made of government, and in the way in which governments are elected is directly attributable to the attitudes of the populace at large. Where else can one, with a straight face, solve a $0.5 billion deficit problem by spending $4 billion? Or iwhere the only causes that can turn out the numbers of upset protesters are those in which government largesse is being threatened? Looking for a way to avoid the bills and sidestep the underlying problems seems equally irresponsible. If a dose of responsibility in the form of excessive taxes is required to shock the populace into some awareness of what is going on, then perhaps it will not be such a bad thing. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore
kevin@client2.DRETOR.UUCP (Socrates) (08/12/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug11021601@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: > >How about looking for tax shelters? That's a more direct solution. >No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed. > Agreed, at least in principle, but I think "direct solution" is the wrong wording. How about "direct contribution to the problem"? As the government sees their tax money get smaller from more people using tax shelters, they decide that they have to regain this money somehow and find YAT (yet another tax) to slap us with. Then we find a different shelter, until the government decides they need more money, ..etc.. ad infinitum. I'm not all that familiar with tax theory. Can somebody out there give me some good solid reasons why a household income tax would not work? That is, have income tax be a percentage of: ( net_household_income - dependant_deductions ) period, full stop. where income == money_in (actual or paper) - money_out (actual or paper). Sure would make filling out the tax forms easier :-). -- --- Kevin Picott NTT Systems, Inc., Toronto, Ontario "There can be no offense where none is taken" - Japanese Proverb kevin@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca, or on some sites kevin@zorac.ARPA
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/12/89)
Pop quiz question: Which country, Canada or the US, spends a higher percentage of its G.N.P. on social programs? Canada? BZZZZZZT. Wrong. It's the USA, although the last time I read it it was something like 11.9% of Canada and 12.1% for the USA, not a huge difference. But they have a slightly higher GNP per capita, too. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brian@jtsv16.UUCP (Brian A. Jarvis) (08/12/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug11021601@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: >How about looking for tax shelters? That's a more direct solution. >No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I'm one of these cynics who thinks that people get the government they deserve. It's not government greed; it's the financial demands of the programs we insist on having and demand of our elected persons. Canadians are great believers in "sacred trusts"; we'll elect anyone who uses those magic words, even in passing. For evidence, look to Ottawa. Sometimes I think if some transient sleeping on a subway grating in Toronto declared invading Bulgaria was a sacred trust, we'd elect him with a huge margin, no questions asked. >Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu >Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada =============================================================================== __ __ Brian A. Jarvis, / ) ...jtsv16!brian / ) J.T.S. Computer Systems Ltd., /--< __ o __. ____ /--/ Downsview, Ontario /___/_/ (_<_(_/|_/ / <_ / ( o My dog, Goof, still says "Hi!" "Democracy is the art of saying 'nice doggie' until you find a rock." - Rogers ===============================================================================
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/12/89)
In article <3522@uwovax.uwo.ca> gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes: In article <6758@themepark.UUCP>, jamest@themepark.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) writes: > It infuriates me to no end that the government considers the middle class > a endless source of capital for financing their relentless spending. They do that because that is where the money is, almost by definition. I've heard the oft-tossed-about saying that in the States, 99% of the assets and $$$ are controlled by 1% of the population. -- Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/12/89)
In article <28307@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes:
The lack of fiscal responsibility in demands made of government, and in
the way in which governments are elected is directly attributable to the
attitudes of the populace at large.
Looking for a way to avoid the bills and sidestep the underlying problems
seems equally irresponsible. If a dose of responsibility in the form of
excessive taxes is required to shock the populace into some awareness of
what is going on, then perhaps it will not be such a bad thing.
I agree that it would be ideal to "shock" the populace into awareness,
but surely there is a better way than to tax them to excess. How
about educating them? Would that work? Not likely. Would they
really listen to you if you asked them to stop taking advantage of
their voting power or their friends at Parliament Hill?
Sure it's "shirking my duty" if I decide to avoid a large tax bill --
or is it? What exactly *IS* my duty? Must I spend my life trying to
educate the uneducated? When can I stop trying? Must I swallow a
large tax bill while I'm trying to educate people? Or should I reduce
my tax bill if I can, and then perhaps try to educate people as I go
along?
Or should I try to educate at all? Just what can one person
accomplish, in light of his having to face (at every step of the way)
controversy, emotional arguments, and just plan ignorance? Maybe if I
became Minister of Finance I could change things, or if I had his
ear... But in the meantime, thanks but no thanks, I'll look out for
myself and maybe try to convince the people around me.
--
Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canadamason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (08/12/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug12015300@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes: >I've heard the oft-tossed-about saying that in the States, 99% of the >assets and $$$ are controlled by 1% of the population. I don't think those are quite the right ratios (anybody have the right numbers?) but the truly scary part is that over the **8 years** that Bonzo's co-star occupied the Oval Office the numbers went from (something like): 40% of people control 80% of the wealth to (something like): 20% of people control 80% of the wealth 8 years! That's an astounding accomplishment! :-( But at least it gives ``the Chin that Walks'' something to aspire to :-( :-( -- ../Dave Cynic? Me? Nah, I was a cynic once, but everyone kept calling me an optimist!
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/13/89)
In article <28307@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: >... Under a regime in which the people have >no say in their government, it might be justifiable to blame government >greed for excessive taxation. But in Canada, government policy is a reflection >of the will of the people, at least as portrayed by the pollsters, pressure >groups and media which are trying to mould it into their own shape. That's a big "at least". The fact is, the government does not hesitate to ignore the will of the people on issues like capital punishment, where it considers the will of the people misguided. (I will not address the issue of whether this view is correct.) The people really have very little control over the doings of the government, especially since the two major parties -- one of which invariably gets in -- are Tweedledee and Tweedledum and seldom differ in important ways. -- V7 /bin/mail source: 554 lines.| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology 1989 X.400 specs: 2200+ pages. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Steve.Kannon@f71.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Kannon) (08/13/89)
HS> EID:7383 320d130d
HS> UFGATE newsin 1.27
HS>From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
HS>Date: 13 Aug 89 00:04:59 GMT
HS>Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
HS>Message-ID: <1989Aug13.000459.27775@utzoo.uucp>
HS>Newsgroups: can.general
HS>
HS>In article <28307@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu
HS>(Ross Wetmore) writes:
HS>>... Under a regime in which the people have
HS>>no say in their government, it might be justifiable to blame
HS>government
HS>>greed for excessive taxation. But in Canada, government policy
HS>is a reflection
HS>>of the will of the people, at least as portrayed by the pollsters,
HS>pressure
HS>>groups and media which are trying to mould it into their own
HS>shape.
HS>
HS>That's a big "at least". The fact is, the government does not
HS>hesitate to
HS>ignore the will of the people on issues like capital punishment,
HS>where
HS>it considers the will of the people misguided.
Ignoring the "will" of the people is precisely what every government
does. Because the general public is a diverse group with no possibility
of cohesive action, the political agenda is set by high-powered lobby
groups, most notably the big business community.
The wealthy and powerful elites always get their way; they are well
organized and have the funds and the clout necessary to get chummy with
government types and to scare government types when such tactics are
called for.
If the government was really interested in tackling the deficit, it
could easily do so by adjusting its spending priorities slightly (ie.
without cutting back basic social services) and by taxing business and
the rich to the same extent they tax the average Canadian. In fact, if
the government collected even those taxes which have been "deferred"
(read "no intention of ever paying") by business, the public coffers
would be richer by some $50 billion (yes BILLION).
Of course, the feds have no intention of doing things logically. Their
aim is to make life easier for the very wealthy (whose taxes have
actually decreased dramatically since BM the PM came to Ottawa) and for
large corporations. The powerful elite have said "we don't want to pay
taxes and we don't want to pay for social services which make us
uncompetitive at the business level" (can you say "harmonization" in
preparation for Free Trade). To this Brian and Michael, who both belong
to this class of people, have told their friends, "don't worry, you
won't have to pay a cent; the other slobs [read you and me] will pay to
keep things the way we want them to be."
For example, during their first term in office, the Tories' tax "reform"
saw the following increases (figures are approx from memory):
Income tax: up 180% (on low income earners)
Fed sales tax: up 140%
Corporate tax: up 4.5%
As you can see, the government was quick to jump all over the lower
ranks, but spared the "poor, hard-pressed" business community, with most
of the breaks going to the wealthiest companies (eg. a $500 million tax
concession to the Reichmanns -- one of the world's wealthiest families
-- to help them buy Gulf in 1985).
With the proposed GST, the Tories are hoping to use their favorite tax
weapon: sales tax, which hits the low and middle class the hardest.
While they publicly decry the current manufacturers' sales tax as
harmful to business, they didn't hesitate to raise it dramatically.
Sales taxes are, of course, the most regressive forms of taxes. Using
the word "reform" to describe what Wilson is doing would make Orwell
spin in his grave. The inane prattling about job creation and fairness
in the system would be laughable if it wasn't coming from a majority
government with a history of screwing over the bulk of its citizens. As
things stand, the situation is simply scary.
From a purely economic standpoint, the GST is stupid, as even the most
passing knowledge of economics will reveal. Wilson's plans, however,
have little to do with economics and much to do with power politics;
fairness, equity and public interest have nothing to do with his
measures, he only wishes us to believe such is the case.
The deficit must be cut, that much is certain. However, the way to
achieve that is to cut extraneous government services, and, more
importantly, to eliminate holes in the tax system that allow the
powerful to pay little or no taxes at the rest of the population's
expense. If the tax system ever became truly equitable -- where
everybody and every corporation was subject to the same rules of the
game without preference -- then the budget would be balanced.
A vibrant economy under real tax reform would provide greater
employment, lower inflation, and less government bureaucracy. The
hard-pressed middle class would actually see a reduction in income tax
and a marked increase in disposable income (which in turn keeps the
economy growing and the tax revenues rolling in).
Instead, we get Mike Wilson espousing the glories of doing just the
opposite. He hopes to invoke a regressive system which even his business
allies say will slow down an already slowing economy, boost inflation,
increase unemployment rates, create a nightmare of red tape, and put
4,000 more paper pushers on the government payroll.
Yes, it is revolting. These proposed measures are not what the people
of Canada want, nor what they voted for.
-- Steve
--
Steve Kannon - via FidoNet node 1:221/162
UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!71!Steve.Kannon
Internet: Steve.Kannon@f71.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORGmason@tmsoft.uucp (Dave Mason) (08/13/89)
In article <3983@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > Which country, Canada or the US, spends a higher percentage > of its G.N.P. on social programs? > > Wrong. It's the USA, although the last time I read it it was > something like 11.9% of Canada and 12.1% for the USA, not a huge > difference. But they have a slightly higher GNP per capita, too. While I accept the figures, it implies a set of priorities that are at odds with reality. I suspect that if our deficit were at the same level (proportionatly) as theirs, the figures would be reversed. **THIS DOES NOT** mean that I think it is appropriate for us to be spending so much on debt service. I think it's vital that we eliminate the deficit so that we can start spending an appropriate amount on real needs. ../Dave
gilles@alberta.uucp (Gilles Simon Dionne) (08/14/89)
In article <3983@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Pop quiz question: > Which country, Canada or the US, spends a higher percentage > of its G.N.P. on social programs? > Canada? > BZZZZZZT. > Wrong. It's the USA, although the last time I read it it was > something like 11.9% of Canada and 12.1% for the USA, not a huge > difference. But they have a slightly higher GNP per capita, too. Actually, this is quite interesting. My perception of social services in the U.S is that for the most part they are insufficient for the demand. This agravating the problems caused by the "poor people"( such as crimes like theft ). Since the economy of the U.S. is in better shape then ours, I don't see why the situation there should be worse then here if they spend the same amount of money( proportionally ). Is my perception of the state of social services in the U.S wrong?( ie. they provide the same basic services ours do :-) ) Is my perception of the state of the U.S economy wrong?( ie. they can't afford to do more :-) ). Or,... are their services just inefficient and badly organized? Gilles
stephen@ziebmef.uucp (Stephen M. Dunn) (08/14/89)
In article <1989Aug13.000459.27775@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: $In article <28307@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: $>... Under a regime in which the people have $>no say in their government, it might be justifiable to blame government $>greed for excessive taxation. But in Canada, government policy is a reflection $>of the will of the people, at least as portrayed by the pollsters, pressure $>groups and media which are trying to mould it into their own shape. [...] $ The people really have very little $control over the doings of the government, especially since the two major $parties -- one of which invariably gets in -- are Tweedledee and Tweedledum $and seldom differ in important ways. As usual, Henry's right on target. Look at the recent history of our wonderful deficit. It began its recent life under the guidance of Pierre and John Turner, continued under Joe Who for a little while, went back into Liberal hands, and has recently been "managed" by Brian and Michael. All of them have contributed to its size (perhaps with the exception of Joe, who wasn't in office long enough to do much). Granted, we did have a recession a few years back, and increases in government spending on social programs and decreases in tax revenue are both to be expected and justified during such times. In any case, whatever party comes into power will do so based on a) their campaign promises (which have very little to do with what will actually happen during their term of office) b) how badly the previous government messed up rather than on whether or not they'll actually be the best party to run the country (what a pity ... cynical at my young age :-) Yes, living in Canada has some definite advantages over living in the States (one very important example is health care ... need I say more?). I know very little about their tax system; however, their income tax system certainly sounds a lot more bearable than ours from what I've heard of it. (BTW, what are they doing about their massive deficit? Are they ignoring it, or are they doing something about it and, if so, are they sticking it to the average person as blatantly as our feds are?) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! Stephen M. Dunn stephen@ziebmef.UUCP ! DISCLAIMER: Who'd ever ! !---------------------------------------------------! claim such dumb ideas? ! ! I have become comfortably numb ... ! I sure as heck wouldn't !
stephen@ziebmef.uucp (Stephen M. Dunn) (08/14/89)
In article <1989Aug10.194101.23329@lsuc.on.ca> jim@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Mercer) writes:
$
$one thing i love about someone screaming "tax revolt" is:
$
$just how do we revolt against the taxation?
Well, certainly refusing to pay taxes won't get us very far (actually, it'll
get us into jail, which will increase the tax burden and decrease the number
of people who are available to pay it, thereby causing general taxation to rise
at an even more alarming rate, perhaps leading eventually to the entire country
either being incarcerated or taking up arms ... nah, not worth the hardship)
What we _can_ do is get up off our backsides and make the government so
uncomfortable (and threaten to do the same for any future government that
tries to overtax us) that they'll have no choice but to find some more
sensible way to cut the deficit (I'm sure that amongst the minds reading
this newsgroup, we could come up with many such schemes that would benefit
the country as a whole). Is this likely to happen? No. Why? We're
Canadians, prone to a life of peacefully accepting whatever the government
choses to do to us, complaining a little and then sitting back and taking
it.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Stephen M. Dunn stephen@ziebmef.UUCP ! DISCLAIMER: Who'd ever !
!---------------------------------------------------! claim such dumb ideas? !
! I have become comfortably numb ... ! I sure as heck wouldn't !flint@me.utoronto.ca (Kenneth Flint) (08/14/89)
In article <6795@ulysses.UUCP> garym@cognos.UUCP (Gary Murphy) writes: >"A Man was chief only as long as he did the will of the people. If > he got to be too chiefy, he'd go to sleep one night and wake up the > next morning to find he was chief all to himself. > The tribe would move away in the night..... As I can't see the whole country moving away, maybe we could just pick up the good old teepee at 24 Sussex Dr. and drop it on the other side of our southern border. > , and they didn't wait four years to do it either" > -- Sun Bear, "Buffalo Hearts" > Gary Murphy - Cognos Incorporated - (613) 738-1338 x5537 > e-mail: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!garym -- Kenneth Flint flint@me.UTORONTO.BITNET UUCP: ...!utai!me!flint flint@me.utoronto.ca "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." Albert Einstein
kain@object.UUCP (Kai Ng) (08/14/89)
In article <3522@uwovax.uwo.ca> gerard@uwovax.uwo.ca (Gerard Stafleu) writes:
#
#Someone asked about tax freedom days. I have some answers there.
#
#----------------- Partial repost from early July ------------------
#
Excuse me for being ignorant. What is tax freedom days. ?
--
Kai Ng P.O. Box 9707 UUCP: uunet!mitel!sce!cognos!kain
Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr.
(613) 738-1440 Ottawa, Ontario,
ext. 6114 CANADA K1G 3Z4kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) (08/15/89)
In article <2713.24E6443D@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Steve.Kannon@f71.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Kannon) writes:
Instead, we get Mike Wilson espousing the glories of doing just the
opposite. He hopes to invoke a regressive system which even his business
allies say will slow down an already slowing economy, boost inflation,
increase unemployment rates, create a nightmare of red tape, and put
4,000 more paper pushers on the government payroll.
The FST will indeed slow the slowing economy, but I fail to see how
that will boost inflation. Oh, OK, maybe I do. Costs will rise, so
there might be some inflationary pressure to increase wages, however
isn't it likelier that people will reduce their discretionary
expenditures?
--
Kim Nguyen kim@watsup.waterloo.edu
Systems Design Engineering -- University of Waterloo, Ontario, CanadaOliver@real.FIDONET.ORG (Oliver McDonald) (08/15/89)
In an article of <13 Aug 89 20:26:19 GMT>, gilles@alberta.uucp (Gilles Simon Dionne) writes: GS> Actually, this is quite interesting. My perception of social services GS>in the U.S is that for the most part they are insufficient for the GS>demand. GS>This agravating the problems caused by the "poor people"( such as GS>crimes like theft ). GS> Since the economy of the U.S. is in better shape then ours, I don't GS>see why the situation there should be worse then here if they spend GS>the same amount of money( proportionally ). Is my perception of the GS>state of social services in the U.S wrong?( ie. they provide the same GS>basic services ours do :-) ) Is my perception of the state of the U.S GS>economy wrong?( ie. they can't afford to do more :-) ). Or,... are GS>their services just inefficient and badly organized? Actually, the problem that the US faces in this area is that their wealth is not as evenly distributes as is ours. As such they have a larger 'poverty class' and thus an equivalent number of $$ just is not able to provide the same basics. Oliver. -- | Views? What Views? |Oliver McDonald - via FidoNet node 1:342/1 | They're mine, not anyone |UUCP: ...!alberta!ncc!real!Oliver | elses! |ARPA: Oliver@real.FIDONET.ORG Hubble's Law applied to computers: The act of running a debugger, changes the output.
dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) (08/15/89)
Steve.Kannon@f71.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Steve Kannon) writes: >Ignoring the "will" of the people is precisely what every government >does. Because the general public is a diverse group with no possibility >of cohesive action, the political agenda is set by high-powered lobby >groups, most notably the big business community. There is some truth to that. From the rest of your posting, however, I gather you've been reading Linda McQuaig's _Behind Closed Doors_. That's an interesting book which makes a number of good points, but it's also highly biased and misleading in places. > >If the government was really interested in tackling the deficit, it >could easily do so by adjusting its spending priorities slightly (ie. >without cutting back basic social services) and by taxing business and >the rich to the same extent they tax the average Canadian. In fact, if "Taxing the rich" is something of a red herring. It depends a bit on how you define "rich", but basically, raising the tax rates to very high levels for the "rich" would not raise enough funds to make any noticeable difference. It would also encourage the "rich", who are generally financially mobile, to move their income and/or themselves out of the country. There is some truth to the argument that Canada needs to remain competitive with other industrialized countries, notably the U.S. >the government collected even those taxes which have been "deferred" >(read "no intention of ever paying") by business, the public coffers >would be richer by some $50 billion (yes BILLION). This figure is misleading. "Deferred taxes" arise due to the timing differences between income for tax purposes and income for accounting purposes. Income for tax purposes is typically lower because of high CCA (capital cost allowance) rates relative to accounting depreciation. These rates, and other timing differences, are a deliberate incentive to investment in capital equipment. Yes, high CCA rates distort the tax system (and to some extent they have been reduced with Tax Reform). One can argue about the best way of delivering incentives, and there are problems with using the tax system. But that doesn't mean you could simply abolish high rates of CCA and suddenly collect $50 billion in lost tax revenues. >Of course, the feds have no intention of doing things logically. Their >aim is to make life easier for the very wealthy (whose taxes have >actually decreased dramatically since BM the PM came to Ottawa) and for >large corporations. The powerful elite have said "we don't want to pay >taxes and we don't want to pay for social services which make us >uncompetitive at the business level" (can you say "harmonization" in >preparation for Free Trade). To this Brian and Michael, who both belong >to this class of people, have told their friends, "don't worry, you >won't have to pay a cent; the other slobs [read you and me] will pay to >keep things the way we want them to be." That's your perception. I think the truth is rather different. Yes, tax professionals, who generally represent business and investors, have an influence on tax legislation. But I've seen a lot of tax legislation come through over the past five years which what you call the "business lobby" objects strenuously to, but which has still been passed. (The Alternative Minimum Tax and the general anti-avoidance rule are obvious examples.) I see a lot of proposals for tax changes, and they come from the Department of Finance, not from "big business". I also read the background material in detail. The officials at Finance, and the politicians above them, are genuinely trying to grapple with problems in the tax system. I don't agree with everything they have done, but I do not subscribe to your simplistic view that "the powerful elite say 'we don't want to pay taxes'" and the poiiticians simply give them what they want. Just take a look at the latest budget, for example. The new rules regarding leasing arrangements and the new Large Corporations Tax are both "anti-big-business" provisions. Where McQuaig likely is correct is that the business view of the tax system gets more notice because there is an organized group of people who bring that point of view to government's attention. That's very different from saying that Finance always does what business asks for, which is definitely not the case. >For example, during their first term in office, the Tories' tax "reform" > >Income tax: up 180% (on low income earners) >Fed sales tax: up 140% >Corporate tax: up 4.5% What figures are you basing this on? You can show anything you like with "statistics". I do not suggest the system is perfect, but the above numbers are misleading, in my view. For example, I could just as easily show that tax on low-income families has been reduced, taking into account the Federal Sales Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit. >As you can see, the government was quick to jump all over the lower >ranks, but spared the "poor, hard-pressed" business community, with most >of the breaks going to the wealthiest companies (eg. a $500 million tax >concession to the Reichmanns -- one of the world's wealthiest families >-- to help them buy Gulf in 1985). This is COMPLETELY misleading. First of all, the "tax concession" took the form of deferring tax on a corporate reorganization. Without the Gulf takeover, that $500 million tax would not have arisen; after the takeover, the accrued gains are still there, for tax purposes, to be realized eventually. Secondly, and most importantly, the Reichmanns made use of an EXISTING provision in the Income Tax Act, one which allows deferral of tax on certain kinds of reorganizations. The government's "concession" was to have Revenue Canada grant an advance ruling on the transaction. Other taxpayers had engaged in this transaction before, and it likely would have stood up in court anyway; the advance ruling simply confirmed that the government would not attempt to reassess adversely. >With the proposed GST, the Tories are hoping to use their favorite tax >weapon: sales tax, which hits the low and middle class the hardest. >While they publicly decry the current manufacturers' sales tax as >harmful to business, they didn't hesitate to raise it dramatically. > >Sales taxes are, of course, the most regressive forms of taxes. Using >the word "reform" to describe what Wilson is doing would make Orwell >spin in his grave. The inane prattling about job creation and fairness >in the system would be laughable if it wasn't coming from a majority >government with a history of screwing over the bulk of its citizens. As >things stand, the situation is simply scary. I agree that sales taxes are regressive. On the other hand, most industrialized countries rely on a form of VAT, which is what the GST is. One of the goals of the change is to reduce the extent to which the tax system distorts business and investment decisions, and the GST should result in less distortion. >From a purely economic standpoint, the GST is stupid, as even the most >passing knowledge of economics will reveal. Wilson's plans, however, >have little to do with economics and much to do with power politics; >fairness, equity and public interest have nothing to do with his >measures, he only wishes us to believe such is the case. Before you begin foaming at the mouth, phone the Dept. of Finance (they have an 800 number) and ask for a copy of the overview and technical paper which describe the GST. Then read them. You may choose to disagree with the decisions, but do so after understanding the rationale which is explained in the documentation. >The deficit must be cut, that much is certain. However, the way to >achieve that is to cut extraneous government services, and, more >importantly, to eliminate holes in the tax system that allow the >powerful to pay little or no taxes at the rest of the population's >expense. If the tax system ever became truly equitable -- where >everybody and every corporation was subject to the same rules of the >game without preference -- then the budget would be balanced. Those so-called "holes in the tax system" do not really exist. Believe me, I have a pretty thorough knowledge of Canadian income tax law. There are indeed provisions which result in some corporations paying little or no tax, but they are deliberate incentives, not "holes". Yes, the justification for the incentives can be questioned. Note also that the April 1989 budget included a "Large Corporations Tax" which will result in all large corporations effectively paying a minimum tax. (It is a tax on capital, offsettable against the federal corporate surtax.) >A vibrant economy under real tax reform would provide greater >employment, lower inflation, and less government bureaucracy. The >hard-pressed middle class would actually see a reduction in income tax >and a marked increase in disposable income (which in turn keeps the >economy growing and the tax revenues rolling in). Quite possibly. I don't suggest our tax system is anywhere near perfect. It's a result of thousands of compromises in hundreds of different directions. But those who suggest simplistic solutions should bear in mind all of the viewpoints, each of which may individually be valid, which justify those compromises. David Sherman (not speaking for) The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave@lsuc.on.ca
rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (08/15/89)
In article <1989Aug13.000459.27775@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <28307@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@grand.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: >>... Under a regime in which the people have >>no say in their government, it might be justifiable to blame government >>greed for excessive taxation. But in Canada, government policy is a reflection >>of the will of the people, at least as portrayed by the pollsters, pressure >>groups and media which are trying to mould it into their own shape. >That's a big "at least". The fact is, the government does not hesitate to >ignore the will of the people on issues like capital punishment, where >it considers the will of the people misguided. No one assumes the reflection is perfect or doesn't suffer time warp around election node points, and I see you yourself picked 1) a controversial example and 2) admitted other reasons than immediate populist pressure might also be relevant. But, 'political suicide' is a common expression in Canada, right? And the murder weapon is the ballot box, not so? >The people really have very little control over the doings of the government, On a day to day basis (thank goodness) ... but then I suspect that given the current bureaucracy, no one has. However, over the long haul, I suspect you might want to reconsider this. On any single issue, unless it is really fundamental and universally rejected by the populace, the government can and probably should have its own way, otherwise nothing unpopular would ever get done. But a government, that consistently ignores the majority wishes is soon an opposition, or worse. Would you really change this? >especially since the two major >parties -- one of which invariably gets in -- are Tweedledee and Tweedledum >and seldom differ in important ways. >Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology Ahhh ... a fellow cynic. However, it is important to have two and to alternate them periodically, just to maintain a certain degree of respect for the effectiveness of the 'suicide' weapon :-). But then again, too bad fiscal responsibility, or responsibility in general were not a little more respectable in our popular morality ... it would be nice to see politicians counting coup from a consistent, responsible position from day-to-day, and add a little variety to the "who's getting more than who plot". Maybe this would make the party images a little less amorphous and help to distinguish them. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {uunet, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 4719 | !watmath!rwwetmore
stephen@ziebmef.uucp (Stephen M. Dunn) (08/15/89)
In article <KIM.89Aug14160951@watsup.waterloo.edu> kim@watsup.waterloo.edu (T. Kim Nguyen) writes:
[...]
$The FST will indeed slow the slowing economy, but I fail to see how
$that will boost inflation. Oh, OK, maybe I do. Costs will rise, so
$there might be some inflationary pressure to increase wages, however
$isn't it likelier that people will reduce their discretionary
$expenditures?
Yes, people will reduce their discretionary expenditures (is that such a
good thing, though - a lower standard of living?). However, consider the
following scenario.
(bargaining time at some company)
Union rep: Inflation's gone up to 10% per annum. Give us a 10% raise!
Company rep: But your members have reduced their discretionary expenditures.
You don't need a raise.
Union rep: You're right. We don't need a raise.
Now, tell me that's likely. (No, this ISN'T an anti-union flame; I'm just
using them as an example)
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Stephen M. Dunn stephen@ziebmef.UUCP ! DISCLAIMER: Who'd ever !
!---------------------------------------------------! claim such dumb ideas? !
! I have become comfortably numb ... ! I sure as heck wouldn't !chk@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (C. Harald Koch) (08/16/89)
In article <1989Aug14.231027.11461@lsuc.on.ca> dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) writes: >I don't suggest our tax system is anywhere near perfect. It's >a result of thousands of compromises in hundreds of different >directions. But those who suggest simplistic solutions should >bear in mind all of the viewpoints, each of which may individually >be valid, which justify those compromises. Boy, it sounds alot like writing Tax Legislation is similar to writing Computer Software. "thousands of compromises in hundreds of different directions" sounds awfully familiar in this profession... -- "Wednesdays, I wear a | C. Harald Koch NTT Systems, Inc., Toronto, Ontario wet suit with the back | chk@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (long-term address) cut out." | chk@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca (my current job) -Doctor Doctor | chk@chkent.UUCP (my AMIGA at home)
robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) (08/16/89)
Hi Kim! <kim@watsup.waterloo.edu> >How about looking for tax shelters? That's a more direct solution. >No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed. I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "tax shelter", but the most recent tax act contains a rule called GAR (General Anti-Avoidance Rule) which makes it illegal to seek out and take advantage of loop-holes in the tax act. (I'm not exactly sure of how this works, maybe David Sherman could say something on this). Sort of a law ordering adherance to "spirit of the law" as opposed to "letter of the law". This is great, now "ignorance of the law AND of the law as the Tax Department interprets it" is not a legal defence. Imagine the implications if this rule was extended to all laws, not just the TAX act. Rob. -- Robert A. Osborne ...uunet!mnetor!lsuc!isgtec!robert ...utzoo!lsuc!isgtec!robert ISG Technologies Inc. 3030 Orlando Dr. Mississauga. Ont. Can. L4V 1S8
tom@mims-iris.uucp (Tom Haapanen) (08/16/89)
Steve.Kannon@f71.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG writes: > [Much stuff I don't agree with deleted] > For example, during their first term in office, the Tories' tax "reform" > saw the following increases (figures are approx from memory): > > Income tax: up 180% (on low income earners) > Fed sales tax: up 140% > Corporate tax: up 4.5% I don't know where Steve pulled these numbers from... I checked out some old tax returns etc. and came up with the following: 1983 1989 Change Federal sales tax 11.0 % 13.5 % +23 % Corporate tax (general rate) 46.0 % 38.0 % -17 % Corporate tax (small business) 33.3 % 22.0 % -34 % > From a purely economic standpoint, the GST is stupid, as even the most > passing knowledge of economics will reveal. Wilson's plans, however, > have little to do with economics and much to do with power politics; > fairness, equity and public interest have nothing to do with his > measures, he only wishes us to believe such is the case. I _thought_ I had a more-than-passing knowledge of economics, and I still don't see why GST is stupid. Am I missing something? From what I see, not everything will cost more under the GST. I would expect cars, appliances and such to drop maybe 4% (assuming savings are passed on). According to this morning's Globe & Mail, groceries might fall 1-2%, again assuming savings are passed on. And of course, the low-income earners don't pay tax on rent or prescription drugs, and get substantial tax credits from the government. No, it's the middle class that pays the bill, not the poor. \tom haapanen "now, you didn't really expect tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu my views to have anything to do watmims research group with my employer's, did you?" university of waterloo
kevin@client1.DRETOR.UUCP (Socrates) (08/16/89)
In article <1989Aug12.122433.16541@tmsoft.uucp> mason@tmsoft.UUCP (Dave Mason) writes: >I don't think those are quite the right ratios (anybody have the right >numbers?) but the truly scary part is that over the **8 years** that >Bonzo's co-star occupied the Oval Office the numbers went from >(something like): > 40% of people control 80% of the wealth >to (something like): > 20% of people control 80% of the wealth > I can attribute these numbers to many things that are scarier than higher taxes: - Larger corporations giving less people more control - More average Americans "convinced" that all they can do is eke by and don't bother shooting for the real money - Advertisers making a good living off the previous point - Makers of TV/Movie drivel doing the same - The sudden appearance of a VCR in every home, making it affordable to spend "quality time" at home instead of lugging yourself off your easy chair out to a theatre Any care to expand this list? -- --- Kevin Picott NTT Systems, Inc., Toronto, Ontario "There can be no offense where none is taken" - Japanese Proverb kevin@zorac.dciem.dnd.ca, or on some sites kevin@zorac.ARPA
dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) (08/17/89)
In article <2400@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca>, chk@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (C. Harald Koch) writes: > >I don't suggest our tax system is anywhere near perfect. It's > >a result of thousands of compromises in hundreds of different > >directions. But those who suggest simplistic solutions should > >bear in mind all of the viewpoints, each of which may individually > >be valid, which justify those compromises. > > Boy, it sounds alot like writing Tax Legislation is similar to writing > Computer Software. "thousands of compromises in hundreds of different > directions" sounds awfully familiar in this profession... Yes, there are a lot of similarities. In fact, the Income Tax Act, through drafted by people who didn't and don't know anything about computers, is really written in a kind of meta-PROLOG. The ramifications for an AI representation of the Act are fascinating. (I did my LLM thesis on this topic a few years ago. Anyone who's interested, feel free to ask me for a copy, as long as you will actually read it.) I'd like to deal with some of the other postings that have raised questions about tax, but I'll be away for a few weeks. I'll get back to them in September (we keep a long expiry on can.general here...) David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave@lsuc.on.ca
jamest@themepark.UUCP (James H. Tinkess) (08/18/89)
I read in today that New Zealand implemented a 10% GST but also cut personal income taxes by 50%. This seeems to be a little more reasonable. What I am curious to know is what do other netters feel is a fair amount of tax? I myself feel that 25 % should be approaching the limit of total taxation. This itself may be a little low. I do feel that when the gov't (organized looting) is taking over 50% you no longer are working to support just yourself. I have no desire to pay over 50% of my wages for the privilege of working. The fact that the gov't can't trim expenses a paltry 10% shows that they are completely unfit. What is really needed is someone like Donald Trump to run for office, a real manager who knows how to use money. ( I'll be boiled for this one:-) ) TAX REVOLT NOW!! -- James H. Tinkess "On the 8th day he documented" Cognos Incorporated (613)738-1440 Ottawa, Ontario Canada USENET: uunet!mitel!sce!!cognos!jamest
dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman) (08/20/89)
In article <117@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes: >Hi Kim! <kim@watsup.waterloo.edu> >>How about looking for tax shelters? That's a more direct solution. >>No amount of bitching is going to change the government's greed. > >I'm not sure if this is what you meant by "tax shelter", but the >most recent tax act contains a rule called GAR (General Anti-Avoidance Rule) >which makes it illegal to seek out and take advantage of loop-holes in >the tax act. (I'm not exactly sure of how this works, maybe David Sherman >could say something on this). Sort of a law ordering adherance to >"spirit of the law" as opposed to "letter of the law". > >This is great, now "ignorance of the law AND of the law as the Tax Department >interprets it" is not a legal defence. Imagine the implications if >this rule was extended to all laws, not just the TAX act. It's known as GAAR, actually. Yes, it's a general anti-avoidance rule, section 245 of the Income Tax Act, in force since September 13, 1988. It doesn't make it "illegal to take advantage of loop-holes", as such (certainly not in the sense of criminal or quasi-criminal penalties). It provides, in effect, that where you misuse a provision of the Act or abuse the Act in order to obtain a "tax benefit", a court can make whatever order is necessary to negate the effect of what you've done -- that is, for income tax purposes, ignore the deduction or credit you've claimed, allocate "your" income to some other taxpayer, or whatever. The steps the court take are very broad, but you have to get over the "misuse or abuse" hurdle to fall into GAAR. For a comprehensive, well-written article on GAAR and its history, see Brian Arnold and James Wilson, "The General Anti-Avoidance Rule", 36(4), 36(5), 36(6) Canadian Tax Journal 829-887, 1123-1185, 1369-1410 (1988). It's the lead article in the last 3 issues of the Journal for 1988. Incidentally, effective September 1, 1989 there is also a requirement for all tax shelter "promoters" to register with Revenue Canada and provide you with an identification number before you invest. Otherwise you cannot claim the benefits of the shelter. A tax shelter is defined, very roughly, as an investment which you can full write off within 4 years. David Sherman -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att utzoo }!lsuc!dave dave@lsuc.on.ca
ead@tmsoft.uucp (Elizabeth Doucette) (08/27/89)
In article <1989Aug13.220446.2604@ziebmef.uucp> stephen@ziebmef.UUCP (Stephen M. Dunn) writes: > [...] > What we _can_ do is get up off our backsides and make the government so >uncomfortable (and threaten to do the same for any future government that >tries to overtax us) that they'll have no choice but to find some more >sensible way to cut the deficit (I'm sure that amongst the minds reading >this newsgroup, we could come up with many such schemes that would benefit >the country as a whole). Is this likely to happen? No. Why? We're >Canadians, prone to a life of peacefully accepting whatever the government >choses to do to us, complaining a little and then sitting back and taking >it. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >! Stephen M. Dunn stephen@ziebmef.UUCP ! DISCLAIMER: Who'd ever ! >!---------------------------------------------------! claim such dumb ideas? ! >! I have become comfortably numb ... ! I sure as heck wouldn't ! I agree with Stephen. Most of the people I know, both friends and business associates, bitch and never do anything about it. However, I don't think they "peacefully accept" what the government does. I believe that they are frustrated and don't believe that one person can make a difference. However, I'm often told that doing something is better than doing nothing. Why don't each of us come up with a suggestion? You can send them to me or to Stephen, if he doesn't mind, and the suggestions can be summarized and posted. I've already sent a suggestion to Stephen. Elizabeth
stephen@ziebmef.mef.org (Stephen M. Dunn) (08/28/89)
In article <1989Aug27.032623.28115@tmsoft.uucp> ead@tmsoft.UUCP (Elizabeth Doucette) writes:
$Why don't each of us come up with a suggestion? You can send them to
$me or to Stephen, if he doesn't mind, and the suggestions can be
$summarized and posted. I've already sent a suggestion to Stephen.
It would probably be a better idea to send them to Elizabeth. I'll be
heading back to university on Labour Day and, although I should be able to
forward my mail to my account there, I won't likely have an account until
the middle of September, so I'll probably not be on on the net much for the
first half of the month.
One suggestion is to write letters to Brian Mulroney, Michael Wilson and
your local MP, and copy them to the "Letters to the Editor" of whatever
your local papers are.
A net.petition might be another idea, but I'm not quite sure how it
could be done short of posting a petition and asking everybody to reply to
somebody's mailbox, then having that person sit there and glue the replies
together (yech).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
! Stephen M. Dunn stephen@ziebmef.UUCP ! DISCLAIMER: Who'd ever !
!---------------------------------------------------! claim such dumb ideas? !
! I have become comfortably numb ... ! I sure as heck wouldn't !