Accountability Now

It doesn't matter when it was planned, it matters what it's intended for which is NOT immigration. It's for foreign aid which falls under International Development. Do you honestly have a hard time understanding that?

Yup...and your mistake gets worse with ever word you mutter.

Fess up and admit you screwed up once again. This is a foreign aid issue and not immigration. Would you prefer Bernard Valcourt handle it. He'd be as relevant as Alexander.

How does giving $100m in foreign aid have anything to do with Citizenship and Immigration (Chris Alexander)? This is an emergency relief fund which is coordinated through International Development which obviously you have no clue what their role is. As such I will provide you a brief definition: "International development is different from simple development in that it is specifically composed of institutions and policies that arose after the Second World War. These institutions focus on alleviating poverty and improving living conditions in previously colonised countries.[2]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_development Did you catch that last part? Improving living conditions? I'm really not surprised that you messed this up though

The problem is that Harper certainly wasn't clear in his statement. Take it word for word....and I would say he lied. However, based on refugees from the UN resettlement program, Canada was 2nd in total numbers and 1st in number per capita. The issue is created as this isn't a time to be shouting out claims that require clarification. Based on that I can see why people stand by the claim that he lied.

I agree. The two are not in the same category and can't be compared apples to apples. Like I posted, 80% of small businesses don't make it past 18 months. I think that is more of a risk than just taking a job at the plant. My point being its relative. The incentives need to be constantly evaluated and added or decreased where necessary. If the economy is shrinking, which it appears to be the case then incentives are required. Having said that, the incentives should never be unrealistic as there are rewards as you suggest.

Ah...so you chose not to say it in our conversation but hide it in a side post. With said, directly from our conversation I initially said that businesses require such incentives for which you responded with: Any mention of agreeing to the idea of incentives....NOPE. Oh wait...you did go on to say this gem: So where in what you said to me did you actually acknowledge incentives are needed? Is that what you meant by the 'other crap"? If so, I don't think other crap is a proper synonym for incentives.

Interesting. I didn't start my business until 2006 so I have only had the one government to work under. I do have to admit its been nice from the decreased taxation but I don't often get involved in other paperwork issues.

Are you saying that other governments have offered a more efficient method? To me government has always been slow.

Citation request.

First off, he started with an article in 2012 that talks about a dividend tax credit which the Budget of 2013 was to adjust the gross up rates for dividends. Again...the system is fluid, it moves to correct itself when needed. Second, he has claimed that there are many advantages but yet he has failed to illustrate 'many'. Of the few he has, he also fails to acknowledge the risks involved in having a business and the need for such incentives Irrelevant? Hell no. The thread is about tax fairness and no where did I ask for MORE public service. I said that I receive the same services even though I pay 10x the amount of taxes as the average person. As such, that is a question about tax fairness which is EXACTLY what this thread was about. Sorry it may not fit the narrative that you wish but the whole purpose of a discussion is to have both sides...not just yours.

Investment still involves risks. So no you don't get it. Not to mention, that drawing out your money over that amount of time assumes that you don't have any other money coming in. Most business will make an annual dividend and can only draw it out so long before they flush it out at the higher tax rates. The system is fair. You just don't have a clue how to use it. The economy in Canada has grown steadily with the exception of major recessions. With that said, you do know why recessions happen? Investors get nervous and stop investing. My original statement said there should be benefits as an incentive. You then created the strawman saying that the incentive was to build something meaningful as if it had to be one or the other. I came back and asked why it can't be both. You have yet to answer. Lol. Its just so easy in your mind...isn't it. Of course you just forget that it isn't http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagner/2013/09/12/five-reasons-8-out-of-10-businesses-fail/ So when a business does succeed and makes as you say huge income then good on them! You are the one yammering on about people using kids and grandkids when its just not true. Now that I have shown you the door on that argument you want to start talking about 10 more loopholes. Have at it. Even msj said that the majority of people he deals with are honest and use the system correctly. The others we all agree are not but that doesn't mean the system is wrong it means they are. Which is probably why you are the one pissing and moaning about 'fairness'.

Nope. Just that when one asks for fairness that we consider what is actually fair. Should I be paying an even higher tax rate even though I pay almost 10x the tax than the average guy just because I can afford it? Its not like I get special roads or anything like that.

Now...if we want to talk fair....over the past number of years I have averaged about $150,000 per year that I have paid in taxes (company and personal). Most people pay about $15,000. So I have paid 10x the taxes even though I get the same services, use the same roads, same schools, same hospitals, etc.

Exactly!!!

Deferral. Still need the definition? Not true. No ones stopping you from starting a company. Do you have the slightest clue about economy? The economy is based on investors. It revolves around people willing to invest their money back into the market thus creating jobs. Just the slightest thing can scare off an investor and cause them to keep their money in their pockets which results in no jobs....never mind raises. Of course, if an investor does go ahead and pour his/her money into a company and that company doesn't work out, you won't see the employee giving money back to the team...now do you? I also JUST said that your claim about business owners start business to build something and my claim that there needs to be incentives both CAN be true. One does not negate the other.Please try to keep up. Face palm!!! Do you know the very nature of investments. Some work and some don't. So yes...when you risk your money and it pays off, then you get a reward. If it doesn't pay off then you are shit out of luck. As for your comment about paying kids and grandkids, that was a loophole used in the 90s and closed off in 2000 with the "kiddie tax" rule. Parents can still give their kids dividends however if they do they are automatically assessed the highest marginal tax rates. Hence most people don't do this anymore. Really? Then why your smug comment : The system is fair or attempts to be fair and will correct itself when it finds ways that its not. Just because that system requires you to get off your butt and do something rather than having it handed to you does not make it unfair.

I have never broken any tax laws nor have I walked a grey line. I use the tax deferral system to reinvest my money where needed and any money that I pull out pays the same amount of tax as if I were salaried. As such you can take your insinuation of my personal benefit and pound sand with it. The tax deferral system is open to anyone that has a company. You are more than free to do it but apparently you are too busy feeling jaded by the fact that you didn't have the ability to do so.

The money can be used to reinvest into your company or invest in real estate holdings or other companies. All things that help the economy. Having it in my holding company does not help me personally unless I feel like breaking the law and risk audits. Why does that have to be crap for my statement about risk being involved being true? A business owner is proud of something they built but at the same time they use the incentive of tax deferral to put money back into their business or to reinvest in other businesses. Is that seriously so hard for you to understand? If you would read what I said, you would actually know what I am telling you. The advantage is tax deferral....NOT avoidance. If I take the money from my hold co then I pay the same tax as I would if I took it as salary. The only benefit is deferring the tax to a later date so that I can reinvest it today. Do you not understand the definition of deferral?

I see Tim already responded with what I was going to say but I will add that there does need to be some benefit to taking on the risk of starting a business. If it was easy then everyone would do it. But its not.

CRA essentially believes that if you are avoiding taxes even through a loop hole then its wrong and they will move to close the loop hole and in some cases will go after you for using the hole. I'm not saying the system is perfect. It will always need tweaking because there are people out there constantly manipulating it just like our legal system. Having said that for the most part the system works.

And yet Abdullah Kurdi blames Canada for all of this: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/drowned-syrian-boy-s-father-says-he-blames-canada-for-tragedy-1.2556990

Exactly...that is her situation which may allow here to spread it out over 5 years. Maybe she had her house and cars and other major expenses paid for and can live off of $25,000 per year. In that case, great....defer the tax and pull it out over the 5 years. However others can't do that. I've just recently got to the point where I can start deferring. Its nice. Lol.

That's the part that most people don't get. There are risks of owning and operating a business which require tax incentives such as deferral. For the most part once I pull the money out of my hold co I have essentially paid the same 38% as if I was an employee unless I spread it out over a long time which is not feasible for general life needs.

My understanding is that to be a contractor you must prove that you work for more than one company. We used to have employees work as contractors and CRA shut that down. Now guys can work around it by billing their friend or families companies for some smaller amount and never collecting but still showing they work for more than one. As TimG said, the system tries to achieve fairness but if certain individuals choose to break the laws then that's on them....not the system.

I think that is just it...the benefit of having a corporation is tax deferral. I don't know your situation but I know for me that if I flush the money from my active business right through my hold co into my personal account then I pay the 38% and there is no savings. The active company normally taxes at 25% and provides eligible dividends which I can transfer tax free to my hold co as I own more than 10%. If I leave the money in there or take it out very slowly then I pay minimal taxes. However if I need the money then I have to pull it out and incite a tax event. I haven't seen too many legal ways around this. As of late I have seen people doing those life insurance/investment company method but it seems too good to be true. Essentially they claim that you can pull your money out of your hold co tax free but I have to believe that loop hole will close. I have seen similar loop holes close in the last few years.