Bryan

I was agreeing with you.

NDP has never been strong on inconvenient things like "facts". http://www.cjob.com/2015/12/04/currier-ndp-attack-ads-full-of-lies/ (a 12 minute listen, but worth every second)

As long as it's legitimate party members who are not registered lobbyists, and the total amount taken in by each individual does not exceed their contribution limits, fundraisers are perfectly OK. The reason some people are up in arms about the way the LPC is doing it, is this fundraiser was catering to certain lobbyists, some of whom tried to be cute by de-registering right before the event. What's also gotten the LPC in trouble in the recent past was trying to come up with clever ways to NOT include the money raised in the individuals' annual max contribution.

Less. The cost of the accountant was not the part that made it not worth it to me, I was just worried about not putting enough aside to pay the tax bill.

Yeah, that definitely sounds like: a/ an opportunity for the PCs to make some cost recovery while also improving services where necessary. and b/ an opportunity for the NDP spin it as "dismantling health care" and "hurting those who need it most"

Yeah. So far, they primarily call landlines.

No. I was well over $3K per year. I never claimed I stuck it to anyone. I was only letting you know that I (and people that I know) have in fact done the very thing that you claimed was not possible. I never said I liked the situation, only that it happens. I also never claimed it was my preference, or that I would continue to work that way, only that I know others who do. That you made assumptions about things I never said, and projected other intent behind my patience with your arrogance is not something that I can control.

Means as much to me as you calling BS that Cuba really exists. I know different because I've been there.

You know what, that the unused ones got the same budget as the functioning ones?

I know people still working there who are still doing that. Hasn't been an issue yet. If it was a problem, why wouldn't CRA mention it? What I said on page one is that I know people who have this option at their jobs.

Weren't you one of the people actively mocking the very idea of unreported crime not long ago? For me, it's the same answer. Some people are guilty, they should be made accountable for their actions.

That's not the same thing as what most people mean when they refer to a hospital, and it's certainly not what Billy Moore was talking about. He said if we make it harder for people to get medical care, they might take better care of themselves. It's also not a hospital that you would drive to if you needed care. Do they even have the same kind of budget as the fully functioning one(s) closer to you? Do you even know (for certain) what kind of costs are being accrued there, or are you assuming?

It was my exclusive full time job for about a year and a half. I was paid an hourly rate, by cheque, bi-weekly.

Operating how? What is it they do if they don't even have any doctors or an ER? Is it palliative care?

How is that an actual hospital then?

You're still wrong. I paid a lot more than $3K in taxes, and my income was dead static. I didn't "game" anything. I paid what was required.. It's not my problem that another accountant knew what to do and you don't. I'm just glad I didn't come to you. You're right about not taking my tax advice though. They shouldn't take yours either. Go see a competent accountant. You're also right that it was a PITA. There's a reason why I don't do that anymore -- regular deductions are definitely easier to plan for.

There are big opportunity for savings on infrastructure spending. It's a matter of getting value for what you pay for. Cost-plus contracts have to go -- nobody else does that. How many drinks have you had tonight?

I already explained it quite clearly:

The part that got me (if I wasn't already onboard) was that Pallister refused to make any promises about what he will NOT cut. "There are no sacred cows, waste will be cut where ever it is found" is smart policy, we need to see more of that from leaders of all levels.

I'm not making a claim about what someone else can "get away with". I'm saying I never made any instalments nor did I ever pay any interest. I have no idea what line of the tax code covers that. Neither CRA nor my accountant had any issue with it. What they knew that you do not I can not tell you. According to the standards of evidence that you've established in this thread, I should expect you to prove that by providing me copies of those clients' tax returns if you expect me to believe that they really exist. /s

You can prove a number that by definition is not recorded. Okay then.

I didn't make the comparison, cybercoma did. I was just replying to that post. The issue is not if the offense is similar, it's that people do lie, and you need to be prepared that not all accusations are going to be genuine.

You missed the point. It's not an opinion that women lie about being raped, it's an easily proven fact. What BC posted is a link to documentary about a high profile case, but there have been many others. Sometimes, the truth doesn't come out until the men have been in prison for years. It's not one or the other -- there ARE predators out there, and there are people who falsely claim to be victims. That's why you can't just take one side or the other based on who you'd like to believe.

It's the only rational option right now.