Harper: Republican Wannabe

[RNG]

I am 100% owner and only director and have been the only employee of a business which is incorporated under the laws and regulations of the province of Alberta. I pay federal and provincial CORPORATE income tax. How am I not a corporation?

Bump.

[cybercoma]

Corporations are a type of business.

Yes it is.

So saying there are differences between businesses and corporations doesn't really make any sense.

It doesn't? Corporation refers to one specific type of business. There are also "sole proprietorships" and "partnerships". These are also businesses, but NOT corporations. Hence, businesses are NOT corporations, but corporations are businesses.

I'm still waiting for you to tell RNG that his business comprising of two employees isn't a corporation. Or are you finally admitting that corporations come in all kinds of sizes? If so, it's about time.

When did I say anything about the size of a business? I'm completely confident that I know what I'm talking about. Do you even know what you're arguing?

[cybercoma]

Bump.

Who said you're not a corporation?

[RNG]

Who said you're not a corporation?

Sweet Frog I believe.

[cybercoma]

Sweet frog doesn't know what sweet frog is talking about then. Small businesses are not necessarily corporations, but that doesn't mean they can't be. What I was replying to was Saipan saying businesses are corporations. They're not.

[RNG]

Sweet frog doesn't know what sweet frog is talking about then. Small businesses are not necessarily corporations, but that doesn't mean they can't be. What I was replying to was Saipan saying businesses are corporations. They're not.

I hate sematic fights, but yes, there are partnerships and sole propiortipeships but the majority of "businesses" are corporations.

[RNG]

I hate sematic fights, but yes, there are partnerships and sole propiortipeships but the majority of "businesses" are corporations.

If you are trying to say that there is a difference between me an GE, fine, but define your terms better.

[cybercoma]

If you are trying to say that there is a difference between me an GE, fine, but define your terms better.

I don't disagree with this and I think that's where sweet frog was with his/her comment. Saying "small business" is not corporations, sweet frog is probably talking about a combination of 1) total profits and 2) amount of externalized costs.

[Smallc]

I thought yous said not all that long ago you were working a fairly low-rent job... working with children or something...?

I was. Before that I was making above average money. Now I've bought 1/3 of my parents business.

[Smallc]

Um, incorporating a business in Ontario costs $360 dollars. Many people do this a few years after starting a business, when they know they can actually turn a profit. Multi-millions has nothing to do with corporations. Corporations are small, medium and large.

There would be very little if any tax benefit, is what I'm saying. I just got involved in this though, so it may very well become a corporation by the time I'm done. There are advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered, but this business has existed for 30 years and has done well enough for about 10 years that my family can live an upper middle class lifestyle with very little debt.

Edited April 4, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

There would be very little if any tax benefit, is what I'm saying. I just got involved in this though, so it may very well become a corporation by the time I'm done.

Watch the cash flow! There's a time when and when not to incorporate. You don't want to deal with double tax if the margin is too tight.

Msj would be a good person to pm if you want some advice on this. If he's feeling generous that is

[Smallc]

Watch the cash flow! There's a time when and when not to incorporate. You don't want to deal with double tax if the margin is too tight.

Yeah, that's why it's never been done. Our margin is between 7 - 8% where it should be 12 - 15%. That has to do with theft and loss from bad debts more than anything, and I've already started working on improving things from both of these ends. Incorporating isn't always the answer, though, and at this point, I don't think that it is for us.

[Smallc]

Msj would be a good person to pm if you want some advice on this. If he's feeling generous that is

Oh, and we have a really good accountant right now actually...who knows, maybe you even go to the same place?

[blueblood]

Oh, and we have a really good accountant right now actually...who knows, maybe you even go to the same place?

Unless fbc starts doing gas stations I don't think so. I had a 60% margin this year, best year ever and I don't think it'll happen again.

[Smallc]

Unless fbc starts doing gas stations I don't think so. I had a 60% margin this year, best year ever and I don't think it'll happen again.

FBC?.....hmmm....We go to AYW. We have a cycle that seems to repeat. Two years ago were bad...this year should be pretty good.

[Shady]

There would be very little if any tax benefit

Yes, but it's not always just about tax benefits.

[Smallc]

Yes, but it's not always just about tax benefits.

That's true, but there are enough negatives that it hasn't been done.

[g_bambino]

He called the Reform Party a "conservative Republican" organization that espoused "a constitutional agenda that challenges the way our entire political system operates.

One of the odd things I notice about Harper is that he seems to be an "American republican" - as in, he believes in the American style of republic and has tried to twist Canada's parlaimentary structure into something that resembles it (putting himself forward as a popularly elected president, seeing himself and his cabinet as being apart from the legislature, vetting of Supreme Court appointments by a committee of the House of Commons, desire for an elected Senate, etc.) - yet, he's also shown himself to be pretty much the most monarchist prime minister Canada's had since probably Diefenbaker.

Is he just trying to simultaneously play to the Reform wing of the party (who've always had a love of the American republic) and the Progressive Conservative crowd (who carried over into the Conservative Party's constitution the support for Canada's constitutional monarchy that was included in the old PC Party's written principles)? Does he not understand that the monarchy has a key role in our constitutional order and conceives of it only as a symbol (which he likes as a distinct part of Canada's heritage)? Or, does he just say whatever's politically advantageous at any given moment, regardless of the blatant contradiction with what he's said or done at other times? It's hard to understand such a dichotomy.

[+]

Edited April 4, 2011 by g_bambino

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Or, does he just say whatever's politically advantageous at any given moment, regardless of the blatant contradiction with what he's said or done at other times? It's hard to understand such a dichotomy.

Gee...you mean like Michael Ignatiefrf claiming he actually was an American for higher book sales and speaking gigs in his adopted America?

It's not hard to understand that at all!

[GWiz]

It's not hard to understand that at all!

Finally caught on, eh... Took a while, but good for you...

[bush_cheney2004]

Finally caught on, eh... Took a while, but good for you...

No, I have been way out front on your wannabe American Liberal Party leader. Check my posts going back to 2008...before you showed up around here!

[Scotty]

One of the odd things I notice about Harper is that he seems to be an "American republican" - as in, he believes in the American style of republic and has tried to twist Canada's parlaimentary structure into something that resembles it (putting himself forward as a popularly elected president, seeing himself and his cabinet as being apart from the legislature, vetting of Supreme Court appointments by a committee of the House of Commons, desire for an elected Senate, etc.

Apart from a desire for an elected senate you could replace the name above with "Chretien" or "Mulroney" or "Martin" or "Trudeau" easily enough.

[g_bambino]

Apart from a desire for an elected senate you could replace the name above with "Chretien" or "Mulroney" or "Martin" or "Trudeau" easily enough.

To a certain extent, maybe. But, none of them put Supreme Court nominees before a House of Commons committee. I don't recall any of them giving an address to the country in which they said they had the popular mandate to govern and hence the opposition was conducting an undemocratic coup by transferring their confidence from him to someone else. And none of those prime ministers acted as though Canada had such a thing as executive privelige. Even still, if those prime ministers were as presidential as Harper, they weren't, at the same time, as overtly monarchist as Harper has shown himself to be; they were happy to presidentialise themselves at the expense of the Crown. Harper's blatantly contradictory in this regard, and I can't quite figure out why.

[+]

Edited April 4, 2011 by g_bambino

[RNG]

To a certain extent, maybe. But, none of them put Supreme Court nominees before a House of Commons committee. I don't recall any of them giving an address to the country in which they said they had the popular mandate to govern and hence the opposition was conducting an undemocratic coup by transferring their confidence from him to someone else. And none of those prime ministers acted as though Canada had such a thing as executive privelige. Even still, if those prime ministers were as presidential as Harper, they weren't, at the same time, as overtly monarchist as Harper has shown himself to be; they were happy to presidentialise themselves at the expense of the Crown. Harper's blatantly contradictory in this regard, and I can't quite figure out why.

[+]

Come on! Trudeau, and even worse Chretien maintained such a total control over their MP's to make Harper look laise faire.

[GWiz]

Harper's blatantly contradictory in this regard, and I can't quite figure out why.

One word answer - POWER...