Postal Strike Imminent

[Oleg Bach]

I have doubts about Trudeau's deliberateness on the matter. But I do wonder why a man like myself, of, say, average intelligence, feels like he's relearning it every damn year.

Oh, it might be me. Definitely. But enough people sympathize that I don't think it is.

As time passes you gain more information. Things that you assumed were fact at one time are less so later on in time - We do relearn. The old saying goes "if I only knew then what I know now". If I knew what people and society truely were I would have governed myself differently _ Being brought up my old school Orthodox Christian parents who shielded me from evil might have been a dis-service in the long run. I actually had faith and trust in all of humanity and their institutions ...now I have just a spark of that. If I could go back in time I would not have expected good behavior or honesty in the gathering of wealth...I would have kept my mouth shut and taken what I could instead of being an open book.

[cybercoma]

My experience has been that most folks are afraid, if not terrified, of CRA. They fear getting something wrong will trigger a CRA audit. The fact that sometimes CRA agents do give conflicting answers coupled with the additional fact that CRA manuals and other "helpful" documentation are difficult to understand, even by trained professionals, is making life hell for taxpayers. IMHO, this was deliberately set up by Trudeau and Edgar Benson to create an even larger bureacracy and a boost to the tax consulting industry.

Quite possibly. It's pretty awful when hard-working, honest Canadians try to do the right thing, but they can't even get a straight answer about what that would be.

[Oleg Bach]

Quite possibly. It's pretty awful when hard-working, honest Canadians try to do the right thing, but they can't even get a straight answer about what that would be.

Taxing of the public must be accute and highly accurate - non of this imaginary stuff about taxing you on money that they believe you MIGHT have made. If a person makes 100 thousand dollars in a lucky and lucrative year...and files his taxes properly - but has not filed for a number of years because they may have generated no income for the last five...The tax guys will back file for 9 years and tax you as if you had made 900 thousand dollars...Try to explain your way out of their generated tax trap...impossible. They will make sure that you are thrust into poverty never to pay taxes again - It's a poorly devised system.

[RNG]

Quite possibly. It's pretty awful when hard-working, honest Canadians try to do the right thing, but they can't even get a straight answer about what that would be.

As some previous poster implied, our tax law is so complex even the pros don't really understand it.

Flat tax or FairTax(mt), and get out of the social engineering business.

[bloodyminded]

As some previous poster implied, our tax law is so complex even the pros don't really understand it.

Flat tax or FairTax(mt), and get out of the social engineering business.

You don't think an argument could be made that it would remain "social engineering" in a sense, anyway?

[RNG]

You don't think an argument could be made that it would remain "social engineering" in a sense, anyway?

I,m not sre what you mean. Tax breaks to encourage a certain behavior that the government thinks is beneficial, or thinks will win it votes more often,IMO, like the deduction for kids sports programs gets silly. The big business vs. small business, you can depreciate that at 8% and that at 20% unless the month has a J in it and so on is a vast, unneeded complication. The only downside I see of instituting theses types of systems is the massive EI payments we'd be stuck with because of the gazzillions of accountants, CRA employees and tax lawyers losing their jobs.

[cybercoma]

I believe in progressive tax and I'm not even against tax credits, so long as they're used sparingly. What we have right now is a bloated mess though.

[RNG]

I believe in progressive tax and I'm not even against tax credits, so long as they're used sparingly. What we have right now is a bloated mess though.

That's why I love the FairTax. The rich buggers pay their 23% or whatever on their Maseratis, I pay my 23% on my Smart Car, and my kid pays zero on the junker he bought over the back fence. (Except in BC, of course, the tax capital of Canada). Truly a progressive tax.

[Evening Star]

Possibly, but anyone who thinks that working at Tim Horton's isn't demanding (if you're doing your job right) is fooling themselves. I used to work in an office, at a computer, in a middle management level position. I now own and manage a retail business for half of the week. The latter is much more difficult, stressful, and rewarding.

Oh sure, but you earn significantly more than minimum wage (and even more than a postal worker, I'm guessing) as an owner/manager. People were comparing letter carriers to the minimum-wage guy who gets your order at Tim Horton's (a job I've done, albeit rather briefly). And I do think that carrying a 35-lb bag outdoors all day, regardless of the weather, would place greater physical demands on someone, with a much higher incidence of workplace injury.

[Evening Star]

That's why I love the FairTax. The rich buggers pay their 23% or whatever on their Maseratis, I pay my 23% on my Smart Car, and my kid pays zero on the junker he bought over the back fence. (Except in BC, of course, the tax capital of Canada). Truly a progressive tax.

The definition of a "progressive tax" is that the tax rate itself (not just the number of dollars) grows progressively higher as income increases, right?

Edited July 6, 2011 by Evening Star

[RNG]

I'm not sure, I'm more a bottom line kind of guy. Under FairTax, the rich guys end up paying more, I pay in the middle and my kid pays the least, as it should be. How more progressive can you get? Plus, you get to control what you pay. The perfect situation.

You know almost all of Europe now has a GST equivalent way over 20%, and 53% of the French government revenues come from this. This is how Europe is drifting. Good stuff.

[cybercoma]

This isn't the place to argue about the tax system, but a flat tax isn't actually fair.

People in lower tax brackets do not have as much flexibility with their income. A larger proportion of it goes towards basic expenses: food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, etc. By a larger proportion, in many cases it's nearly ALL of their income. Someone in a higher tax bracket ought to be spending a smaller proportion of their income on basic expenses with the rest of their income being flexible to invest or spend on various things. Organized society requires money to run, so taking the same amount from people that have a lot of flexibility with their income and from people that have little to no flexibility with their income is not at all fair. The degradation that would occur in the lowest income categories would end up costing the higher income earners more money in the end anyway.

[RNG]

This isn't the place to argue about the tax system, but a flat tax isn't actually fair.

People in lower tax brackets do not have as much flexibility with their income. A larger proportion of it goes towards basic expenses: food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, etc. By a larger proportion, in many cases it's nearly ALL of their income. Someone in a higher tax bracket ought to be spending a smaller proportion of their income on basic expenses with the rest of their income being flexible to invest or spend on various things. Organized society requires money to run, so taking the same amount from people that have a lot of flexibility with their income and from people that have little to no flexibility with their income is not at all fair. The degradation that would occur in the lowest income categories would end up costing the higher income earners more money in the end anyway.

[RNG]

This isn't the place to argue about the tax system, but a flat tax isn't actually fair.

People in lower tax brackets do not have as much flexibility with their income. A larger proportion of it goes towards basic expenses: food, clothing, shelter, utilities, transportation, etc. By a larger proportion, in many cases it's nearly ALL of their income. Someone in a higher tax bracket ought to be spending a smaller proportion of their income on basic expenses with the rest of their income being flexible to invest or spend on various things. Organized society requires money to run, so taking the same amount from people that have a lot of flexibility with their income and from people that have little to no flexibility with their income is not at all fair. The degradation that would occur in the lowest income categories would end up costing the higher income earners more money in the end anyway.

If this isn't the place where is. Should I start a new thread?

And yes, I am not a flat tax fan, other than it would be better than what we have now.

I still think FairTax is the way to go.

[Moonbox]

Evidently, you don't see "treated reasonably" as subjective...but "treated poorly" is.

Treated 'reasonably' is also subjective. It's just a little less subjective in that labour laws define reasonable and fair treatment.

That's a telling contradiction, isn't it? At bottom, you assume the boss is reasonable; the dude doing "monkey work"...not necessarily.

Nope. You completely missed the point. Labour laws provide safeguards against unfair and unreasonable treatment. The unions, on the other hand, attempt to go far beyond that for the poor, horribly treated bus drivers who need to make sure they can bank 15 sick days or something a year.

What I am expecting is that employers treat their employees with dignity and respect.

Dignity is completely subjected. I'll say they're entitled to being able to go to the bathroom, not being fired without cause or for being sick and to not have to work slavish hours. As for respect, you earn that and there's no other way to get it. You don't get that by shaking down taxpayers for salaries/benefits similarly skilled monkey workers in the private sector have no hope of earning.

[TimG]

Labour laws provide safeguards against unfair and unreasonable treatment.

Actually, labour laws are often idiotic and infringe on a workers right to choose his/her terms of work. For example, a friend runs a business where work crews go to remote sites for a few days. For years workers would put in 12 hour days for 3-4 days and then have the week rest of the week off. It was great for the workers because they got extra long weekends. It was great for business because jobs would get done faster. But some idiot had to complain and government forced him to retroactively pay overtime even though he had already given time off in lieu of overtime. Now jobs take longer and none of his workers get extra long weekends even though most loved the system. Edited July 7, 2011 by TimG

[Sandy MacNab]

I have doubts about Trudeau's deliberateness on the matter. But I do wonder why a man like myself, of, say, average intelligence, feels like he's relearning it every damn year.

Oh, it might be me. Definitely. But enough people sympathize that I don't think it is.

It's not you, neither is it me.

[cybercoma]

Actually, labour laws are often idiotic and infringe on a workers right to choose his/her terms of work. For example, a friend runs a business where work crews go to remote sites for a few days. For years workers would put in 12 hour days for 3-4 days and then have the week rest of the week off. It was great for the workers because they got extra long weekends. It was great for business because jobs would get done faster. But some idiot had to complain and government forced him to retroactively pay overtime even though he had already given time off in lieu of overtime. Now jobs take longer and none of his workers get extra long weekends even though most loved the system.

Depends on the province. In NB you don't get overtime for a 48 hour week. You're also able to work a 12 hour day, as long as you get two half hour breaks and there's 8 hours between the end of one shift and the beginning of the next.

[Saipan]

Postal Strike Imminent

No, it's not

[Moonbox]

Actually, labour laws are often idiotic and infringe on a workers right to choose his/her terms of work.

Okay, sure, not all of them are brilliant. That really has nothing to do with what I'm saying though. Labour laws are in place now to ensure that workers are not treated like disposable slaves, and while some of them make no sense, overall they're important.

The Unions do something altogether different.

[Molly]

Postal Strike Imminent

No, it's not

I'm kind of wondering if it's still on. As the backlog is supposedly being cleared 'as quickly as possible', there's not much mail hitting the boxes around here. No junk mail, no personal mail. Not even last month's bills....

[cybercoma]

It's hard to clear the backlog when you're not allowed to work overtime.

[Molly]

Of course... but seriously, are we even seeing an attempt to keep up with day-to-day? Even with no overtime one might expect to see a tiny surge in deliveries, but we are seeing even less than on regular pre-strike days. Maybe that's chance and maybe it's conditions (like none of the backlog is easy junk mail, so the pile might be tougher than if it was comprised of the usual) but we have to wonder also whether it's by design.

[TimG]

It is just posties working hard (sic) to show Canadians that they don't need the post office anymore.

[cybercoma]

Of course... but seriously, are we even seeing an attempt to keep up with day-to-day? Even with no overtime one might expect to see a tiny surge in deliveries, but we are seeing even less than on regular pre-strike days. Maybe that's chance and maybe it's conditions (like none of the backlog is easy junk mail, so the pile might be tougher than if it was comprised of the usual) but we have to wonder also whether it's by design.

I had more mail than usual today.