Sex tax?

Our prime minister is a feminist. That’s cool. Sometimes society needs a kick in the ass to correct. The comment section of this blog should be so lucky.

Insisting on gender parity in the makeup of your cabinet is one thing. (There may be a case for sex-based leadership as opposed to merit-based choices. Let’s leave history to decide that.) But having sex-based taxes may be going too far. In fact, there’s no doubt. That would mock equality.

Yesterday this pathetic, carbon-based, apologetically manly blog discussed the looming tax crush on small business owners and incorporated professionals. The feds plan to wipe away the ability of entrepreneurs to income-split with spouses or to build their own sheltered retirement fund inside their business. You got some attitude on that.

But the 63-page treatise that FM Bill Morneau unleashed is memorable for other things that it says – namely, that this overhaul of the tax code will subject to “gender-based analysis.” In other words, the feds are asking: should men and women be taxed differently? Seems we may be headed in that direction. In the name of fairness, of course. And a vibrant middle class. (With guys paying more.)

Anyway, here’s exactly what Ottawa has just stated:

___________________________________________________

What shall we read into this?

Hard to say. There’s the not-so-subtle data dump showing men are disproportionately targeted for higher taxes because most entrepreneurs and business owners (70% or so) are dudes. Therefore dropping the hammer on income-sprinkling or retained earnings will impact them far more than women. No big surprise there. Mars and Venus. When human nature changes we can rewrite lots of laws.

But what’s new here is gender-based analysis of stuff that may bear no relation to sex. Should male and female doctors with professional corporations have differing tax treatments afforded them? Will a hundred grand saved inside a female entrepreneur’s corporation be taxed at a different level because her gender means a longer life expectancy and as compensation for the income gap T2 speaks of routinely?

When Bill Morneau says, “A detailed analysis of the gender impacts of the proposal that relates to passive income will be conducted before the Government decides on the final design of the new tax rules,” what does that mean? If most businesses are owned by men, won’t they be the most impacted?

This page in Ottawa’s landmark tax document may mean nothing. It might mean everything. Using the tax code to encourage behaviours like saving, investing or starting a business is well-established and understandable. Using it for social engineering and to further the cause of feminism – as noble and media-worthy as that may be – is radical.

And I thought man buns were scary.

 

258 comments ↓

#1 Bobby on 07.31.17 at 4:49 pm

I’m a male and fortunately I earn a good income. With all the taxes being proposed in Ottawa and now here in BC, I’m left wondering whether I’m wasting my time going to work.
Maybe I would be better off staying home.

#2 Victoria Real Estate Update on 07.31.17 at 4:54 pm

CANADA ONLY LETS IN “WEALTHY IMMIGRANTS”

Up until 3 months ago in Toronto… realtors were telling potential buyers that it was different in Toronto. Current levels of demand, the claimed (without any proof, of course), would never fall and house prices will rise forever because Canada only lets in “wealthy immigrants” who buy expensive houses.

They claimed housing busts were for other countries – like the US, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. – because their immigrants aren’t selected for their wealth like they are in Canada.

Then Toronto’s market surprised those who don’t understand what a housing bubble is and what it does. Detached house prices have fallen almost 20% in 3 months.

Last year in Victoria, realtors claimed that 2016’s higher levels of demand proved that Victoria’s housing market had undergone a permanent change. Outside buyers, the claimed (without any proof, of course) had “suddenly discovered” Victoria.

Of course Mr. Market proved them 100% wrong in 2017. Below are the monthly sales drops in 2017 compared to the same months in 2016 from Victoria’s R/E board.

January: -18%
February: – 25%
March: – 25%
April: – 43%
May: – 27%
June: – 19%

And right now in Victoria… realtors are telling potential buyers that it is different in Victoria. They claim house prices will rise forever because Canada only lets in “wealthy immigrants” who buy expensive houses.

They claim housing busts are for other countries – like the US, Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. – because their immigrants aren’t selected for their wealth like they are in Canada…

BUBBLES BOOM AND BUBBLES BUST

There are no exceptions to be found anywhere in the world at any time. All housing bubbles go through panic buying boom years and all bubbles go through panic selling bust years.

Canada’s bust will be exciting for those who have been waiting for lower prices. They will be rewarded with the opportunity to buy a house at price levels that make sense based on economic fundamentals and their city’s long-term mean.

#3 Andrewski on 07.31.17 at 4:55 pm

So what happens when this happens?!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/health/canadian-baby-gender-designation/index.html

#4 Andrewski on 07.31.17 at 4:57 pm

The Mooch, drank too much hooch & now he’s in the pooch!

#5 Art on 07.31.17 at 5:04 pm

Nice photo Garth. What is on the ground behind the human blow torch?

#6 Homer Chimpson on 07.31.17 at 5:04 pm

“Insisting on gender parity in the makeup of your cabinet is one thing. (There may be a case for sex-based leadership as opposed to merit-based choices. Let’s leave history to decide that.) But having sex-based taxes may be going too far. In fact, there’s no doubt. That would mock equality.”

Cuckservative nonsense.

In 10 years you’ll be saying that sex based taxes are fine, but we shouldn’t be executing all males.

#7 This country... on 07.31.17 at 5:11 pm

… is going down the drain at an accelerating rate.

#8 the ryguy on 07.31.17 at 5:23 pm

I for one will gladly change my gender (on paper) to pay less in taxes..maybe that will be enough to put all this lunacy to rest.

What else can these fools tinker with? I have a couple great ideas.

– Zero foreign aid
– No contributions to any government employee pensions if there is a deficit.
– Accountability for spending. All us taxpayers get are pie charts with general headings. Imagine I was allowed to run my businesses that way? 30% administrative..yeah that sounds about right.

These people are such scum, Ive rarely wished ill on anyone..but..if there is a god.

#9 D on 07.31.17 at 5:26 pm

frrisstt?

#10 Mike in Calgary on 07.31.17 at 5:26 pm

I read the recent tax proposals and I have to say that the tone and condescension of proposals is what leaves me most concerned. And it baffles me. I’m a 54 year old man and I’m well entrenched in the top 1% category. I got here as a result of a series conscious choices I made starting 32 years ago when, with a new wife, child and no education beyond high school, I decided to go to university. I picked a subject area that would hopefully land me a good job when I graduated. And I did this without any help from parents or other family members. And all student loans were paid back early with interest.
After graduating, I realized I didn’t want to work for anyone so I started working toward starting my own business. Currently, I have 2 other partners and 15 staff. I can’t count the number of 50-60 hour weeks I put in over the last 30 years, all those weekends and evenings. I’ve played a direct role in hiring and training at least 30 or 40 new university graduates and helped them get started in their professional careers.
I put my two sons through university. I have a great relationship with both of them and I paid off my ex-wife in full and was never late for one single payment.
And after all this, from everything that I read, I guess I’m considered to be a bad person. I’m evil. I don’t pay my share even thought that share can be measured in several millions of dollars over the last 30 years, and that doesn’t include the payroll, GST and other taxes our firm pays.
I guess the fact that the collective efforts of me and my business partners has resulted in 15 other households having gainful employment, all earning in the top 15% of income earners in Canada – including our receptionist – doesn’t count for anything anymore.
I don’t understand where the country is going anymore. And I sometimes questions whether it’s worth even caring.

#11 Dan.t on 07.31.17 at 5:28 pm

The biggest issues in Canada, housing, feminism and transgender equality.

Let’s see…get everyone repeating the same mantra “buy house, house go up forever, debt, don’t matter”, once each and every Canadian believes the same thing, and are all in, we have them hooked, debt slaves for life, lets change the issue so those who bought the cool aid won’t focus so much on the coming pain…

What to do, let’s then make transgender a major issue…WTF ???? Who made this stuff up? Who cares? Seriously! Do what you have to do, why do you need a public platform?

Ok, now lets mess with the tax code based on gender? I thought equality means men and woman are treated the same. How hypocritical is that to focus on gender in a tax code? I guess equality only matters if you used to be a man/woman but are now a woman or whatever…

man, (sorry,I mean woman), things are seriously strange watching this stuff go on from outside of Canada. You can’t write stranger fiction than reality…seriously. It is strange.

Thank god T2 has it all under control. The younger generation is going to be seriously messed up.

I understand the agenda to get everyone to buy houses with free money, but what is coming next, no idea. It is getting weird and weirder.

#12 young & foolish on 07.31.17 at 5:29 pm

The report also indicated that females are the majority recipients of “income sprinkling” … seems they would be the bigger losers, no?

#13 green dude on 07.31.17 at 5:30 pm

Do you think this will be based on sex at birth? Or the gender a person chooses to identify as?

#14 Smoking Man on 07.31.17 at 5:32 pm

Libralism is a mental disorder as you can clearly see.

#15 Chris L. on 07.31.17 at 5:32 pm

Why don’t women have to contribute equally to the taxes paid and help support our government equally?

Wrap your mind around that one.

Hint: You could re-write many feminist arguments if you can figure out how the gender income inequality argument has been SPUN (by social engineers) to further the cause of women.

Women really do have a Matriarchy and will stick together on these issues. Often times, when feminists make claims against men, they are reading deep into their own psychology so the arguments can easily be reversed.

Look up solipsism.

#16 Alberta Ed on 07.31.17 at 5:35 pm

I await with bated breath the tax implications for those who are ‘gender-diverse’.

#17 Blutterfy on 07.31.17 at 5:40 pm

Wow. Thanks for sharing this. If this actually goes through I suspect a lot of business owners will just switch the names so the female is the main owner. This and the T2 seem awfully keen on killing small businesses- i can see how the larger corporations would be interested in killing the competition while at the same time increasing the competition for the worker pool so they can offer lower wages for better talent. But my tinfoil hat is getting hot and I’ve got to go back to work now…

#18 Dave on 07.31.17 at 5:41 pm

The wrong person just won the election in Venezuela, expect oil prices to stay low till he is removed.

#19 Jeevan on 07.31.17 at 5:42 pm

It seems impossible to tax men and women differently based solely on gender. It would be an easy win for the conservatives in the next election.

I think it’s just more of the usual gender virtue signalling. Someone will be paid to study this and then the plan will continue as planned.

#20 cecilhenry on 07.31.17 at 5:47 pm

Feminism is not a blessing, it is motivated by envy and resentment of the differences between the sexes.

Get with the program. Its 2017…

Feminism is what is responsible for this parasitism and bureaucratic state. There are a lot of lives destroyed by the social engineering already embedded in this, with family courts and the nanny state.

See here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2011/06/rotating-polyandry-and-its-enforcers-part-1/

‘Gender based analysis’ is coercive, evil and unacceptable…. but it is the logical outcome of the motives of socialists who hate ‘inequality’

Just ask Jordan Peterson.

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.

The same spirit, the same motives, and the same agenda that made the Soviet KULAKs brings you this menace.

Hey Justin: What was ‘our’ strength before diversity??

What will it be AFTER diversity?? There will be an ‘after’, because there always is an after for such coercive, evil measures

#21 waiting on the westcoast on 07.31.17 at 5:48 pm

Well – I picked a bad time to come back to Canada to build up another company….

Fortunately, I am dispensable. T2 must have a long list of people willing to invest a ton of their own money and time to build companies whatever their sex…

#22 dan on 07.31.17 at 5:51 pm

The minute you factor in sex into the equality equation then it’s a slippery slope to age, race and religion inequality arguments.

#23 prairiedenial on 07.31.17 at 5:51 pm

a 50 year old Gen Xer, maybe I am not ‘angry’ enough, never felt oppressed…. in my opinion, the most unbelievable, overt vote pandering ever, on any continent…even the Swedes tax equally….unbelievable…

#24 BG on 07.31.17 at 5:56 pm

If this goes through, I will consider leaving Canada.
This is not the country I immigrated to.

#25 My take on 07.31.17 at 5:57 pm

My reading of the posted section is that the government is trying to cover its ass and make sure this tax won’t further exacerbate the ~wage gap~.

This may also just be a subtle play that says, hey feminists, this might help out the wage gap thing (since we know it’s based on men having higher paying jobs and often higher level positions, like the folks with private corps).

I don’t see anything in the above that suggests they’d come up with different rates based on gender, which would be insane.

#26 Jonsnow on 07.31.17 at 5:59 pm

Seriously?
To outsmart a Trudeau you have to think like a Trudeau.
So men are going to be taxed more? Ok, isn’t gender and sex fluid? So identify as whatever gender gets taxed less.
Problem solved.
Don’t play checkers when your opponents are playing chess.

#27 The real Kip on 07.31.17 at 6:02 pm

Oh no, not more rich guy problems.

#28 the Hammer on 07.31.17 at 6:03 pm

Oh Boy, Smokester is going to go trumpostal!

#29 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 6:03 pm

Why not tax households instead of individuals?
Ideally a couple is a team, and regardless of whether they are salary+dividends or dividends x2 or salary x2 earners (or even one stay at home parent) they share the income so why not let them share the tax burden?

#30 TheSpangler on 07.31.17 at 6:04 pm

Isn’t that fact skewed by demographics, as a lot of QSBC dispositions would be people in the 50+ range, where it was the last generation with a wife (ya ya i know) who would stay at home, and this was their succession planning by either selling a business or passing it down in the family?

The same would impact the dividend distribution also.

This is really stupid if they go this route. As wouldn’t this not matter anyways, as the PC snowflakes believe gender is fluid, and on days affecting tax issues they would identify as the lesser-taxed gender?

#31 I thinks I know something on 07.31.17 at 6:04 pm

All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others.

#32 Sitting on the toilet thinking on 07.31.17 at 6:06 pm

Paying taxes based on gender is a fantastic idea I’ll just say I’m transgender and I identify myself with whatever gender pays less taxes

#33 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 6:08 pm

I think there is an easy way to get around any income sprinkling laws that come in.
When you first start a CCPC you have to buy shares of it (often 100 shares for $1 each)
If you and your spouse each buy 100 shares then aren’t you each entitled to half the dividends regardless of work put in?
If I buy 50% of a companies shares I get half the dividends, right? Despite not doing any work?
Maybe I’m missing something….

#34 nick on 07.31.17 at 6:09 pm

Seems like they are afraid to do anything that appears to disproportionately hurt the womyn.

Pretty sad that they cant stick to their own logic which they deem fair/reasonable. They have to bend it because feminism.

#35 Ex-Cowtown on 07.31.17 at 6:09 pm

No problem. I’ll simply “identify with” which ever sex gives me the best tax breaks. Gender fluidity rocks!!!

I defy the gutless T2 regime to deny my rights.

#36 Sam the Sham on 07.31.17 at 6:09 pm

OK let’s tax men and women differently. Advantage to the women of course. Luckily our new gender fluid society will now create a loophole for all the dudes. Biology is out the window now. You can be whatever sex/gender you want to be. So when we’re filling out our tax forms we can all be women and then we can “revert back” to being a dude. Little selfie boy and his Liberal cronies couldn’t object to this, that would be anti LGBT and we can’t have that!!

#37 DD on 07.31.17 at 6:12 pm

Trudeau needs to be gone in 2019. Blog dogs – mark October 21, 2019 in your calendars. Be there!

#38 Luigi Mennossa on 07.31.17 at 6:13 pm

Vancouver home prices are shameful. They will likely plummet 80% before the end of 2018.

#39 Debtslavecreator on 07.31.17 at 6:16 pm

Radical left wing crazies on the loose
What did we expect ? They will not stop until everything has been looted in the name of fairness and equality (equality = communism )
You cannot have real democracy without property rights and its twin sister of sound money and Canadians are learning that this is not some weird abstract theory
Boy oh boy is it getting interesting. And people call this a stable and safe country for capital ??

#40 Tulips on 07.31.17 at 6:18 pm

#12 Luigi Mennossa on 07.31.17 at 6:13 pm

Vancouver home prices are shameful. They will likely plummet 80% before the end of 2018.

———————————————————–

Care to elaborate how you think this will come to pass?

#41 Wog on 07.31.17 at 6:18 pm

The solution to a tax based on gender is to “identify” as whatever gender is being favoured then, no?

#42 choptstix on 07.31.17 at 6:21 pm

”Foreign buyers’ tax, other measures under review: B.C. housing minister.”
http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/foreign-buyers-tax-and-other-measures-under-review-b-c-housing-minister-says

excerpt:
”From June 10 until Aug. 1, 2016 — one day before the tax took effect — 13.2 per cent of all property transfer transactions in Metro Vancouver involved foreign buyers, according to data from the B.C. Finance Ministry. From Aug. 2, 2016, until the end of last year, that figure fell to 2.6 per cent.

In the months after the tax, there were signs of cooling in Vancouver’s housing market, with the number of transactions falling. However, there have been signs that the market may be rebounding, as prices continue to creep up.

The Multiple Listing Service composite benchmark price for all properties in Metro Vancouver was $998,700 in June, an increase of 7.9 per cent from the same month last year, according to the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board.

Tsur Somerville, the director of the University of British Columbia Centre for Urban Economics and Real Estate, said the tax may have dampened foreign interest in a city where housing prices are among the most expensive in North America.

But another possibility is that some foreign buyers are not self-identifying as such or have shifted to purchasing properties, like pre-sale condominiums, that aren’t covered by the tax, he said.”

#43 Lala land on 07.31.17 at 6:24 pm

Opening sex changing clinic can be very profitable indeed. The owner would be a shemale of course.

#44 Smoking Man on 07.31.17 at 6:25 pm

Smoking Man’s info is stuck in the share your comment input boxes… -ImGonnaBeSick

#45 choptstix on 07.31.17 at 6:28 pm

#12 Luigi Mennossa on 07.31.17 at 6:13 pm

Vancouver home prices are shameful. They will likely plummet 80% before the end of 2018.

———————————————————–

Care to elaborate how you think this will come to pass?
————————————————————–
totally agree, Tulips: can’t see Scamcouver dropping that much ever…some people on here are just delusional….and imagine the ripple effects on the economy (even at 30-50%, again, doubtful): increased job losses, a day to day existence of worry and dread…no thanks.

#46 Chris N on 07.31.17 at 6:28 pm

DELETED

#47 Canadian in LA on 07.31.17 at 6:31 pm

I am hoping this is just click bait Garth. I am having trouble believing Canada will even ponder such ludicrous nonsense. I’m guessing its just a statement of fact that men start more businesses – not we should tax men more.

Having lived in both US and Canada, I don’t know which system is better. I feel guilty in the US because of the wealth difference (I’m not even wealthy). However, I was perpetually pissed in Canada because all the sacrifices, delayed gratification, hard work and risk taken feels like it was for the others who ‘deserves’ it more because they are unlucky.

#48 Yuri Nmahwe on 07.31.17 at 6:31 pm

Coming this Fall

“Live, uh, from, uh, New York, uh, it’s, uh, uh, Saturday Night!”

We should be so proud.

#49 Trojan House on 07.31.17 at 6:32 pm

Since Garth and so many of these blog dogs are dog lovers, why not tax all dogs as well? You can have a tax for male dogs and female dogs, big dogs and small dogs, tall dogs and short dogs, dogs with long tails and dogs with short tails, dogs with long fur and dogs with short fur, dogs with upright ears and dogs with flap ears. They can tax dogs for their different colours as well. How about a tax for purebreds and a tax for mutts (lower tax rate of course for a mutt).

Why stop at dogs? They can do the same for cats, pet birds, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, etc. Imagine the tax base!

I’m going to self-identify as a tree. Perhaps an ever green. There are no plans to tax trees are there?

#50 FOUR FINGERS WATSON on 07.31.17 at 6:33 pm

I miss the 20th century.

#51 Ivan on 07.31.17 at 6:33 pm

It’s in line with T2’s agenda of gender identity.
He wants close to 100% population to stitch to gender neutrality, or whatever he considers to be the best option

#52 Ace Goodheart on 07.31.17 at 6:35 pm

As many commenters on here have pointed out, the Liberal Socialist set, of which T2 is a founding member, have done away with gender distinction based on actual physical sex organs attached to a person’s physical body.

It is now possible to “identify” with any sex you like (or no sex, if you like).

So if they tax men more than women, then I will identify as “female” and “lesbian”. My actual physical gender doesn’t matter.

They’ll have us all using the same bathrooms pretty soon anyway and no one outside of North America cares about nudity anymore.

Time to select a new gender for myself, for tax purposes…..

#53 Marcus on 07.31.17 at 6:37 pm

Young men. MGTOW is growing exactly for these reasons. Unequal representation w/r/t the law in divorce and child custody and now Gender based tax systems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC3QZgYwpQs&t=1s

#54 Newcomer on 07.31.17 at 6:43 pm

#33 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 6:08 pm
I think there is an easy way to get around any income sprinkling laws that come in.
When you first start a CCPC you have to buy shares of it (often 100 shares for $1 each)
If you and your spouse each buy 100 shares then aren’t you each entitled to half the dividends regardless of work put in?
If I buy 50% of a companies shares I get half the dividends, right? Despite not doing any work?
Maybe I’m missing something….

————–

That is specifically covered in the report, which was linked yesterday. There is even an example. The proposed determination is one of reasonableness, and it fits with the general principle of the tax office being able to restate accounts in ways that negate what they consider to be avoidance. What they are saying is that the CRA will be direct to stop considering the approach you propose to be reasonable. There will be lots of ways to get around the impact of this directive, if it goes through. Your best bet is to pay a good accountant or financial advisor to tell you about them.

#55 Michael King on 07.31.17 at 6:45 pm

Since it’s T2 Bashing Time: http://frankmag.ca/2017/07/in-stores-monday-july-31st/

#56 HDJ on 07.31.17 at 6:46 pm

The tax code is intentionally complicated because politicians have never wanted average citizens to notice that taxes paid by the wealthy are less than they should be. It’s all about corruption. And if by chance females pay higher taxes than they logically should, that too should come under scrutiny and be corrected. I’m totally in favour of removing the ongoing stench from our tax system. Go for it, Justin and Bill.

#57 Lee on 07.31.17 at 6:46 pm

#38 Luigi,

Your estimate of 80 percent crash is pure wishful thinking. It must be wishful thinking because the only other choice is insanity.

#58 Smartalox on 07.31.17 at 6:48 pm

Well this seems to be the analysis for the ‘credits’ side of the ledger, if you consider taxes as ‘accounts receivable’ or the money coming into government coffers.

What about the discussion of the role of gender on the ‘debits’ side of the ledger? The ‘accounts payable’ – monies received from governments?

I’m pretty sure we’d find that the female gender represents a significant majority of those that receive government payouts, what with family allowances, and welfare payments and the like.

In that light, the Neo-Conservative argument that ‘those who consume the most of government’s services should also be the ones to pay for those government services’ is revealed for how repellant it really is.

But this is the opposite extreme, almost to the point that it sounds like trolling.

Surely tax equity could be achieved more effectively with some combination of refundable and non-refundable tax credits?

But nobody ever scores partisan political points with those!

#59 Mark on 07.31.17 at 6:49 pm

“If you and your spouse each buy 100 shares then aren’t you each entitled to half the dividends regardless of work put in?”

If the employees/directors/etc. of the business are truly paid as though they were arms-length entities for their services, then sure. But this isn’t the case for many such businesses.

A pretty general principle in tax and business law is that when a corporation deals with a related entity, they have to go to great lengths to ensure that a transaction or a service is recorded “at fair market value”. Yet in the case of these corporations that derive their income solely through the rendering of professional services, the tax reduction strategies are mostly predicated on the corporation *not* paying the professional fair market value for their services that would be the case if arms-length entities were dealing.

As to why females benefit less from being able to abuse incorporation to reduce effective tax rates through income splitting, its largely a matter of the occupational mix. But with medical and law schools increasingly heavily weighted towards females, such issue should dissipate over time significantly.

#60 SimVan on 07.31.17 at 6:51 pm

This excerpt does nothing but stir up the peanut gallery which is unnecessary with the number of wannabe Mooches and Drumpfs that seem to chime in.

Anyone can incorporate. The excerpt says men incorporate in greater numbers.

They are studying the effects on this tax on the income earners and the people who received passive income which is generally split along gender lines.

There is nothing in this that even remotely hints at gender based taxation.

This post is much ado about nothing.

Now lets talk about the gong show which is the White House and the ignorant clowns that run it.

#61 Fuzzy Camel on 07.31.17 at 6:55 pm

Easy fix for this feminist nonsense. Go to your family doctor, claim you are transgender and identify as a woman. They’ll whip up a letter, take it to the MTO and they are legally required to change your gender to female. *poof*, now you are a female running a corporation and subject to discounted taxes.

The good thing about feminists is they aren’t too bright, and their own stupid rules are easily used against them to avoid their stupid rules. I encourage all straight white men to do just what I mentioned above, and Wynne and her PC loonies won’t be able to push their sexist tax agenda on you.

#62 Vanrentor on 07.31.17 at 6:57 pm

I came across this letter on another site. I will leave the authors name out.

This is an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada regarding proposed changes to physician incorporation, and the impact that this will have on myself and many other doctors in Canada.

Dear Mr. Trudeau,

I am a family physician in British Columbia. I completed my residency three weeks ago and have worked every day since receiving my medical licence. I have spent 12 years completing my education, and now, as I finally reach the point where I can begin to work toward paying off the hundreds of thousands of dollars of educational debt I’ve accrued, your government is proposing changes to private corporations that will cripple my efforts to work and raise a family in Canada.

These changes will hit female physicians hard, as women represent an increasingly greater percentage of family doctors, whose group practices will be greatly affected. Further, female physicians receive zero maternity leave benefits, and depend on their corporations to allow them to take a (usually brief) period of time with their babies. Taking this away is a slap in the face to the women who are providing front-line medical care in this country, and is in stark contrast to the feminism you have stood up for.

I have two little girls, one who is about to start kindergarten, and one who has nearly mastered putting on her own shoes. I am the sole income earner for my family. Years of moving to different cities for undergrad, medical school and residency have necessitated my husband sacrificing his career goals. The reality of medical practice means there is really no outside childcare that would work for us—it is hard to find a daycare that is available 24/7, as I am to my patients. My husband’s contribution as a stay-at-home dad is completely ignored by the looming loss of my ability to incorporate. Supporting men who stay at home to raise their children while their partners work hard for their communities is a profoundly feminist message. Please do not let this message be lost.

As a physician I receive no pension, no employment insurance, no disability insurance, no vacation time, no medical benefits, no sick leave, no maternity leave, and no benefits of any kind from the government. I pay 30% of my income to overhead expenses: rent, employees, examining tables, suture material, speculums, hydro, phones, cleaning products, bandages, gloves, and everything else that is purchased by doctors. I pay; not the government or patients. If I am temporarily unable to work for any reason, such as illness, childbirth or bereavement, I continue to pay for this overhead.

Canadian doctors pay for our healthcare infrastructure out of their own pockets. When you come into a clinic, wounded from doing battle with a bagel or avocado, the doctor who sews you up is the one paying for the chlorhexidine she cleans your wound with, the lidocaine she uses to numb your pain, the gauze to staunch the blood flow, the sutures that close your wound, the tools that let her hold the needle, the antibiotic cream to ward off infection, the bandage, the needle and syringe that protect you against tetanus, the paper sheet you’re sitting on, the bed underneath you, the products to clean the room when you leave, and the wages of the person who cleans it. And then there are the many thousands of dollars on top of this paid for the privilege of practising medicine (licensing fees, insurance fees, fees required to join mandatory provincial bodies, etc).

There is no tax “loophole.” The right to incorporate was specifically and intentionally given to physicians by the Canadian government in lieu of the government increasing doctors’ incomes so that we are able to cover the above costs and keep our practices running.

I am genuinely afraid that the changes you and your government are proposing to the taxation structure for small businesses will eliminate my ability to perform the job I have worked so hard, for so many years, to do. All of the nights that I spent away from my babies while delivering other people’s children, all of the times I left my toddlers crying at the window while I left dinner untouched on the table and went back to the hospital to assist on a surgery, all of the bedtimes I missed because I was working in the emergency room—what were these sacrifices for if I can’t pay off the void that is my student debt, if I can not take a few months off work to complete my family, if I can not save for my children’s education?

Please rethink the changes that you are proposing. The impact that they will have is devastating to many Canadian doctors.

Thank you for your consideration and support.

#63 Frustrated Kiwi on 07.31.17 at 6:57 pm

I have read that paragraph twice and see absolutely nothing in it to suggest gender-based taxing. Sorry, but you are fear-mongering. Particularly since, being liberal, I’m sure they don’t support a binary definition of gender, I see close to zero probability of them going there. Sure they want to measure impact, just as I’m sure they want to measure the wage gap, but measuring is very very different to different tax treatment.

#64 blobby on 07.31.17 at 6:57 pm

Right, so women earn less than men.

So proportionally they get taxed less.

Women also live longer, and are therefor going to be a bigger burden on the health and old age system.

So therefor to be fair – rather obviously – women should get higher taxes (and higher CPP contributions) than men.

(I am joking here before a feminist starts getting their knickers in a twist.. But no different to what the government is suggesting really)

#65 Smartalox on 07.31.17 at 6:58 pm

Garth,

As a former federal minister for national revenue, does the ministry have some sort of ‘test facility’ to run these scenarios, to assess all these proposals under ‘real world’ conditions – like on realistic household budgets – and how they integrate with taxation levels in other jurisdictions?

Or is it really just an ivory tower full of policy wonks plugging away at soulless computer models, determined to take every last penny, damn the personal consequences?

I say ‘penny’ because I’m willing to bet that the computer models are so atrophied and out of date that they haven’t been changed since the eradication of the pennies.

#66 Timmy on 07.31.17 at 7:06 pm

What’s more disturbing about Trudeau is that he is being duped by lobbyists to create these privatization scams:

A privatization spree in Canada could cost regular people billions, erode democracy and undermine the fight against climate change

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2016/nov/22/justin-trudeaus-giant-corporate-giveaway

#67 Ron on 07.31.17 at 7:09 pm

Can someone explain the so-called wage gap to me?

In my experience, salary is negotiated by individuals with their employer when starting a job.

So if women earn, on average, less than men, doesn’t this simply mean that women are, on average, less skilled negotiators?

#68 CL on 07.31.17 at 7:09 pm

If I were a woman (and I might need to be if this happens), I would be embarrassed if I had a position in the workplace simply because of my gender. Nobody ever respects that scenario regardless of what gender or any other “status” that person might be.

A person placed based on gender will never steer a ship straight since nobody will assist in steering.

I have full respect for anyone that is in a position due to good ole hard work and dedication, smarts, etc. Too bad Canadians aren’t smart enough to vote in such people.

#69 Androgyny For Tax Purpose on 07.31.17 at 7:10 pm

Am I not allowed to identify as any gender I want? The government can’t just decide for me. That’s against my rights. So, I’m whoever gets taxed preferentially.

#70 Bob on 07.31.17 at 7:12 pm

Drip, drip, drip……

…and so goes that wonderful experiment we once knew as Canada. The country of my youth was a pretty darn nice place to live and grow up in. We have lost so much in the last 50 years…

Drip, drip, drip….

#71 crowdedelevatorfartz on 07.31.17 at 7:13 pm

Gender “equality” in taxation?
Ok.
Implement a 15% Flat Tax across the board.
Everyone will pay 15%, no exceptions, no deductions.
Problem solved.
But wait?
Question. Will we need legions of accountants and lawyers?
Answer. No.We wont.

And thats why the govt will dance on the head of a pin to make taxes “more” fair….whatever that means.
If they implement this……toast in the next election. Count on it.

#72 Raging Ranter on 07.31.17 at 7:13 pm

I doubt GBA means they are considering differential tax rates. I think more likely they will use gender equality as justification for their tax changes. They’ve pretty much said as much by helpfully highlighting that more corps are owned by men than women. That way anyone who opposes the changes (i.e. Conservatives) will be painted as “misogynists” who want to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen. Get used to hearing about GBR. It is going to be used as cover for all kinds of stupid policies and reckless spending.

#73 Linda on 07.31.17 at 7:21 pm

Well, now I’ve read the excerpt Garth so kindly posted, I am thinking that ‘maybe’ this might end up smoothing over the impending ravishment of the entrepreneur based corporate tax structure. Let us presume that due to income splitting the amount the spouse receives (possibly 50-70% of the cases, if 70% of private corporations are male led) is taxed at a lower rate. Bonus for having a spouse who can soothe the vicious attack from the tax vultures. This may of course be overly optimistic & no spousal reduction of taxes may apply, regardless of sex.

That having been said, as a woman I have to state I don’t want to be treated any differently from a male of the species. That is what equality is. So while I do concede that women earn less than men, I would much rather see more work done on ensuring that women receive the same wage for the same work that men may be doing rather than see women receive tax benefits based on gender. Yes, women live longer on average than men & thus need to plan for that, but I don’t see why men should be discriminated against vis a vis the tax system. To me that is a step backward – two wrongs do NOT make a right.

#74 Spaccone on 07.31.17 at 7:21 pm

I can’t fathom what their angle is but one could be to increase taxes/reduce credits on successful confirmed bachelors who receive income through private corporations. They may not have the ability to sprinkle income, but being single they have an unfair advantage in saving far, far more than most women, or men that have the significant added costs of kids, spouse(s), white-picket fence, the whole shabang. Denying unattached women, unborn children, or unrelated single mothers a more leisurely lifestyle and income stream should come with heavy tax unfavourableness.

It can be looked not as only a bachelor tax, but also an annual penalty or fine for probable misogyny. In implementing this “successful bachelor tax”, they should exclude gay male couples otherwise they will be doubly penilized.

#75 Ace Goodheart on 07.31.17 at 7:30 pm

RE: #1 Bobby on 07.31.17 at 4:49 pm
“I’m a male and fortunately I earn a good income. With all the taxes being proposed in Ottawa and now here in BC, I’m left wondering whether I’m wasting my time going to work.
Maybe I would be better off staying home.”

This is true and what I did actually. The govt will take 46% of your income over $126,000 and 54% over $220,000.00 in Ontario. Add to that double CPP for the self employed and the Ontario Health Tax premium and you are up near 60% taxation over $220,000.00 per year.

So what’s the point? I’m not taking home 40,000 of 100,000 earned.

What ended up happening with me was a bunch of people who could have ended up using me as their professional, couldn’t, because I just didn’t feel like giving 60% of my gross earnings to the government.

I got hobbies instead. Spent the summer at the cottage. Cut my file load. Many people suffered. Could not get the assistance they needed.

If anyone thinks that taxing the crap out of doctors, lawyers, and professionals, is going to make the liberal left socialists happier, or make people better in general, they need to get the proverbial grip on things.

Think it is hard to find a doctor now? Tax their retained earnings and retirement investments. Then tell them to keep taking patients because there is a doctor shortage. Good luck with that…..

#76 Steve on 07.31.17 at 7:30 pm

Ok so if you tax men more than woman in a corporation, what stopping men from just identifying as a woman for tax purposes, The government can’t discriminate if you want to do this. What’s stopping all men from doing this? The liberal logic is broken!

#77 Rainclouds on 07.31.17 at 7:30 pm

Perhaps he and his progressive peers are mistaking his election victory over Mr. Harper as some sort of endorsement for his idiotic ideas.

Bad read.

If this sees the light of day, Bye Bye little Potato……….

#78 Gasbag Boomer on 07.31.17 at 7:32 pm

I’m taking a cue from Smokie. I’m done with the 54% tax rate and retiring soon. How is T2 going to collect taxes from those of us doing the same thing?

#79 Tom from Mississauga on 07.31.17 at 7:32 pm

Looks like they are going to lean hard on capital gains and maybe let dividends go. Besides, stopping income sprinkling affects multiple voters, taxing capital gains affects just one.

#80 Long Branch Apprentice on 07.31.17 at 7:33 pm

https://youtu.be/kj7VgBnQNUc

Sort your selves out, blog dogs.

#81 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:34 pm

Will hermaphrodite pay the midpoint between the XX and XY rate?

And what about eunuchs?

Will there be tax credits for men if they are gay?

IS THIS COUNTRY FOR REAL???

#82 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:38 pm

I expect to see 50% gender parity in the front lines of whatever military campaign Canada finds itself.

#83 young & foolish on 07.31.17 at 7:38 pm

“Canada’s bust will be exciting for those who have been waiting for lower prices. They will be rewarded with the opportunity to buy a house at price levels that make sense based on economic fundamentals and their city’s long-term mean.”

Oh yeah, the “back to fundamentals” argument….. Sounds like a return to yesteryear, when houses cost 3 times earnings, US dollar was pegged to gold, and the CN tower was the only tall building in the land.

#84 quebecphysician on 07.31.17 at 7:38 pm

I am a 30 years old family physician working in Quebec. I am incorporated since the beginning of my career. I went through the hardships of med school for 5 years and the 2 more years of residency. I think I got sick because it was too much stress and still endure pain today because of it. I worked hard my whole life when I was in high school and college. I make 300000$ a year being on call 1/3 week which mean 60-70 sometimes 80 hours a week and working at the clinic also the other weeks. The liabilites and responsibilities of patient care are getting are enormeous. Lots of risk…For example you admit a patient for chest pain you get paid 80$ for the admission 20$ for discharge. Without the corporation we would pay 53% taxes which means you get 40-50$ a hour. You can count on lawers to sue us if anything bad happens. We bear all the responsibilities for years after our initial care of the patient. All that for 40$ a patient. Way too much risks not enough rewards. No vacation time no insurance no benefits no hours restriction and lots of risks… I’m gonna move or quit altogether.

#85 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:42 pm

What is He missing?

#33 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 6:08 pm
I think there is an easy way to get around any income sprinkling laws that come in.
When you first start a CCPC you have to buy shares of it (often 100 shares for $1 each)
If you and your spouse each buy 100 shares then aren’t you each entitled to half the dividends regardless of work put in?
If I buy 50% of a companies shares I get half the dividends, right? Despite not doing any work?
Maybe I’m missing something….

****************************************
You are missing the fact that in the case of a small corporation that earns its income from charging for services (often performed by the owner), then paying that out as dividends is basically a scheme to convert wage income to dividend income.

That has been tolerated where the dividend income goes to the owner. It apparently has even been tolerated where the dividend income is split to other family members which is clearly a form of legal tax evasion. The government is within its rights to stop what seems to amount to abuse of the system. While they are at it they might insist the income come out as wages first at a reasonable market rate. Or if retained for business purposes that they not immediately come out as dividends.

#86 AK on 07.31.17 at 7:43 pm

Sprott Energy Fund joins exodus ‘from Canada’s’ energy patch

#87 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:43 pm

What shall we read into this?

Well, certainly not as much as this blog is reading into it. A fun topic but nothing much likely to come of it.

#88 S.Bby on 07.31.17 at 7:44 pm

I thought women wanted to be treated as equals to men?

#89 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:45 pm

What is he missing?

Public corporations issue shares to fund the company typically. Not to lower your taxes. Not to income split for no other reason than to escape taxes.

#90 BC_Doc on 07.31.17 at 7:48 pm

#12 young & foolish on 07.31.17 at 5:29 pm
The report also indicated that females are the majority recipients of “income sprinkling” … seems they would be the bigger losers, no?
********************************************

For the past 20 years, women have had more success at gaining entry to Canadian medical faculties than men (after a century or more of being unrepresented or underrepresented). Now that women are finally starting to see some gains and equality in medicine, they now get to look forward to “Sprinkles” Morneau coming along and spreading Trudeau’s magic fairy dust in name of “cheaters” paying their fair-share. Good grief. So much for using the medical corporation to take a proper maternity leave after years in university, medical school, and residency. More unintended consequences.

#91 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:48 pm

Why is Scaramucci out?

Perhaps because Trump wanted to remain the most vulgar slime ball in the White House and felt threatened?

#92 young & foolish on 07.31.17 at 7:48 pm

“I don’t understand where the country is going anymore. And I sometimes questions whether it’s worth even caring.”

As my Grandad says … The future is unimaginable to most people living in the present, but fundamental human attributes and needs never change.

#93 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:49 pm

“Miss me yet?” – Stephen J. Harper

#94 Freedom First on 07.31.17 at 7:57 pm

Garth, right when I think your Blog has reached its pinnacle of perfection, it moves to yet another higher plateau, again.

I am humbled.

Also, thank you for helping me to hone my skills in oh so many ways on how to live my life fearlessly, as a man.
A man who knows how to adapt to every problem, situation or event which may come my way, in a positive, calm, and sane manner. I have been Blessed.

#1
Freedom First
Master of Freedomonics
Its my life

#95 Rates Vs Capital on 07.31.17 at 8:06 pm

Ya, VREU is back! We missed you! Its time to ground truth your statements little lady.

“Last year in Victoria, realtors claimed that 2016’s higher levels of demand proved that Victoria’s housing market had undergone a permanent change. Outside buyers, the claimed (without any proof, of course) had “suddenly discovered” Victoria.”

I told VREU that she should watch the foreign ownership numbers because she relied on 2015 data – which said that only 0.68% of Victoria buyers were foreign. Guess what, foreign buyers have increased 7 fold in 2016 to 4.7% – and golly gee, prices went up 20% over that time.

http://business.financialpost.com/personal-finance/mortgages-real-estate/little-doubt-foreign-buyers-are-pumping-up-victorias-housing-market-says-bmo-chief-economist/wcm/7d399e76-a463-4ae6-962b-dc5cd56e1eb2

“Of course Mr. Market proved them 100% wrong in 2017. Below are the monthly sales drops in 2017 compared to the same months in 2016 from Victoria’s R/E board.”

So prices went up 20% this last year as you keep flogging the dead horse of collapsing sales for two years and counting . If that is proving them wrong, I would hate to see what it takes to prove them right!

“The benchmark value for a single-family home in the Victoria core increased by 15.1 per cent to $829,600 in June, compared with $721,000 last year.”

http://www.timescolonist.com/business/homebuyers-paying-more-than-asking-price-74m-extra-up-to-june-1.20913635

Nice try VREU. Wrong again on all counts. Back to the basement and try again…

#96 Millmech on 07.31.17 at 8:07 pm

As I see it now I fall right into the lesbian category,Canada rocks!

#97 bigtowne on 07.31.17 at 8:08 pm

We can be thankful for the small business people in Canada who pay their taxes and stay here in Canada in business. If the people who keep the lights on decide to close shop or move out all of us will be hit with the slamming door. Treat people with respect.

#98 Terry on 07.31.17 at 8:08 pm

“Our prime minister is a feminist. That’s cool.”

seriously??? and,

“Using it for social engineering and to further the cause of feminism – as noble and media-worthy as that may be – is radical.”

“That’s Cool” and “as noble and media worthy as that may be”

again, seriously Garth?

Please Lord ………… help this country called Canada. She is rudderless and needs a steady hand to guide her again. Amen.

#99 conan on 07.31.17 at 8:11 pm

DD on 07.31.17 at 6:12 pm

“Trudeau needs to be gone in 2019. Blog dogs – mark October 21, 2019 in your calendars. Be there!”

My fearless prediction is the Cons losing 30 seats, and the NDP staying flat. Guess what that means? More T2.

“This page in Ottawa’s landmark tax document may mean nothing.” -Garth

You are correct, I see nothing here. This could be talking about anything. A tax break for single parents who work?

#100 oncebittwiceshy on 07.31.17 at 8:14 pm

>>>>>>>>Chopstix: “.and imagine the ripple effects on the economy (even at 30-50%, again, doubtful): increased job losses, a day to day existence of worry and dread…no thanks.”<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Interestingly enough, you don't have to imagine. Look south, my friend and you will see what happens to an economy that became so dependent on the FIRE industries.

1.5% of USA GDP was tied up with the FIRE industries and we watched first hand the devastation that happened.

…..but we don't have subprime mortgages.. uh huh
…..but we don't have excessive debt…ohhh
…..but we never had ninja loans..lol
…..well, we don't have speculation or foreign investors….right

Okay, maybe we have had all of that but everyone wants to live in Vancouver. That's one the Bulls had better pray for every night.

http://www.myrealtycheck.ca/
Vancouver:
Average Change: -1.60% Up:105 Down:274
Overall $ Change: -57909839.00 Average Change Amount:-152796.41

So, apparently the Bulls haven't been praying hard enough as price drops measured $57,000,000 this month, in Vancouver alone.

I know, I know, those are simply people that have listed too high and it's just a small sampling. The funny thing is we didn't hear about these people or small samplings during the great bull run of Vancouver.

30%, 50% or 80% …… everyone will start buying once that happens. Sure, that's what they said in Florida, Nevada, Arizona and California but amazingly it was Canadians rushing down to pick up those hot deals with more debt.

I'm not going to venture a guess about how far prices will drop but I can assure you that it will take your breath away. Good luck.

#101 Ret on 07.31.17 at 8:15 pm

Males pay the same C.P.P. premiums as females but live shorter lives by 4-5 years. The same situation exists in all private and public pension plans.

I’ll be looking for T2 to end this structural gender based discrimination perpetuated by his government.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htm

#102 For those about to flop... on 07.31.17 at 8:15 pm

Well……at least I know what Courtney Love is up to nowadays…

M43BC

#103 TRt on 07.31.17 at 8:15 pm

Change the gender you identify with at tax time.

I’m seriously thinking of ‘coming out’ and changing my gender at certain times.

#104 dr. talc on 07.31.17 at 8:19 pm

It’s just a transfer of wealth.
The analysts, consultants, think tanks etc all get paid very well for garbage no one asked for,
Selling airports, looking at sex based tax code changes blah blah, neither will happen- but the job is done, the money the government does not have is spent, we pay it back. Doctors and lawyers are not a problem, people who don’t need CMHC are not a problem; the problem is T2 Morneau, Wynne, Tory, DeSousa and the rest

#105 Tony on 07.31.17 at 8:20 pm

I don’t see it, Canada doesn’t even discriminate by race America does. So if Canada never discriminates by race then I can’t see them discriminating by whether someone is female or male.

#106 Pepito on 07.31.17 at 8:22 pm

Give it up Garth. You’re beating a dead horse. Rich guys made up all that psycho-babble nonsense about trickle down, risk takers, job creators etc, so they could get more money. That simple. The gig is up. Nobody believes that crap anymore. High time to change the rules and make taxation fairer.

#107 Basil Exposition on 07.31.17 at 8:23 pm

Comedian Rick Mercer once explained the fundamental difference between Conservatives and Liberals. He stated that Conservatives will always stick to their principles while the Liberals would sell their own mother’s to get power. One only needs to watch the blatant payoffs and vote buying going on in Ontario in advance of next year’s provincial election to see how Liberals operate. Divide and conquer is the strategy. With a state sponsored broadcaster and the country’s largest daily newspaper ready to smear any opposition to the new enlightenment, all the while ignoring the financial burden to be carried forward, the Liberal machine will continue to tax every aspect of life while it sells our nation’s assets to its wealthy donors at fire sale prices. Gender based taxation should be a wake up call for all.

#108 Mean Gene on 07.31.17 at 8:24 pm

Women live longer then men and collect Old Age Security longer, therefore they should pay more income tax… moron logic is easy peasy.

#109 joblo on 07.31.17 at 8:26 pm

C’mon T2 & BM, get serious wanna tax? a REAL Sex Tax?
Legalize prostitution and tax it. (Male/Female no discrimination)
While your at go full throttle:
Tax Capital gains on homes, inheritance tax, death tax estate tax ……. and bonus the budget WILL balance itself!
Whatta ya say? Canada is back.

#110 Soviet Capitalist on 07.31.17 at 8:31 pm

If a husband is feminist, then in order to make things equal, his wife must be a homministe.

Do men need to be protected as well or do they exist just to pay the bills and take the blame?

Politicians always find pretty labels to unjust decisions.

What this really appears to be is the party in power giving perks to the social groups it hopes will keep it there at the expense of other social groups who did not care to vote.
At the end of the day it’s our own fault, if men were really politically active and cared to make a dent in social decision making, then politicians would have sought their votes and would not rush to tax. The question then becomes: who else could they have taxed to pay for perks?

#111 Nonplused on 07.31.17 at 8:32 pm

Leave it to our hopelessly confused government to somehow come to the conclusion that taxes are a gender issue. When you raise taxes on one member of a family, you cannot help but raise taxes on all the members of that family. Doesn’t matter whether you tax mom or dad, little Johnie doesn’t get a new bike for Christmas.

The reason men own a disproportionate number of these small businesses Trudeau and his band of clowns is going after is two fold: 1. more men work than women, and 2. more men are doing jobs that lend to incorporation like mowing the lawn and plumbing. I did meet a female electrician once. Once.

All this “pay-gap” stuff is crap as well. It’s been proven time and time again that when you compare the same work and the same hours there is no discernible pay gap. A female teacher does not earn less than a male teacher with the same tenure. No big corporation is going to underpay women for the same job because they would go straight to court. I used to see the spread sheets for a major corporation come salary and bonus season for about 100 people, and there was no way looking at that spreadsheet one could argue men were making more than women for an equivalent job. There were more men, no doubt, but most of the jobs were in engineering, accounting, and IT. To solve the so called “pay-gap” women need to select these kids of careers more often. But my daughter chose “illustration” instead. Granted, that’s much more her bailiwick, but she is unlikely to earn as much as I did as a result. She will in all likelihood be happier as a result of her decision, but she is unlikely to be rich. Who wants to be an accountant? I mean sure you get to drink for free on the job but that’s the only thing going for it besides the money.

The only “difference” in pay that remains unaddressed is that women do lose seniority when they take mat-leave. That’s it. But they also get a year off work with government paid benefits. And, where it makes economic sense, it is perfectly acceptable for the husband to take the mat-leave and the wife to go back to work. I know a lawyer who did this as she far out-earned her husband so it made no sense from a financial point of view for her to stay home. A dentist too. I don’t know any doctors but I’m betting the lady doctors are back to their practice in 6 weeks or less.

Speaking of doctors, is there a pay-gap there? Is the government allowed to pay female practitioners less than males? It is true that less women go into surgery and more into family practice but if we look at who is doing what are the women really getting paid less?

It would be foolish for any sensible employer to pay based on race, religion, or sex, or even sexual preference. You pay based on who can get the job done the fastest and the bestest. We used to call it “retention”. The basic premise was that as a corporation you don’t want to pay any more than you have to but if a person had a particular skill set that was in demand you had to pay them competitively or they would leave the company. That’s always expensive because hiring takes a lot of man-hours (that term should be considered gender inclusive, saying man/woman/LGTB-hours is just redundant) and you lose company specific experience and have to train the new individual, also expensive.

I mean, the courts even are slowly coming to the realization that you cannot treat women and men differently under the law. Since 1997 (I believe), when the divorce laws were re-written in a manner designed to do something good for a change which was cut down on the amount of time wasted in court arguing over child support, a table was created which linked child support to income. Figure out which column indicates the number of kids you have, scroll down to your income, pay the amount indicated. But guess what? When mom was the one buggering off on her family the same rules applied! The feminists HATED that! The also HATED when alimony started being a two-way street too. Equality is great only as long as you are more equal.

#112 Spectacle on 07.31.17 at 8:38 pm

It’s not T2 anymore. Its Jihad Justin.

When will we do something about this scam… He supports Isis terrorism , even paid millions to one who blew an American soldiers face off. Who and what is going on in the back rooms running this country?

Jihad Justin Trudeau keeps ISIS employed in Canada – YouTub

#113 Freebird on 07.31.17 at 8:38 pm

As a woman, and 20+ yr small business (co)owner I’d say from the outset gender based taxes seem well intended but misguided. Even my father who was admittedly racist (but mellowed) and very patriarchal (and ran a small biz with my mother for 40+ yrs) said, “you’re either special or equal not both.” Should our goal not be equality across the board. Period?

#114 SimplyPut7 on 07.31.17 at 8:39 pm

Wouldn’t men just become transgender and legally identify as a woman in Canada and identify as a man when travelling the world to avoid this tax, since most countries don’t have transgender rights, and force people to identify as their birth gender to enter their country?

#115 Freebird on 07.31.17 at 8:44 pm

Off topic but as this is a dog lovers blog, please watch this if you haven’t and don’t leave your pet or kid in any vehicle you wouldn’t stay in yourself. Seriously every year idiots STILL do this…

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/stop-doing-this-b-c-vet-shares-photo-of-dog-that-died-from-hot-car-1.3525020

#116 Goldie on 07.31.17 at 8:51 pm

If you think that gender balance is a good idea, that’s your prerogative, but if you want to argue that it is superior to a merit-based system, that is supremely cucked, my dear host.

#117 walrus on 07.31.17 at 8:56 pm

There was literally nothing in that snippet that warranted your hinted at conclusions.

#118 Linda on 07.31.17 at 9:07 pm

#111 – I beg to differ with your assessment that men & women in the same job are paid the same. There is still (unfortunately) a bias to promote the male rather than the female; grant the male a pay step ‘sooner’ than a female due to ‘merit’; lay off a female before a male because (I’ve actually heard this said) ‘the man has a family to take care of’. The implication being that the woman does not have equal responsibilities despite the rather large percentage of single mothers out there. To say favoritism & gender discrimination are no longer extant is to be willfully blind.

It is easy to say any such bias would end with an employer being taken to court, but the fact is that proving the bias is often a difficult, lengthy & expensive process which most have not the energy to tackle.

#119 Oft deleted much maligned and in now way politically correct stock picker on 07.31.17 at 9:09 pm

Yes….but….using Trudeaus own sexist rants as proof….won’t anyone who ‘gender identifies’ as a woman be able to file at the lower rate? Man buns might be the new tax dodge.

I think that this is all part of a larger Liberal strategy to distance people from reality.

#120 AK on 07.31.17 at 9:09 pm

#93 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:49 pm

““Miss me yet?” – Stephen J. Harper”
————————————————————-
Yes. Anybody from the Conservative side. Let’s hope it happens next election.

#121 Tony on 07.31.17 at 9:10 pm

Anyone notice the action in Air Canada’s stock today? Their earnings come out tomorrow. This was a day the price of oil was up. Looks like a case of he told his friends and she told her friends and their friends told their friends.

#122 Kat on 07.31.17 at 9:15 pm

Not going to happen. Just a way to have an expensive study done to line someone’s pockets and seem like they are doing something about the income gap. Another huge waste of tax payers money as usual.

#123 AB Boxster on 07.31.17 at 9:15 pm

Garth.

You need to differentiate between feminism of the past 100 years and that which is being practiced and promoted today.

First Wave feminism took place in the late 19th early 20th century and was mainly based on women’s suffrage (ie the vote)

Second Wave feminism took place in the 1960s – 1980’s and involved the equality of women under the law.
Equal opportunity.
Equal pay.

This wave of feminism gave women equality to men in law.

Third Wave feminism is what is going on today.
Third wave feminism has nothing to do with achieving women’s equality. It has everything to do with promoting women ahead of men in all ways.

Why do girls do better in the public school system than boys?
Well, no one really gives a shit because boys don’t matter. Only girls matter.

Why do women attend university at a higher level than men?
Again, today’s feminists don’t care.
Because it is not about equality anymore.

Not enough women in the STEM studies?
This must be discrimination so we need to put policies in place that ensure women can be successful. Even if this is at the expense of more qualified men.

85% of Veterinary classes are filled with women?
Silence.

Third wave feminists believe that the real problem today is the patriarchy. That men are keeping them down.

This is why they continue to exploit the myth of the wage gap between men and women.
It does not exist.
It is illegal to pay a man more than a women for the same work.

Every economist that has looked at this issue has accounted for the wage difference as being due to lifestyle choices that men and women make.

In fact, most educated women graduates working until their mid thirties make more than men.

If T2 is a feminist of today, he has no interest in promoting equality between the sexes. Feminism of today is only designed to promote the interests of the the female side.

Me?
I am 100 for equality of the sexes. Second wave feminism achieved this in law. Humanism describes this goal.

I am 100% against the man hating third wave feminism of today.

It has nothing to do with achieving equality, in any way shape of form.

And if T2 is bringing this social nonsense into the tax system, then men are going to get royally screwed.

#124 TurnerNation on 07.31.17 at 9:16 pm

Why do you protest Blog Dogs. It is a done deal. Anyway anything you write is bound to land printed out in front of you as they await your signature on your Confession. It will be much easier on your family this way.

Read all about it:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

#125 Stone on 07.31.17 at 9:20 pm

Taxes based on whether your male or female? If I identify as neither, does that mean I don’t need to pay any taxes at all. Oh goody! Me likes.

#126 Pete from St. Cesaire on 07.31.17 at 9:20 pm

Paying taxes based on gender is a fantastic idea I’ll just say I’m transgender and I identify myself with whatever gender pays less taxes
——————————————————
Everyone who is expressing this argumant is missing the whole point. If the taxation is divided between males & females, those who are neither are exempt from taxes. Part of the PC loony lefty stuff is that people can choose to identify as neither, or both, or even an animal. Choose neither and be exempt from taxation.
I know many readers will just roll their eyes at this but the govt can’t have it both ways; they can’t maintain the PC line and at the same time disallow a total exemption for those who identify as neither or as an animal.

#127 SW on 07.31.17 at 9:24 pm

#93 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:49 pm
“Miss me yet?” – Stephen J. Harper

Oh, I remember him. Creepy Moriarty in Sherlock. Had me hiding behind the couch.

#128 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 9:26 pm

#85 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:42 pm

You are missing the fact that in the case of a small corporation that earns its income from charging for services (often performed by the owner), then paying that out as dividends is basically a scheme to convert wage income to dividend income.

That has been tolerated where the dividend income goes to the owner. It apparently has even been tolerated where the dividend income is split to other family members which is clearly a form of legal tax evasion.
************************************
That makes sense I guess. Would it be OK to split income evenly if you have always been 50% shareholders, and neither of you really does any work?
That would be the dream of many small business owners– to someday have a company that runs itself.

Income sprinkling isn’t an issue for me as the wife does the same work I do and we’ll pass any test they throw at us, but the retained earnings tax could hurt.

#129 Marlene from Victoria on 07.31.17 at 9:30 pm

The misogyny tidal wave in this comments section tonight is truly something to behold.

What shallow, small-minded little man-children who are spewing such hatred here – so sadly revealing of who they are.

To the few who are not joining in this game, you are respected and appreciated, as are all good men who are grown-ups.

#130 cd on 07.31.17 at 9:33 pm

I noticed both in yesterday’s and today’s posts you mention that the reports were 63 pages in length. I don’t understand… is that too long for mid summer reading? Or too short for it to be considered a serious government document? Details like that are usually skipped over whenever I have reviewed documents…

It is elephantine for a consultation backgrounder. — Garth

#131 Randy Randerson on 07.31.17 at 9:34 pm

#26 Jonsnow on 07.31.17 at 5:59 pm

I identify as an Apache attack helicopter. Will the government please send me money for my daily maintenance?

#132 FOUR FINGERS WATSON on 07.31.17 at 9:39 pm

Get used to it folks. Turdo will be around for a long time, until Canada goes bankrupt and the IMF steps up and asks us WTF is goin’ on there ? So dig in for the duration and protect yer selves as best you can.

#133 Leo Trollstoy on 07.31.17 at 9:41 pm

So if women earn, on average, less than men, doesn’t this simply mean that women are, on average, less skilled negotiators?

Or more men with male bias are doing the hiring

#134 Willy H on 07.31.17 at 9:43 pm

This page in Ottawa’s landmark tax document may mean nothing. It might mean everything. Using the tax code to encourage behaviours like saving, investing or starting a business is well-established and understandable. Using it for social engineering and to further the cause of feminism – as noble and media-worthy as that may be – is radical.
___ ___ ___ ___

A tempest in a teapot!

It’s no surprise that men incorporate and form sole proprietorships and partnerships more often than women.

It would likely also come as no surprise that white males dominate established corporations and partnerships and yes, they already pay relatively high taxes regardless of their business structure and ability to take advantage of tax avoidance loop holes.

Many folks venture down the path of running their own business, not for the tax structure, but the ability to be their own boss and bring their own ideas and passions to life. These are the folks that bring real incremental growth into our economy, not just McJobs. If your about to venture out on your own and your top concern is your tax exposure I would be willing to bet your going to be one of many business failures.

As I mentioned in my post yesterday, the real problem lies with the concentration of wealth when professional high income couples marry and concentrate two high incomes in one family unit vs what in the past would have been shared amongst two families. Most professionals I know are married to spouses with professional careers and high salaries. Very few are married to stay at home Moms or Dads.

#135 Randy Randerson on 07.31.17 at 9:45 pm

#33 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 6:08 pm

That’s exactly how you should set up your corporation, since the initial fair market value should be $0 or $1, so you can issue shares to everyone in your household for $1 as a formality. Legally you’re not doing anything shady.

#136 Randy Randerson on 07.31.17 at 9:51 pm

#64 blobby on 07.31.17 at 6:57 pm

Don’t forget, women also use more government services then men. Talk about double whammies.

#137 AB Boxster on 07.31.17 at 9:58 pm

#129 Marlene from Victoria on 07.31.17 at 9:30 pm

————————–
Funny how women standing up for their rights is seen as female empowerment. You go girl!

And men standing up for their rights is mysogyny.

So third wave feminist.
So 2017.
Nuff said

#138 AB Boxster on 07.31.17 at 10:03 pm

#133 Leo Trollstoy on 07.31.17 at 9:41 pm

Or more men with male bias are doing the hiring
———————————————–

Yep. Its that darn partriarchy.
Explains why there are so many darn men teachers(75% women), and male nurses (91% women), and male veterinary students (80% women).

#139 Pre-retiree on 07.31.17 at 10:08 pm

Maybe I’m just looking at the silver lining. Maybe they’ll hold off on income sprinkling because truly in the end, wouldn’t that hurt women more than men? If women cannot earn income anymore, even if it was sprinkled (I hate that word) now, wouldn’t that make women even more dependent?

#140 Black on 07.31.17 at 10:14 pm

Sadly, I was a physician. I changed careers and now I’m a plumber, strictly for new buildings/homes….and I make more than I did as a doctor, plus benefits!
Imagine that!

#141 Canadian women on 07.31.17 at 10:17 pm

DELETED

#142 Widening Gyre on 07.31.17 at 10:25 pm

Thanks Garth, you really left the gate to the loony enclosure open today. Yes, yes we are all going to get sex changes…

#143 Black on 07.31.17 at 10:25 pm

To all the comments on women, all women are individuals with different views…you can’t clump all women together….nor men.
I know some women who own successful businesses and are hard workers. I think it is unfair to tax men more…regardless of how long they live, or how much they make.
This country sucks…it’s the biggest money grabbing country probally on the plant, they leave you just enough money to ‘just survive or work harder’ so you don’t have time to follow up on what the gov’t is up to…

No wonder half the population doesn’t vote, cause they don’t know what’s going on, they’re too busy paying taxes and rent, car payments or mortgages…

This wouldn’t be happening in the US…why do you think Canada is doing this?? Because they can, and all the people will write here rather than write Trudeau or someone in their district and complain to his clan, or protest some where…this is the true Canadian way. Complain, but do nothing….lie down and let the big man tax them to death…and they say ‘at least we gots free medicare’ whatever…I’m fed up.

#144 Robert White on 07.31.17 at 10:27 pm

Women have been discriminated against via the work world and taxation for my entire lifetime. A progressive tax code could rebalance the gender disparity with respect to net income, and that would go a long way towards incentivizing women to pursue the entrepreneurial gains that men have traditionally dominated. In point of fact, women are forced to pay more for goods & services in the marketplace, and they have been victimized via goods & services for the entire history of Capitalism. Rebalancing the tax code to ensure some sort of parity is progressive rather than regressive so I, for one, support it. In brief, continuing the disparity of men receiving better rates of taxation is not progressive whatsoever in light of what we have all witnessed with respect to history & gender disparity. Bottom line is that women should be receiving equal pay for equal work, and the tax rates between men & women should be the same given what women have been subjugated by in past years. There is every reason to re-write the Canadian tax code to suit a progressive marketplace where disparity is undermined so that equality of finance becomes the norm rather than not.

Trudeau, and the Liberals, are setting the bar that other countries are sure to follow in the future. We can celebrate this fact, and support the incentives brought about via changes to the outdated tax code that should have been updated decades ago with respect to gender disparity in CANADA.

RW

#145 Smoking Man on 07.31.17 at 10:29 pm

This might work. Do a huge share holder loan to the business from the wife Have your wife buy your shares at pennies on the dollar. Then she can repay her loan to her self while giving you a tiny salary.

Dude wear high heals and lipstick on audit day and if they nail you. Human rights commission. Put some lipstick on today as test. I don’t look that bad.

Just don’t know where to buy high heals that will fit my neanderthal sized feet.

#146 Sir James on 07.31.17 at 10:37 pm

Gender is a sex, not an ideology.

#147 Canadian women on 07.31.17 at 10:39 pm

DELETED

#148 CharlieDontSurf on 07.31.17 at 10:40 pm

As far as foreign buyers gobbling up all the real estate in Victoria…don’t think so. Any available statistics are showing otherwise.

Check here…

http://www.househuntvictoria.ca/2017/07/10/july-10-market-update/

and here…

http://www.vreb.org/pdf/VREBNewsReleaseAndSummary.pdf

Sales have been on a serious decline in Victoria for some time. One of the more popular areas of greater Victoria called “Gordon Head” recorded a major decrease yoy in sales during the first half of July. It will be very interesting to see the stats for the month of July that should be posted this week.

Yes, the market is currently demonstrating the quintessential parabolic price increase yoy common to every bubble. However, if sales continue to decline yoy for extended periods, prices will follow, it is inevitable.

#149 Smoking Man on 07.31.17 at 10:41 pm

#129 Marlene from Victoria on 07.31.17 at 9:30 pm
The misogyny tidal wave in this comments section tonight is truly something to behold.

What shallow, small-minded little man-children who are spewing such hatred here – so sadly revealing of who they are.

To the few who are not joining in this game, you are respected and appreciated, as are all good men who are grown-ups.
….

I’m a proud misoginist, know every rub and tug in the city. I suffer from ancolysiIing spondylitis. It’s brutal. Being self employed and not having that govt benift of two tax payer massages a month for pain relief for 40 bucks is a no brainer.

Just got my disability letter from my doc. T2 ows me huge for the last ten years if tax returns. And going forward a disability pention too.

It’s a game play to win.

#150 Happy Housing Crash Everyone! on 07.31.17 at 10:48 pm

You dirty shysters have ruined the Canadian economy to the point that is now broken. The Ponzi RE scheme is crashing with prices falling HARD!

https://www.zolo.ca/richmond-hill-real-estate/trends

https://www.zolo.ca/whitchurch-stouffville-real-estate/trends

17.1% Ajax
-21.5% Clarington
-20.1% Oshawa
-18.1% Pickering
-8.7% Uxbridge
-13.1% Whitby

-16.3% Brampton
-11.0% Caledon
-14.2% Mississauga
-23.8% Aurora
-22.4% East Gwillimbury
-16.5% Georgina
-20.6% King
-16.3% Markham
-23.9% Newmarket
-34.1% Richmond Hill
-32.2% Stouffville

You lying shysters cost people HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. You are evil monsters who should suffer for a thousand years. You shysters don’t even have high school.

Happy Housing Crash Everyone! :-)

#151 Vancouver in the Rearview on 07.31.17 at 10:52 pm

#62, the physician’s letter:

There are a few things that are nonsensical about that new doctor’s letter. The first is that they pay for health care infrastructure out of their own pocket. They do no such thing. They are compensated generously through the fee-for-service model, and assume the responsibility of paying their costs out of that money if they want to establish a family practice. To imply that they are spending their own money out of pocket is ridiculous. The fee schedule is set up to cover the costs associated with instrumentation, supplies, etc. They are NOT out-of-pocket expenses. It’s no different from being reimbursed mileage by an employer for using your vehicle. Sure, they’re not paying for your new tires, but they have given you cash to offset those costs.

While it is true that FFS offers no benefits or pensions, the reality is that this is what the BCMA has negotiated for years on behalf of doctors. If she wants those things, she needs to work with the Division of Family Practice in your area and your BCMA section to get on to an Alternative Payment Program (APP) system. There are alternatives, but she and, more importantly, her colleagues, need to get on board with this to make it happen.

Oh, and the husband not working is a choice. The writer is a family physician. She is not a plastic surgeon, or a cardiac surgeon, or a general surgeon doing trauma – all of which have burdensome call schedules. There is child care – others make it work, she can, too. Her office hours are predictable, and so is her call schedule. She can figure it out.

And Garth, ‘income sprinkling’ is BS. If the person with the corporation wants to pay a family member to do work, that’s fine, but generally, that’s not what’s happening and everyone who works connected to these areas knows it, which is why this is coming to a grinding halt. The rest of your argument, however, I think is reasonable. There needs to be some risk-reward to starting your own business, but being a doctor is hardly an example of risk, when your primary payer is guaranteed to pay out every two weeks and there is no material bad debt allowance required.

#152 saskatoon on 07.31.17 at 10:58 pm

#129 Marlene from Victoria

unfortunately for you, FEELS ARE NOT FACTS.

your words contain NO ARGUMENT…no logic…no intelligence…only hyperbole…invective…hatred…manipulation…irrationality…drama BS…

gee……………………….i wonder why?

#153 For those about to flop... on 07.31.17 at 11:16 pm

Here’s another article from howmuch worth a look…

M43BC

“This Map Shows Where Some of the Best American Franchises Started
Have you ever wondered how much it would cost to expand a franchise? This map breaks down the most highly ranked franchises in the United States according to entrepreneur.com.

Our ranking considers a variety of different factors, including the company’s size, financial strength, startup costs, brand reputation, and growth potential. Bear in mind that purchasing a franchise often requires additional financial commitments beyond an initial investment, like liquidity and net worth requirements to ensure the establishment’s viability. We mapped each franchise according to its headquarter location, and added a color-coded layer for how much the lowest possible initial investment would cost. The results are certainly a shock to those who may have considered starting or expanding their own franchises.

If you are hunting for a bargain, look no further than Coffee News out of Maine, which costs only $9,750. This is the cheapest high-quality franchise available on the market, and entrepreneur.com still ranked it #354, ahead of almost 150 other competitors, most of which cost far more in additional upfront capital. HuHut gets an honorable mention from us as a restaurant chain specializing in Mongolian-themed food out of Montana. HuHut’s success shows that if you have a great product, it doesn’t matter where you start.”

https://howmuch.net/articles/best-franchise-headquartered-in-every-state-2017

#154 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 11:30 pm

SoggyShorts made a polite response to me as below.

#128 SoggyShorts on 07.31.17 at 9:26 pm
#85 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:42 pm

You are missing the fact that in the case of a small corporation that earns its income from charging for services (often performed by the owner), then paying that out as dividends is basically a scheme to convert wage income to dividend income.

That has been tolerated where the dividend income goes to the owner. It apparently has even been tolerated where the dividend income is split to other family members which is clearly a form of legal tax evasion.
************************************
That makes sense I guess. Would it be OK to split income evenly if you have always been 50% shareholders, and neither of you really does any work?
That would be the dream of many small business owners– to someday have a company that runs itself.

Income sprinkling isn’t an issue for me as the wife does the same work I do and we’ll pass any test they throw at us, but the retained earnings tax could hurt.

*************************************
Yes, I think you are quite correct that 50 / 50 split would pass the test when neither party is doing much if any of the work in the corporation. I agree it is a good thing to strive to create a business that is not dependent on the owner to do the work.

This would be more of a “real” business. A business that is more than self employment. Creating a job for yourself and spouse is a great accomplishment. But as you allude a business that can stand on its own is a bigger accomplishment.

This sort of thing was the topic of the book The E-Myth (Entrepreneur myth) and The E-Myth Revisited as I recall.

And yes it sounds like your situation will pass any tests since you are not trying to reduce income taxes through pretend family work or pretend family ownership or things of that sort. Well done.

#155 Manitoba Whale on 07.31.17 at 11:40 pm

#10 Mike in Calgary on 07.31.17 at 5:26 pm
I don’t understand where the country is going anymore. And I sometimes questions whether it’s worth even caring.
****
My story has very similar threads as yours. I am a very optimistic person – except when it comes to the leadership of my country and my province (Ontario). I don’t know where to go with this. What appeals to me now is spending 6 months of the year away from this nonsense and keeping Canadian healthcare in my back pocket.
Awful politicians pandering to remain in power or to seek the public spotlight. Spending time away from Canada will ease my conscience as at least my consumption taxes will be outside their grasp.

#156 Steve French on 08.01.17 at 12:05 am

“Who Ate Republicans’ Brains?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/republicans-trumpcare-obamacare-lies.html?smid=tw-share

#157 NoName on 08.01.17 at 12:53 am

but below this is interesting read
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/end-of-glass-steagall-did-not-lead-to-2008-wall-street-meltdown-fed-report-suggests-2017-07-31?link=sfmw_tw

#158 Boom on 08.01.17 at 12:54 am

Solution is simple. Just like Lauren S. legally became a man, every dude simply has to go in and change the gender. Plan to tax men is foiled by the very government trying to implement it…

We’ll become a nation of women. Just don’t pull Crocodile Dundee.

#159 will on 08.01.17 at 1:05 am

i can’t give a shit about it. only came on my radar as i read this blog. out the window with it. more important stuff to think about.

love, will

#160 Nick on 08.01.17 at 1:13 am

Re: Mark;

“If the employees/directors/etc. of the business are truly paid as though they were arms-length entities for their services, then sure. But this isn’t the case for many such businesses.”

Mark, your rationale and explanations are good, but forgive me if I’m incorrect you seem to be mixing salary and dividends. Salaries are paid based one work performed, dividends are paid based on shares owned. I own TD stock, and do zero work for them. I get paid dividends. So the difference is that I bought the TD stock? Is your contention that it wasn’t “given” to me? What if the company has zero value at onset?

While I “get” the argument and “disdain” against income sprinkling, the way I see it, if you start your corporation, and your family are given (or sold) shares, then how is it any different than owning shares in ANY corporation for the purpose of owning dividends? If equity is at contention, then what about startup equity?

I see this as a slippery slope. Why not just tax all passive income (including dividends) at top tax rate then?

PS to others: to pay dividends, the company must first pay tax on it; the resulting net tax to the Gov’t of the company share + personal share is the same as if the wages were paid out as salary.

Full disclosure: I own my own corp, and see zero value in dividends because of the increased paper burden and net tax advantage (zero). Maybe I screwed up my math somewhere along the line (it’s been confirmed by mulitipke accountants); but sounds like I’ve got nothing to lose going forward. LOL

#161 MD BS on 08.01.17 at 1:20 am

#62 Physician letter:

What BS. It takes 4 years to get a MD Medical degree. After that you are paid close to the Canadian average of $60,000 per year while you do residency.

Mostly everyone has an undergraduate degree and can apply if they have the required prerequisites. Unfortunately, the system they have set up restricts entry into the medical field. They have made it subjective (pay for favours?) with a so called interview process.

So no. It does not take 12 years to become a doctor. Nor does it take 8 years to become a teacher or Physiotherapist.

#162 NoName on 08.01.17 at 1:21 am

richest man in a world is not the one who first come to mind

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-gates-and-bezos-really-the-richest-men-in-the-world-nyet-says-one-fund-manager-2017-07-31?link=sfmw_tw

#163 MD BS on 08.01.17 at 1:22 am

#84 quebecphysician on 07.31.17 at 7:38 pm
I am a 30 years old family physician working in Quebec. I am incorporated since the beginning of my career. I went through the hardships of med school for 5 years and the 2 more years of residency. I think I got sick because it was too much stress and still endure pain today because of it. I worked hard my whole life when I was in high school and college. I make 300000$ a year being on call 1/3 week which mean 60-70 sometimes 80 hours a week and working at the clinic also the other weeks. The liabilites and responsibilities of patient care are getting are enormeous. Lots of risk…For example you admit a patient for chest pain you get paid 80$ for the admission 20$ for discharge. Without the corporation we would pay 53% taxes which means you get 40-50$ a hour. You can count on lawers to sue us if anything bad happens. We bear all the responsibilities for years after our initial care of the patient. All that for 40$ a patient. Way too much risks not enough rewards. No vacation time no insurance no benefits no hours restriction and lots of risks… I’m gonna move or quit altogether.

—–

You didn’t go into medicine for the money only???

or did you???

#164 Randy Randerson on 08.01.17 at 1:31 am

#152 saskatoon on 07.31.17 at 10:58 pm

Feelz over realz, buddy. Facts don’t matter to women, only their feelings.

#165 BillyBob on 08.01.17 at 1:31 am

#129 Marlene from Victoria

The problem (among others) facing the current iteration of “feminism” is that labels like “misogyny” no longer have any meaning. It has reached the point of absurdity now to where once such buzzwords were considered derogatory, and now they are being claimed as badges of honour.

Because where once it may have referred to actual “hatred of women”, which is a Bad Thing, it now gets casually hurled at any man who dares to question the feminist agenda.

You have devalued your fight to the point where no takes anything seriously anymore, and you have only yourself to blame for that. Well, you and the asinine liberals who have grabbed it and appear willing to run with it.

Meanwhile the truly bad dudes with actual dislike for women are now provided cover by the sheer nonsense that is third-wave feminism. Well done.

#166 NoName on 08.01.17 at 1:43 am

gender pay

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-01/hong-kong-gender-pay-gap-double-singapore-half-korea-s

#167 JimmyTwoTeeth on 08.01.17 at 1:54 am

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/real-estate-fees-home-sales-1.4226630

Housing related fees make up a concerning % of GDP. More fuel for the fire.

#168 DON on 08.01.17 at 1:57 am

#93 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:49 pm

“Miss me yet?” – Stephen J. Harper
***********

Were you in the closet again?

#169 Nonplused on 08.01.17 at 2:06 am

#85 InvestorsFriend on 07.31.17 at 7:42 pm

“You are missing the fact that in the case of a small corporation that earns its income from charging for services (often performed by the owner), then paying that out as dividends is basically a scheme to convert wage income to dividend income.”

You are missing the fact that money paid out as dividends is already subject to a corporate tax and the individual providing the service has to eat, so if you raise his taxes he has to raise his rates, which you pay. He doesn’t pay them, he passes them through. If he had money to pay his taxes he wouldn’t be working!

#170 NiceBeach on 08.01.17 at 2:07 am

Canada doesn’t know yet but the Canadian dollar (in my opinion) is heading towards large devaluation. The real-estate bubble might burst in two ways:
1- Value decrease.
2- Currency depreciation (followed by inflation that triggers interest rates and value decrease).

Looking at the amount of foreign money owned by the banks:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/foreigners-housing-bets-start-with-banks-canada-economy-watch

you can see that there is a lot of debt to be paid, mostly in us dollars. This will create demand on foreign currencies and further weaken the Canadian dollar eventually. Damage is already done, even with house price correction the amount of external debt will mean that our economy has to pay. All the fuzz about the 30% increase in real estate prices in 2016 in Vancouver and in 2017 in Toronto to foreign currency holder is
basically nothing. If you own something before the oil crash you basically got the same value in US dollar now.

#171 DON on 08.01.17 at 2:10 am

Not sure where I stand on this issue. I’ll just ask my wife! Oh Honey…

Equality is equality meaning same treatment – let’s not over shoot the mark. Everyone is equal and best person for the job. In running a business that is what I am looking for competent people.

#172 Nonplused on 08.01.17 at 2:16 am

Oh and Garth, I have to say when I first read your headline today “Sex Tax”, I thought they were going to legalize prostitution, tax it, and then apply “owner’s equivalent rent” to everyone else so I had to pay tax when my wife gives me my birthday and anniversary presents.

Next thing you know they are going to be trying to figure out how to tax non-profits for the hours people put in doing volunteer work. Set up the nets for your kids soccer game? Hmmm. 3 hour minimum shift times $15 dollars minimum wage so send us some money! Your effort was worth $45 according to the rules so we want $23. (It’s no joke, I’ve read stuff before about how much the government thinks stuff like volunteer work for kids sports contributes to “hidden GDP” and they are trying to figure out how to tax it.)

#173 Sir James on 08.01.17 at 2:29 am

SEC’s “ICOs Are Securities” Ruling Proves Bitcoin Has Staying Power

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-31/secs-ruling-icos-are-securities-proves-bitcoin-has-staying-power

#174 Conrad-ical on 08.01.17 at 2:30 am

The T2 government may try to pass these sex/gender based taxes. They won’t stand up to the test agaisntmrh charter in a court of law.

#175 Economystical on 08.01.17 at 2:45 am

Sorry folks, I have been busy in Washington working with congress on a few important issues. First I am glad to say we are establishing better relations with Russia and reducing the risk of war by increasing sanctions on that country. That was, actually, my idea, not to brag. Also we are about to remove the threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program by threatening to bomb them in the future, when we get around to it. It may seem perverse to the unenlightened but everyone knows the way to get your dog to love you more is to beat it. Same with the kids. It doesn’t work with the wife anymore though, so don’t try it there.

So anyway, a brief comment on Trudeau’s glorious plan to raise taxes on small businesses, which we in the economystical community have been planning for a long time. Don’t you see how brilliant it is? Whenever you take money away from someone who has a mortgage, or any kind of debt really, which is most people now since most of our other plans have worked out so well, they have to work harder! More taxes means more work for longer! GDP can only go up the higher we raise taxes.

But we must do these things one step at a time. Today we go after small businesses. Later we eliminate personal exemptions. We’ve also noted that the poor now mostly eat sugar and corn, so we’ll be taxing those soon too (in some US cities we already have the sugar tax and it works!) because the poor should not be able to escape taxation by having no money. We sold the sugar tax as a health measure. Can you believe it? People bought it! People who had nothing else they could afford to eat bought it as a health measure! Ha, ha, granted in was smaller scale but it was almost as good as the carbon tax! It’s too bad that people just cannot eat as much sugar as their car burns gasoline or we could have really done some social engineering. (And we tried to get them to eat more sugar but I don’t think they can get any fatter and still fit in their cars. Not all programs are a 100% success. Anyway we can tax it all now.)

Anyway, our progress towards social justice proceeds, small business operators will now pay more taxes as a percent of income than loyal economystical business leaders and politicians, as it should be.

Actually that reminds me of another brilliant thing we did. Why should a parliament member pay taxes? Why pay them $170,000 a year and just claw half of that back? The money comes from the government and goes right back to the government. The reason is simple: So plumbers think they have to pay the tax too. Simply brilliant.

Anyway, I have to go now, tomorrow morning we will be strategizing on how to bring peace to the Middle East with better target information for our bombing runs. Oh and also how to blame it all on Russia.

#176 Confused? on 08.01.17 at 2:58 am

So just to be sure I got this right Garth, Murray Edwards still gets stock options with a capital gains reduction, dividends, and can pay his administrative assistant, but I can’t?

#177 Dolce Vita on 08.01.17 at 3:38 am

On My Realty Check someone mentioned sample size.

As has always been taught and verified many times over in Statistics that, typically, a sample size of 35 is considered adequate. Then you have to look at the Standard Deviation, if it is small relative to the Average, if not, then you get suspicious and make other calculations to determine a new and larger sample size – here is the calculation for it:

https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/sampling-data/how-determine-sample-size-determining-sample-size/

Messy formula that takes the sample data you calculated and recalculates a sample size based on how confident you want to be that your Average represents the Population Mean (e.g., if Z = 2, then you are recalculating a new sample size, n, where you are 95% confident the Population Mean is represented in your sample size for a given E, error amount (say 5% for arguments sake, what most people believe to be an acceptable Scientific Error amount).

My Realty Check does not provide the Standard Deviation, so it is hard to comment on its relevancy; however, when you have a sample size in the hundreds, it is more than likely that the calculated Average (the home prices sampled from a region) is representative of the population Mean (ALL of the homes in that region), where “home” = detached, condo and town home.

For example:

Victoria:
Up:3 Down:33 (sample size = 36, borderline sample size, debateable if this Average is representative of the Population)
Average Change: -3.64%
Overall $ Change: -1,117,033.00
Average Change Amount: -31,028.69

or

Pitt Meadows:
Up:6 Down:7 (sample size = 13, definitely not large enough & from the data below, you can easily see some very suspicious results; e.g., the Average Change Amount is about = to the Average Price of a Home in YVR…this data you can throw out the door)
Average Change: 78.46%
Overall $ Change: 13,095,808.00
Average Change Amount: 1,007,369.85
Note:
Realtors, do not use this data to say the market is “overheated” in Pitt Meadows, that would be a false statement to say the least.

Take YVR + Victoria, the sample size is definitely large enough:

Average Change: -0.47%
Up:582 Down:1381 (sample size = 1963)
Overall $ Change: -928,480,377.00
Average Change Amount:-472,990.51

Burnaby, sample size definitely large enough:

Average Change: -2.23%
Up:66 Down:167 (sample size = 233, definitely large enough)
Overall $ Change: -17,468,517.00
Average Change Amount:-74,972.18

Surrey, sample size definitely large enough:
Average Change: 2.78%
Up:97 Down:139 (sample size = 236, definitely large enough)
Overall $ Change: -6,747,412.00
Average Change Amount:-28,590.73

In essence, you can say that YVR + Victoria by in large are on a SLOW NEGATIVE list price trajectory and has been since October 2016 – look at the Average Price Change chart (hope this link carries the filters with it, i.e., YVR + Victoria):

http://www.myrealtycheck.ca/

In other words, death by a thousand cuts unlike 416 RE that is correcting quickly, in a short period of time. What is also distressing is that Down list price changes outnumber Up list price changes by about 2:1 in most of the above cases, save Pitt Meadows.

So, from the above data, it is unlikely YVR + Victoria will see an 80% drop in price by 2018 but for now, the prices are dropping and have been for many months.

When the price drops will arrest is anyone’s guess.

#178 Dolce Vita on 08.01.17 at 3:48 am

What shall we read into this?

Much Ado About Nothing.

Some Statistics bandied about with the usual “will continue to refine” along with the ever ubiquitous “may affect”.

You begin to understand why Harper muzzled Government scientific institutions and their findings after reading the above Comments vitriol.

It may be in T2s best interests to do the same in the future as Harper did.

#179 Looney Baloney on 08.01.17 at 3:53 am

“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”

-KJV

#180 Story of Yours on 08.01.17 at 4:43 am

DELETED

#181 Income Attribution Rules on 08.01.17 at 6:20 am

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/forms-publications/publications/it511r-archived-interspousal-certain-other-transfers-loans-property/archived-interspousal-certain-other-transfers-loans-property.html

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-3.3/page-62.html#docCont

#182 jess on 08.01.17 at 7:05 am

no data no measurement ? … excessive complexity in corporate structures :it’s a sign that someone is trying to hide something …” A corruption investigation almost always starts with drawing a family tree and then tracing companies and properties found in the names of an official’s relatives.
=====================
“Piercing the corporate veil. Last fall, a World Bank study put together a database of 150 cases of grand corruption in the past 30 years. It found that 112 of these cases involved transnational entities like offshore companies and bank accounts.

While there’s much secrecy in offshore jurisdictions, there’s also much more information on companies available in online corporate registries (the Hong Kong corporate database ICRIS, for example, is excellent) and subscription databases like Dun & Bradstreet and Bureau van Dijk. In addition, The Investigative Dashboard, a project of three nonprofit investigative reporting centers, has links to corporate registers worldwide. Open Corporates has scraped data on 43 million companies in over 50 corporate registries and allows searches, including for directors’ names.

It pays to know how officials hide their wealth overseas. The World Bank publication The Puppet Masters is a good guide: It shows how savvy looters use multiple jurisdictions and layered companies to muddy the wealth trail.

Examining high-profile corruption cases can also be illuminating: The British Aerospace (BAE Systems) scandal, for example, shows how the UK company used offshore companies and accounts, as well as local agents or representatives for paying bribes to officials in at least seven countries.

Sheila S. Coronel is director of the Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University. She tracks global investigative reporting in her blog, Watchdog Watcher.
Tags:
Reporting
https://www.icij.org/resources/how-track-looted-wealth

It’s hard to document these illicit financial flows: banking secrecy and the opacity of corporate information in offshore jurisdictions, including the U.S., cover up the money trail. But it’s not impossible.
…hide their wealth through companies, accounts and other assets owned by family members, usually wives, mistresses and children.

http://data.afr.com/pages/panamapapers/pm.html
using wives to hide assets or hide from divorce protect the politically exposed etc etc
http://mashable.com/2016/04/05/global-elite-used-wives-to-hide-assets-panama-papers/#EaqOYyTCJiqu

Robert Oesterlund, had sworn to a Canadian court that his immediately calculable “net family property” totaled just a few million dollars. When a wealthy businessman set out to divorce his wife, their fortune vanished. The quest to find it would reveal the depths
of an offshore financial system bigger than the U.S. economy.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/magazine/how-to-hide-400-million.html

#183 maxx on 08.01.17 at 7:44 am

The prospect of GBT makes me wonder what it might be a substitute for.
There’s bound to be a perceived resulting payoff somewhere.
Some costly GB tax credits/social programs to bite the dust in parallel?
GBT, at first glance, appears to be an administrative nightmare, with even more tax revenue routed to support expanding bureaucracy.

#184 crowdedelevatorfartz on 08.01.17 at 8:18 am

The Summer of discontent before the “Fall”?

https://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN1AH31Z-OCATP

#185 Julia on 08.01.17 at 8:27 am

Absolute nonsense. As a professional woman, and higher income earner in my family, I have had a hard enough time in my career making my way into a historically male dominated environment, why would I want to go backwards and get different treatment?

#186 fancy_pants on 08.01.17 at 8:28 am

Just a matter of time before they go after the definition of a charitable organization. Say bye-bye if it doesn’t line up with the left.

#187 crowdedelevatorfartz on 08.01.17 at 8:30 am

@#150 Happy Housing Crash Everyone

“You lying shysters cost people HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. You are evil monsters who should suffer for a thousand years……”
++++++
Statistically, it should only take about a year to send 50% of them scurrying like a cockroach back into the dark recesses of Recessionville…..and if this real estate slow down lasts 5 years…….they may be as rare as a real policeman in uniform at a Black Lives Matter rally…er sorry…. Vancouver Pride Parade.

#188 crowdedelevatorfartz on 08.01.17 at 8:38 am

@#129 Marlene from the University of Victoria

“What shallow, small-minded little man-children who are spewing such hatred here – so sadly revealing of who they are….”
*******

I’ll see your misogyny and raise you a misandryst.

#189 Andrewt on 08.01.17 at 8:38 am

Is the battle of the sexes over? Who won?

Anyhoo, here’s an interesting conundrum.
Suffice to say it’s best to think things through when making a major purchase.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/peterborough-residents-want-bylaw-changed-after-trucks-dont-fit-into-driveways-1.4229797

#190 Q2 Class 4-4-6-4 on 08.01.17 at 8:48 am

‘Gender analysis’ indeed.

Oddly enough, this should not be a problem. Given the passage of Bill C-16, our ‘feminist’ PM has clearly bought in to the whole transgender thing. All that tax-paying males have to do now is ‘identify’ as women and PRESTO! – the problem is solved.

#191 nick on 08.01.17 at 8:49 am

Garth, you hearing any rumblings of whats been going on in the GTA in July? I know mid-month stats showed further price declines…

From my own observations, new listings have fallen significantly over the last few weeks. Is it possible that prices will settle as inventory gets worked through? Was hoping the number of listings trend would continue onwards, continually pushing prices down.

Then again, its not JUST supply that dictates prices.

#192 nick on 08.01.17 at 8:50 am

I imagine we will have to wait till end of week for the TREB stats.

#193 CJBob on 08.01.17 at 9:01 am

Garth wins the award for biggest troll. Can we worry about stuff that’s really happening and not things out of your imagination please?

I’ve lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened – Mark Twain

#194 tomohawk52 on 08.01.17 at 9:05 am

#3 Andrewski on 07.31.17 at 4:55 pm
So what happens when this happens?!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/04/health/canadian-baby-gender-designation/index.html

=================================

I think this is a great idea and propose we extend it to include not having our name on any government documents. Why should the government know our name, at least until we are old enough to choose our own? ;-)

#195 3s on 08.01.17 at 9:08 am

This is wonderful news. Justifies me staying at home or with the boys at gym with all the free time in the world while the ole girl goes blind earning the bacon :) I explained to her that it’s a tax saving strategy and that it is obvious that regulation like this indicates male over representation in the work force. Hope she is ready to wear the pants and mow the lawn too when she gets home…. Yay!

#196 };-) aka Devil's Advocate on 08.01.17 at 9:16 am

“The people get the government they deserve” T.J.

#197 ImGonnaBeSick on 08.01.17 at 9:22 am

I don’t understand why things have to be equal? Bill is stronger than me, so that means he’s only allowed to life 50lbs from now on, take the rest of his weights away. Wendy is smarter than me, so she’s only allowed to do grade 7 math now, take the rest of her books away. Barb is richer than me, so she’s only allowed to live on $10,000 a year now, take the rest of her money away… Sorry kiddies, things aren’t equal, and they never should be.

#198 ImGonnaBeSick on 08.01.17 at 9:26 am

dammit.. spelling mistake. *lift….

#199 paulo on 08.01.17 at 9:52 am

Making smoke: do you really think the goverment has a snow balls chance in hell of introducing a gender based tax scale?. i could see it before the courts until the cows come in.
the real issue is the goverment obviously needs to increase tax revenue. by going after the people that are the risk takers and professionals providing essential services is simply a poor move and will come back to haunt us.
i suspect that the cost to implement,will likely be higher than the revenue increase anticipated, and do nothing more than encourage our best and brightest to
move to more tax friendly jurisdictions.
as much as i hate seeing tax breaks closed, the goverment should be looking at updating the capitol gains exemption on principal residence. unfortunately this exemption has been massively abused and been a primary contributor ,in addition to artificially low interest rates in creating a real estate value bubble that is in the process of imploding and may well take the general economy down.

#200 For those about to flop... on 08.01.17 at 9:55 am

Boom.
Solution is simple. Just like Lauren S. legally became a man, every dude simply has to go in and change the gender. Plan to tax men is foiled by the very government trying to implement it…

We’ll become a nation of women. Just don’t pull Crocodile Dundee.

/////////////////////////

Have some respect.

That handle has been retired with the passing of the original Boom.

M43BC
M64WI

#201 James on 08.01.17 at 9:59 am

#149 Smoking Man on 07.31.17 at 10:41 pm
……………………………………………………………..
#129 Marlene from Victoria on 07.31.17 at 9:30 pm
The misogyny tidal wave in this comments section tonight is truly something to behold.
What shallow, small-minded little man-children who are spewing such hatred here – so sadly revealing of who they are.
To the few who are not joining in this game, you are respected and appreciated, as are all good men who are grown-ups.
……………………………………………………….

I’m a proud misoginist, know every rub and tug in the city. I suffer from ancolysiIing spondylitis. It’s brutal. Being self employed and not having that govt benift of two tax payer massages a month for pain relief for 40 bucks is a no brainer.

Just got my disability letter from my doc. T2 ows me huge for the last ten years if tax returns. And going forward a disability pention too.

It’s a game play to win.
……………………………………………………………………
We know your disabled, it is quite evident however why would a savvy Caribbean millionaire be preoccupied with a trivial pittance compliments of the Government of Canada? By the way the government of Canada will not pay out a disability pension to a person who does not live in the country. They also know when you leave now and when you return compliments of US/Can border agreement. The US now has access to all of your trips and the information is freely spread to any portion of both governments. Welcome to big brother.

#202 Ezzy on 08.01.17 at 10:01 am

Can we just stop pretending we mean anything, and trying super hard to prove it to a world that isn’t listening, and finally accept that we are America North? We’d be so much better off then.

#203 D&T on 08.01.17 at 10:10 am

Nothing is certain but death and taxes. Although a stock market collapse in the next year or two is a close third.

#204 grimreeper on 08.01.17 at 10:36 am

Plese take a good hard look at what is coming for USA and Canda. read all stori.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3640941/Super-rich-quaff-champagne-Venezuela-country-club-middle-classes-scavenge-food-rubbish-dumps-DOGS-starving.html

#205 westcdn on 08.01.17 at 10:37 am

Being wrong is not always a bad thing when you are wrong which is not infrequent in my life. Sometimes it protects me (luck/God?) from myself but it always provides a learning experience on how not to self-destruct. Maybe Trump can take some lessons from me – nah, he is too egotesticle (sic) but he is not the only fearless leader with the affliction. You need a bit of that to get ahead. I think as long as a politician keeps the Toronto area and the public service happy as well as to speak French, he or she will rule the country. I am not happy with the bite of government and am destined to remain in the wilderness waiting to fight the ghouls of winter (how is that for prose?).

“Experience is something you get when you don’t get what you want” ***. As I struggle through life, I always have the goal of leaving the world a better place. There are many things I find unjust. I think negative outcomes are mainly the result of people’s perceptions of themselves and their fears of which I am no exception. July was a rotten month for my Canadian investments – I just carry on believing I can dodge fatal bullets and collect dividends along the way.

Refugees – I think most of the Syrian ones will return to their homeland after the Syrian conflict is resolved. They have a lot of issues to solve if they want to stay. Canada is not the best place on earth but I am committed. I met some of the ancestors of the 1938 German Sudetenland refugees who were settled in the Peace River area of BC. They chose to stick in a very tough area. They are very good people although I am sure they have a few spoilers. What a difference a few decades make. http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/viewFile/983/1020

“Unimportant things are urgent, important things are not” – Dwight Eisenhower ***. I think this is the rock most politicians fail to pass if they care about the people they represent. I have a personal question I ask myself – “is it better to have a good plan executed poorly or a poor plan executed well”. My conclusion is either is equally suboptimal but execution is more important. You have to learn to walk before you can run. Thus, a good plan executed well is what I shoot. Wish me luck in my endeavours.

I get a kick of a commenter who suggests Italian politicians want to delay the vote on government until 2018 to ensure they qualify for a pension. I will wait and see. I see public service pensions eating my lunch. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/pension-crisis/britain-to-raise-retirement-age-to-68-to-try-to-save-pensions/

Ps. I bought SM’s book, Deplorables, as my departing gift. It looks to be an interesting read – fan XXX.

#206 Alistair McLaughlin on 08.01.17 at 10:39 am

Hey Robert White, you do realize that ‘progressivism” is just another ideology don’t you? So calling something “progressive’ does not automatically mean it is a good thing. That’s just a trick of semantics – labelling your ideology as ‘progressive’, instead of the more traditional ‘activist’ or ‘liberal’, allows you to dismiss any opposing view as “regressive”. With that in mind, defending a policy or proposal by calling it progressive amounts to circular reasoning and self-endorsement.

Consider this: Justifying something only “because it’s conservative” or “because it’s socialist”, as though that by itself were a reason to favour something, sounds idiotic, because it is. Nobody would accept such a facile argument. Well that’s how silly, shallow and circular your arguments sound to the ears of us non-progressives when you refer to something as “progressive”.

#207 westcdn on 08.01.17 at 10:42 am

I forgot to add that “***” refers to the blog “A Wealth of Common Sense”.

#208 James on 08.01.17 at 10:47 am

DELETED

#209 paul on 08.01.17 at 10:48 am

Well the TREB. computers are down, so all of the blog dogs that want our sales data for free. Here is your chance to show your good intentions and make a personnel donation or start a go fund me page to keep the information up to date for when it goes public.
Thank you!

#210 WUL on 08.01.17 at 10:57 am

#186 fancy_pants on 08.01.17 at 8:28 am
Just a matter of time before they go after the definition of a charitable organization. Say bye-bye if it doesn’t line up with the left.
_________________

You mean the flip side of just what your hero Harper did because they did not line up with the right. The uncalled for audits of charities he did not like. We lefties learn well. Jeez. Where was your concern then?

#211 n1tro on 08.01.17 at 11:01 am

#144 Robert White on 07.31.17 at 10:27 pm
Women have been discriminated against via the work world and taxation for my entire lifetime.

Nice try “Robert”. Spout out a SJW meme with nothing to back it up other than “for my entire lifetime”.

Fun fact:

Take you hand and put it in front of your face. Is your ring finger longer than your index finger?

Scientists have correlated this phenomenon with an individual’s affinity to taking risks in their lives due to prenatal exposure to testosterone while developing as a fetus. So if men get paid more because they take on more risk in the workplace or in a business, blame it on testosterone.

http://www.concordia.ca/cunews/main/releases/2010/11/09/alpha-males-take-greater-risks-study-links-finger-length-to-behaviour.html

See “Robert”….make an assertion, back it up with a link so others can make their own determination. See how that works?

#212 InvestorsFriend on 08.01.17 at 11:05 am

Equality in the Work place?

If workers were truly paid on merit, there are many occupations where the spread between lowest and highest paid in the same job would be more like in sports, that is maybe ten fold.

Some people are hugely more productive and valuable in certain roles. That can’t really apply in an assembly line situation but it applies in some roles.

Often it is difficult to measure. Probably two thirds of workers would get a pay cut under true merit and one third would get raises. A few would get massive increases.

#213 InvestorsFriend on 08.01.17 at 11:12 am

A Giant Tax Fish to go after

For years giant pension plans have been buying up tax paying corporations. Often these are the giant government employee pension plans. Such corporations remain taxable. But the pension plan can eliminate taxes by loading the subsidiary up with debt from the parent pension plan and charging interest. The taxable corporation’s income is reduced, perhaps to zero. The interest income at the pension plan parent is non taxable.

They have other ways to limit the tax as well to flow the income up to the parent such as by using partnership structures where the taxes are paid by partner rather than the operating company and oh look the partner is a tax-exempt pension plan.

I have seen this happening when a pension plan took over an electric utility but have never seen a breath of protest about it.

How much tax leakage occurs this way?

#214 Livin Large on 08.01.17 at 11:14 am

So, if the Feds are contemplating a differential taxation system based on gender, I wonder how long it will be before they also go after lottery winnings?

Sure, lottery wininings are already a differential tax on the poorest sectors of society but what a sitting target those winnngs make for treating them exactly like RRSP withdrawls. Withholding taxes at source and winnings reclassified as income, lotteries could be such an enormous windfall of easily collected taxes on a daily basis. So, you win $1M rather than $2M, who would stop buying tickets if you only paid when you won something.

I haven’t bought a ticket in well over 30 years so I’m no authority but a Liberal “spending” government leaving a sitting duck like lottery winnings seems unlikely to be left unscathed for long.

#215 milleniallmoose on 08.01.17 at 11:22 am

This is dumb fear-mongering. It is part of their mandate to ensure gender equality… they are confirming that they will be looking into if this affects the wage gap, stay at home mothers etc. They will not tax the sexes separately and you all know it. (Especially with the option to be gender less… this would create a giant headache and set a precedent for other “disadvantaged” people to get tax treatment based on their % lack of privileged such as race, religion, ability, sexual orientation etc… how would you even measure that???) If anything, they might look into the fact that a woman giving up her career and taking on most of the household and childcare responsibilities is supporting the “corporation” and can receive dividends for their work. Or conversely, a stay at home dad supporting a working woman.

#216 Ronaldo on 08.01.17 at 11:38 am

#185 Julia on 08.01.17 at 8:27 am

Absolute nonsense. As a professional woman, and higher income earner in my family, I have had a hard enough time in my career making my way into a historically male dominated environment, why would I want to go backwards and get different treatment?
—————————————————————–
Your absolutely right Julia. When I first went into the work force 50some years ago, jobs that were male dominated at the time now have many women doing the same job. I myself have worked in positions formally dominated by men with women and we got the exact same pay. It’s taken a long time but things are changing for the better and we do see more women now working in positions once dominated by men. We have examples with that with our provincial premiers and many corporations. This whole idea with the tax thing is ludicrous.

#217 maxx on 08.01.17 at 11:39 am

#60 SimVan on 07.31.17 at 6:51 pm

…..”Now lets talk about the gong show which is the White House and the ignorant clowns that run it.”

No. Let’s don’t.

I’m saturated to the point of projectile vomiting with the non-stop blathering about these and our own political ninnies, who seem to do nothing but cover the landscape with behavioral dog piles.

The resulting fallout in ms and social media has absolutely nothing to do with actual WORK.

Unforgivable waste of taxes, time and trust.

#218 Renter's Revenge! on 08.01.17 at 12:17 pm

*compares length of index finger to ring finger*

I’m an alpha male!

Time to go demand that raise.

#219 Braj on 08.01.17 at 12:41 pm

Smoking Man gonna lose his sh*t on this one. Freedom First too..

#220 maxx on 08.01.17 at 12:43 pm

#73 Linda on 07.31.17 at 7:21 pm

Agree 100%.

#221 Torontorocks on 08.01.17 at 1:16 pm

Lets put it like this. Trudeau? Nothing. Runs as a populist, appealing to the wimps who all want to hug it out and have never been trained to succeed – not only is he a trust fund kid with millions squirreled away and not paying any taxes on, he’s never done anything that required a meaningful sacrifice with the intent of finding some great reward as a result of the sacrifice. What’s there to work hard for – the cash is there. And Morneau? WTF has he done other than inherit. So please, how Canadians sit by while these clowns manhandle your $hit is unbelievable. Let them disembowel that already stretched doctors. Let them guarantee a livable wage and dollars to lay on your back and pump out kids without anyone else but the idiots who worked their ass off for that some great reward to pay for it. Because one chose leisure over labour, but both are the same in the eyes of god, JT.

We see it in our office with these self righteous entitled brats thinking they are supposed to get a promotion after 18 months of warming a chair because, well, because!!

Just like you can never time a market, you can never time a situation like this. That for some people, in their prime earning years or after killing themselves at school to be something for 8 or 12 years, that someone will come around now, for a potential 8 years, and take away all that.

Let them recut ALL the public sector salaries, pensions, benefits, raises. LEt that be a fair and equitable distribution amongst all Canadians. Let public sector salaries be fully taxed. And abolish the unions that take from me, the NON unionized, to support their outdated and goldplated ways.

An absolute piece of shit joke of a government with nothing more than kids with the rich kid attitude which has no comprehension of real life and real sacrifice with the hope, not promise of success.

#222 Smoking Man on 08.01.17 at 1:24 pm

#208 James on 08.01.17 at 10:47 am
DELETED

Hahaha.
Kew, this topic would trigger you.

#223 James on 08.01.17 at 1:24 pm

Its easy for the Liberals to keep more of our tax dollars. Just stop spending the money you have been trusted with on foreign country’s to prop up your insanely deep routed appetite to look like you are saving the world JT. The social programs rolled out here are ridicules.
BTW it is the a fact and the truth #208 James on 08.01.17 at 10:47 am

#224 ImGonnaBeSick on 08.01.17 at 1:24 pm

#221 Torontorocks – Amen! Please run for office!

#225 IHCTD9 on 08.01.17 at 1:29 pm

#68 CL on 07.31.17 at 7:09 pm
If I were a woman (and I might need to be if this happens), I would be embarrassed if I had a position in the workplace simply because of my gender. Nobody ever respects that scenario regardless of what gender or any other “status” that person might be.

A person placed based on gender will never steer a ship straight since nobody will assist in steering.

I have full respect for anyone that is in a position due to good ole hard work and dedication, smarts, etc. Too bad Canadians aren’t smart enough to vote in such people.
________

Excellent point. I’ve seen this in action twice were a female was hired (because she was female) due to an agreement with a “women in non traditional trades” organization of some sort.

Both lasted about a year, and cited sexism and all manner of gender based injustices in their resignations.

Both were entitled, inflexible, and incompetent. Having both on the payroll cost us money due to stupidity and time wasting on top of their wages. Both made decisions that made things worse.

Both eventually got the message in a non-verbal fashion that they should take a hike.

#226 Livin Large on 08.01.17 at 1:37 pm

Geeze Louise Torontorocks, imbibe your preferred recreational drug will ya.

JT may be personally wealthy but he never stole anything from any widow or orphan and he was a teacher so he didn’t suck at any public teat.

I’m sorry that you feel so angry but still, take a pill or a shot or a toke but get over yourself. The world’s been burnin’ since the world’s bee turnin’. Otherwise, you’re just going to be another medical stat suckin’ up my tax dollar one stroke or coronary at a time.

#227 n1tro on 08.01.17 at 1:53 pm

I beg to differ your differ….

#118 Linda on 07.31.17 at 9:07 pm
#111 – I beg to differ with your assessment that men & women in the same job are paid the same. There is still (unfortunately) a bias to promote the male rather than the female; grant the male a pay step ‘sooner’ than a female due to ‘merit’; lay off a female before a male because (I’ve actually heard this said) ‘the man has a family to take care of’.

**I don’t know how this can be proven other than saying that most top positions are held by men therefore the hypothesis of men biasing for other men is true which is circular. If your assertion is that you see this bias in the workplaces you have worked for, I can accept that.

But then you have to accept the bias I’ve seen in my workplaces. Among the biases, I’ve seen women in high positions favor other lower ranking women over men when it comes to promotion criterion. Maybe the high ranked women are giving more slack to those who carry an extra X because of their own struggles to get to where they are(?).

In any rate, bias is wrong and this is not even factoring in race.

All things being equal (qualification, education, experience, length of fingers, etc…) who do you think has it worst in the office environment? A “white” female or a “non white” male? Food for thought.

#228 Damifino on 08.01.17 at 1:55 pm

#221 Torontorocks

Justin Trudeau is prime minister for exactly one reason: His father was prime minister. It’s really that simple, much like the man himself.

There is nothing that can possibly be done about it until 2019. Might as well meditate until then.

#229 NoName on 08.01.17 at 2:08 pm

#221 Torontorocks on 08.01.17 at 1:16 pm

“the rich kid attitude which has no comprehension of real life and real sacrifice with the hope”

and that was funny, failing combination he knows and he i lafin at those that sacrifice and hope every day all day long…
messiah send regards and song to all that sacrifices and hope…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBtu32UC_A

#230 fancy_pants on 08.01.17 at 2:08 pm

#210 WUL on 08.01.17 at 10:57 am

Concern? I was on the losing side of one of those audits a few years back. Them nasty christian organizations must be up to something. pricks will find something to steal back. I also was at the end of a barrel when the cons were trimming back their IT staff. I am a programmer for the feds. Thinking only of myself, I love this liberal gov’t. My union encouraged me to vote for them. But I still couldn’t do it. Smaller gov’t is my motto. Was willing to risk my own ass to vote in a smaller gov’t. But guys like you get in the way of that.

From a personal point of view, I thank guys like you. You supply me with job security. Bigger, fatter more inefficient gov’t that outsources more and more IT projects (think Phoenix payroll mess – outsourced) to private companies, so I can sit back and eat cake celebrating Canada’s 150 etc. It’s great, thank you.

#231 Damifino on 08.01.17 at 2:17 pm

#193 CJBob

Garth wins the award for biggest troll.
———————————-

A world first! Man trolls his own blog.

#232 rainclouds on 08.01.17 at 2:19 pm

For you Happy Housing Crash, thanks for the chuckles!

http://business.financialpost.com/real-estate/rpt-analysis-in-canada-a-nation-of-realtors-braces-for-the-end-of-the-boom/wcm/17da189e-d81f-4618-bfe1-41351ba2fbed

#233 rainclouds on 08.01.17 at 2:24 pm

Just wow, Not sure why anybody would trust much about this industry………

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/rbc-says-it-takes-appropriate-action-in-response-to-fake-chinese-collateral-case-allegations

#234 Toronto Dweller on 08.01.17 at 2:51 pm

Laughing out loud. Some white paper published talking about the unfairness of taxation between genders and people are up in arms and threatening to change their sex so that they will pay less taxes. Chill out dudes and dudettes. It’s just part of T2’s and Liberal’s strategy of deflecting the real elephant in the room, which is the gasbag of deflating housing prices and thus net worths of many Canadians and huge deficits down the line. Nobody wants to look in the mirror, so we have these sex, cultural wars to turn our heads away.
PS. Real men don’t threaten that they will do this or that, especially running away from country that made you rich or at least middle class.

#235 US transplant on 08.01.17 at 3:04 pm

Garth I’d just like to point that if government appointments were purely merit-based the demographics would be a lot different and we wouldn’t need to talk about sex-based appointments. I’m not advocating sex based appointments butI’m suggesting thinking at baseline everything in our society is merit based is wrong.. The incompetence of merit-less white males who are nevertheless in government in my home country is exhibit A. Don’t think Canada is immune.
Also I agree sex or gender based tax code is ridiculous because as society changes those tax codes will be harder to change and grow more irrelevant.

#236 MPM on 08.01.17 at 3:10 pm

That goes against everything set out in the Charter of Freedom and Rights. We are all supposed to be equal.
Even the hint of searching out differences between men and women’s taxes will have 1000 lawyers in front of the Human Rights Tribunal with their clients.

#237 Dogman01 on 08.01.17 at 3:25 pm

On past census I would say:
Race\Ancestry = Canadian
Religion = Jedi

Never thought I would have to be concerned about official discrimination based on my biological sex.

hmmm pause for thought

#238 AGuyInVancouver on 08.01.17 at 3:34 pm

#93 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:49 pm
“Miss me yet?” – Stephen J. Harper
________________
No, not in the slightest.

#239 Quotable Quotes on 08.01.17 at 3:46 pm

It’s hands down the funniest line from the Trump administration:
“I’m not a backstabber; I’m a front-stabber.”
— Anthony Scaramucci

Runner-up: [Trump telling Israelis in Jerusalem] “We just got back from the Middle East.”

#240 Doghouse Dweller on 08.01.17 at 3:48 pm

Looks like this Russia thing is getting serious !

SPDR S&P Russia ETF
RBL:US
Liquidated
RBL:US was liquidated
18.76
USD
That was my best EM market performer .

#241 IHCTD9 on 08.01.17 at 3:51 pm

#226 Livin Large on 08.01.17 at 1:37 pm

…and he was a teacher so he didn’t suck at any public teat.
_______________________________________

How can people like this exist?

It’s just no wonder to me at all what is going on in this country – none.

#242 IHCTD9 on 08.01.17 at 4:21 pm

I know MGTOW is up and coming, but all you young bucks should look at an already well defined alternative.

Marry a woman that makes a lot more than you do. This way all the benefits worked into the system for the lower income spouse (ie. traditionally the woman, but now changing fast) now work for you instead.

Have a few kids, and then have her buy a house. As soon as this is done, quit your job to become a stay at home Dad. Make sure you never earn a dollar ever again as long as you’re still married. The longer she sticks it out, the worse it will be if she wants to leave.

Sound familiar? Now she’s screwed. Men can play that game too. Just an option for the MGTOW dogs.

#243 IHCTD9 on 08.01.17 at 4:29 pm

#238 AGuyInVancouver on 08.01.17 at 3:34 pm
#93 Howard on 07.31.17 at 7:49 pm
“Miss me yet?” – Stephen J. Harper
________________
No, not in the slightest.
_____________________________________

I miss Harper huge. Trudeau is a douche and dumb as a rock.

I just can’t believe how freaking stupid Trudeau is.

Harper had brains, Trudeau has Portland cement.

Trudeau is by far, the single most bird brained blockhead fool gong-show PM we’ve ever had.

#244 James on 08.01.17 at 4:30 pm

#222 Smoking Man on 08.01.17 at 1:24 pm

#208 James on 08.01.17 at 10:47 am
DELETED

Hahaha.
Kew, this topic would trigger you.
…………………………………………………………………
What the hell are you still here, I thought you slinked off with your buckets of cash. I dont get triggered I am too young for that. You however have your days numbered old man.

#245 Bobs ur uncle on 08.01.17 at 4:32 pm

#234 Toronto Dweller

Bang on. On all counts.

#246 InvestorsFriend on 08.01.17 at 5:15 pm

Agreed Justin Trudeau deserves to be PM

#221 Torontorocks on 08.01.17 at 1:16 pm said:

Lets put it like this. Trudeau? Nothing. …not only is he a trust fund kid with millions squirreled away and not paying any taxes on, he’s never done anything that required a meaningful sacrifice with the intent of finding some great reward as a result of the sacrifice.

#228 Damifino on 08.01.17 at 1:55 said:

Justin Trudeau is prime minister for exactly one reason: His father was prime minister.

**************************************
That must be sarcasm since the sacrifice of running for MP let alone PM is obvious. Not the least of which is putting up with enormous criticism and personal attacks. And don’t forget he was initially given little chance of winning the PM office. Could easily have been a lot of sacrifice without the reward.

And agreed his father (and mother) did provide him with superior genetics, that much is clear.

So, yes a head start in many ways. You might want to judge people not on the hand that life dealt them but on what they did with hand.

History will judge Justin Trudeau kindly, I believe. Most of us, history will ignore completely.

#247 Victoria the original on 08.01.17 at 5:47 pm

I imagine that many doctors will leave Canada en masse – Trump or no Trump then we will really be a pickle – more than we are now.

If women are going to be taxed less than men then my husband could identify as a woman who likes to dress up in men’s clothes, have stubble and a guys hair cut. One ugly looking women but still a women. My husband would even wear a dress if he had to. :-)

#248 ImGonnaBeSick on 08.01.17 at 5:53 pm

#226 IHCTD9: Exactly. What an idiot. Please don’t get me started in teachers. We have all these schools sitting empty and all these teachers getting paid to sit at home all summer, while parents are forced to put their kids into daycare 5 days a week. Stuff those teachers back into the schools for the summer months and have them do extra curricular activities that no one has time to do anymore. Like sports,art, music, languages… sorry, but the summers of our youth are long gone… put those teachers back to work… oh wait, they’d never sacrifice they’re summer off…

#249 Count-da-money on 08.01.17 at 5:55 pm

Hmmm…. I guess I will have to self identify as a women then. Checkmate Billy boy, Checkmate.

#250 Mark on 08.01.17 at 6:03 pm

“Salaries are paid based one work performed, dividends are paid based on shares owned. I own TD stock, and do zero work for them. I get paid dividends. So the difference is that I bought the TD stock? Is your contention that it wasn’t “given” to me? What if the company has zero value at onset?”

Yeah the difference is that you (or the guy who originally bought the stock when TD issued it) paid capital into TD. For instance, a doctor will pay capital into their practice to buy the equipment of the practice.

However, contributions of labour, which obviously a TD shareholder didn’t contribute, are compensated by TD by a salary. If a doctor contributes labour to a medical corporation, they should be compensated, real or imputed, in salary that is determined by a reasonable calculation of the arms-length compensation that a doctor would receive as though they’re working for an employer.

I see this as a slippery slope. Why not just tax all passive income (including dividends) at top tax rate then?

Because dividends typically represent the after-tax income of a corporation, ie: income tax has already been partially paid on the earnings at the corporate level. The concept of ‘integration’ that is at the cornerstone of the tax system demands thus that already-taxed streams of income receive recognition that tax has already been paid.

Full disclosure: I own my own corp, and see zero value in dividends because of the increased paper burden and net tax advantage (zero). Maybe I screwed up my math somewhere along the line (it’s been confirmed by mulitiple accountants); but sounds like I’ve got nothing to lose going forward. LOL

And that’s exactly how it should be. There should be no tax benefit to incorporation as opposed to running as a sole proprietor. However, with “income sprinkling” (paying salaries to non-labour contributors to a business), and excessive retention of retained earnings, such structures are currently being abused. Which is exactly what the Liberal government is proposing to crack down upon.

Of course, those negatively affected come up with all sorts of bizzare rationalizations of their simply lack of willingness to pay taxes at the rates that the “rest of us” have to pay. Seeking an advantage, not because of the scarcity of their skills relative to market demand, but simply because they can afford to hire the fanciest accountants and lawyers to structure their affairs and defend them against CRA audit.

#251 Robert White on 08.01.17 at 6:25 pm

#211 n1tro ‘see how this works, Robert’

Correlation does not lead to causality, n1tro, and I happen to be one with an Honours B.A. in Experimental Psychology so I, for one, can spew without backing it up with references, BuckO.

Note: The IMF happens to agree with the general thesis. Please read the whole paper, n1tro.

_How Tax Systems Treat Men and Women Differently – IMF_

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1997/03/pdf/stotsky.pdf

See how that’s done, n1tro?

:)’

#252 Livin Large on 08.01.17 at 7:26 pm

Oh joy, more teacher haters rising from the swamp.

Do you know why teachers appear to have summers off? Apparently you don’t. They appear to have summers off because that’s what parents wanted when organized schools boards were developed. The majority of the country were not living in the urban areas where the parents wanted baby sitters for their little darlings and it was quickly discovered that younger students just don’t do well academically on a 12 month academic schedule. Has that changed? Maybe. The need for the family to have farm labour sure has changed.

Yes, teachers have what seems like an inordinate amount of free time in summer but like it or not, that was imposed on them, they didn’t lobby for it.

So, find another scapegoat for your ire and get over having to hire day care for your little darlings. Teachers aren’t baby sitters and like it or not, they earn their salaries.

#253 maxx on 08.01.17 at 8:38 pm

#145 Smoking Man on 07.31.17 at 10:29 pm

…” I don’t look that bad.

Just don’t know where to buy high heals that will fit my neanderthal sized feet.”

LOL!! Footwear issue is easy: kitten heels on running shoes is cool. Just glue them on and you’re done. :-)

#254 Slick Vic on 08.01.17 at 10:16 pm

@31: All animals are equal, says the lion to the sheep ;)

#255 calguy on 08.01.17 at 11:20 pm

“Vancouver in the Rearview” – you are wrong about calling the physician’s letter as nonsensical. My wife would agree with everything the letter said. Overhead costs such as support staff, equipment etc is not included in the fee structure. They have no benefits. What is the government doing about spending? It is just taking, taking, taking money away from Canadians. They also increased the federal tax rate on many of these professionals. After all the debt and schooling while throwing in terrible schedules training and working, I feel they should cut these professionals some slack. I want happy doctors not angry ones.

#256 crowdedelevatorfartz on 08.02.17 at 12:55 am

@ For those about to Flop
@ Happy Housing Crash Everyone.
++++++++

You guys rock!

Keep posting.

“They” hate you but the rest of “us” dont………

:)

#257 Dissident on 08.04.17 at 8:39 am

I’m a woman, and while on one hand, I might be all for taxing men more and women less…at the end of the day, if a man makes less than a woman and yet gets taxed more…that doesn’t make any mathematical sense.

A man who makes $50K/yr and a woman who makes $50K/yr…what’s the difference? They could both use a tax break.

Whereas a man who makes $5 Mil a year and a woman who makes $5 Mil a year, they both should be taxed at a higher rate, as the 1%-ers they are. Muffy and Bill don’t need all that dough.

It should be – the more you make, man OR woman, the more taxes you pay. Period. And the likelihood of men falling into that tax bracket is MUCH likelier anyways.

So why not leave it at that and not over complicate things, ya?

#258 Eric on 08.04.17 at 9:43 am

Hey Garth, I am a huge fan!

Instead a “SexTax” maybe Bill Morneau should look into taxing more the individual that work for the government. Hear me out…..

These government officials are well paid, they have a great health/dental benefit package at work, they have flexible hours, 2 volunteer days (fully paid BTW) and oh ya the best pension plan available in Canada.

I am in what Morneau and the liberals consider “wealthy Canadian”Both my spouse and I earn a combine income of 650K. My spouse is a MD. She is 37yo and we still have outstanding depths from her med school years…..should be done in about 4 years!!! I own my own business, with 2 employees.

After you consider that both my wife and I have no pension plans, we have to purchase our own health/dental plans, we have to pay our own Disability/Liability/Commercial Insurance, Office space, office supplies….and so on…. we are only left with approx 280K total income. We haven’t paid tax yet!!

OH WOW!!! We still have very little savings for retirement, we will most likely have to work to age 65 to make it into retirement.

Now I do have friends that started a teacher/military/ clerical jobs at the government at around age 20. These individuals do not have to worry about savings, rate of return, or even risk with there pension….IT IS ALL TAKEN CARE OF!!. They also have a great health benefit package! I have to retool my company package since the cost is out of control!

I could go on about this, but the point is that YES the liberals have it all wrong….maybe instead of considering a SEX TAX (I love that!!) they should really into the people that have a very safe work/income environment.

Oh ya I forgot, they also have Maternal leaves of 12 months with 97% of income coming in….We had to work our schedule our mat leaves….I worked from 6am to 11am, my spouse from 12pm to 5 pm, and I was back at work form 7pm to 9am….that was only after 3 weeks that my spouse gave birth!!!

Thanks