Slashdot Mirror
The Canadian Taxman Goes Browsing on eBay
Kaneda2112 writes "A story in the Globe And Mail points out that the Canada Revenue Agency is now trolling eBay Canada for high volume sellers — looking to make sure eBay's biggest users are accurately reporting their income. They've successfully gotten a court order for the names, addresses, and other personal information for that website's biggest users. 'Canadians spend about $5-billion online each year and eBay is by far the largest electronic marketplace, accounting for about a quarter of the total sales. The site was visited by nearly 11 million Canadians in August, according to company figures. The CRA said in court filings that it is targeting people who qualified for eBay's PowerSeller program in 2004 and 2005. Only top eBay sellers can qualify for the program, which provides benefits to members. Those benefits include prioritized customer service, special promotions and sales tips.'"
Can't they just buy the users' information?
The game.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
... that there are actually 11 million Canadians? Does this figure include moose and grizzly bears?
Most businesses I've bought from on eBay, even Canadian ones, who have stores, may be Powersellers, and are clearing operating like any other (online) consumer electronics business in Canada (selling, mostly new, goods to end-users) don't charge me federal sales tax. I mean, taxes suck, but they also pay for my healthcare, used to pay for my education, and I do a lot of work for the Government, so I realize that taxes ought be collected. I sound like such a commie, but I'm not. Anyway, I guess this is good. I don't want eBay business to dwindle, but they should be treated the same as Apple Canada or TigerDirect.ca. What else is there to say? Business, big or small, shouldn't be trying to dodge tax.
-Matthew Riley "TofuMatt" MacPherson
I have a website
Why shouldn't they declare their tax. As long as that info isn't supposed to be private I don't see this as all that bad.
I'm really failing to see how this is an issue at all, as businesses get audited all the time. If you're throwing around a lot of money, it's no surprise that the taxman is going to raise an eyebrow.
This is nothing more than an audit and a crackdown on unregistered businesses. In other words, the Canada Revenue Agency is doing its job (this concept may be unfamiliar to Americans when relating to governmental agencies)
If you're operating a business, then you should be paying taxes as such. Plain and simple.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
The Canadian government smells money, they make a grizzly look like a woosie.
--------------
Don't steal, the government hates competition.
Maybe it's just me, a lefty liberal socialist Brit, but I don't really understand the mentality behind the 'humourous' tagline here. Selling stuff on eBay means you're earning money. Why shouldn't it be taxed like any other income? Ok, someone selling a couple of DVDs isn't really going to make any dent in the government's revenue, but there are powersellers on eBay with a turnover to rival a large highstreet store, all tax free if you're a bit underhand about it. That's not a good thing. That's a few more potholes in the road, one less nurse looking after you in hospital, a few less books in the school library. Tax evaders aren't Robin Hood*, they're plain old criminals.
If you give a damn about the quality of your community you probably ought to welcome Uncle Sam getting ideas along the same lines.
* English folk hero, robbed from the rich to give to the poor, portrayed very poorly in film by Kevin Costner.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
You have attempted to buy fertilizer in large quantities on eBay. This has drawn an inquiry from the government. Prepare to have your premises searched for any more explosive materials & terrorist contraband.
Your cooperation is not an option.
Sincerely,
Your Cannuck Government in cooperation with the US Dep. of Homeland Security
Having helped my folks set up their own small home business, I learned a few things about tax law. There are two types of corporation - provincial corporations and federal corporations. As a provincial corporation, you only need to charge your customers GST, not the local PST.
This sort of, kind of bugs me. The law behind this was written in a day and age where it's rare for provincial businesses to trade outside their borders, and even if they do it's a minor part of their income, a drop in the proverbial bucket. But huge businesses like NCIX are still registered in BC, even though they make millions in sales to other provinces (especially Ontario) - and that's a MASSIVE chunk of PST missing, not to mention that it creates an unfair playing field for local businesses. I know many Ontarians who go to NCIX just to skip out on the PST, and it's arguably stealing business from local, er, businesses.
IMHO if the majority of your operations are not in your home province you ought to be forced to incorporate federally and be forced to follow the local tax laws wherever you operate (in Canada at least!).
"The" tax man is just a little dehumanizing, thank you very much. (Some people are just sensitive about proper article use.)
And while they're at it, perhaps they could investigate some of the rampant fraud on eBay.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Absolutely. The number one complaint we Americans have is that the IRS doesn't do its job. We all think that it doesn't audit enough people and would be truly satisfied with it if only it were more thorough.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Sheesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trawling
free experimental electronic music netlabel at www.viablehybrid.com
Win.
Yeah I don't get it either. The basic logic works like this, "I was getting away with it before, don't change/enforce the law so I can't continue my bad practices!"
It's like when they put in speed/redlight cameras. The majority of people who bitch are the very people the gear is meant to catch. And they're not really pissed off because of the supposed violation of privacy, it's because they know they won't get away with their previously bad behaviour.
I for one welcome this. I think there should be a discretion though, I mean if I fail to report the $13 toy I sold on ebay last year I shouldn't face prison time. But if you're doing [say] more than $1000/year in sales it should be mandatory.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
BLAME CANADA!!
Basically, we Americans are all for closing tax loopholes — except the ones that we might be able to use. As this is a tech-heavy site, I suppose many Slashdotters make money off eBay.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You misspelled "invade". ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
http://pages.ebay.com/services/buyandsell/welcome.html
How do I qualify?
Each month eBay automatically sends email invitations to qualified sellers. To qualify, members must:
Have been an active member for 90 days
Average a minimum of $1000 in sales per month, for three consecutive months
Achieve an overall Feedback rating of 100, of which 98% or more is positive
Have an account in good financial standing
Although that is direct from the eBay site it is not 100% accurate. My experience indicates that invitations to the Power Seller program are based on quantity of items sold and not dollar amounts. Somewhere between 3 and 5 items per month for three or four consecutive months will trigger the invitation email. I get invitation emails quite a bit but never have I sold $1000 worth of stuff in any month let alone three consecutive months.
Will the almighty tax collector know if eBay has told them everything? I hope eBay sets up a user database system that looks like a real system but in reality is not showing the entire picture.
I live in Canada and I am chocked by taxes, so I try to do everything in my power to avoid paying as much taxes as possible, it is my civil duty in fact to prevent the government from making me poor, so I wouldn't have to ask the gov't for help, which I do not. It is also important to prevent the gov't from getting all that money, so it would have to deal with what it can get it's hands on, making the gov't realize that they have to be efficient. Can you say I live in Toronto and I am majorly pissed off at the local municipalities? 7.5 Billion dollars a year in property and other taxes for the city and we still are on a verge of bankrupcy as a city with a mayor, who said explicitely that there are no other ways to deal with the problem but to raise taxes. This is an NDP mayor, I hope he chockes, honestly. Maybe then we'll be able to get someone in who'll dismantle the unions and will finally not have to pay $30/hour per union worker sitting on their asses. I want private garbage collection - this will save money.
Of-course the tax man in this article is a fed (or maybe provincial,) looking at income. Well, shiiiite, what, did they build eBay or smth? You know what will happen if this goes through? eBay will lose lot's of sellers who will go to other places, like craig's list. Well maybe finally we'll have more than one auction house on line.
You can't handle the truth.
They probably already got the idea with the minor difference that they are doing it under the antiterror legislation so Ebay cannot say that it has been queried.
After all, if you possess such a wonderful piece of legislation, why not use it for purposes it was never designed for.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
- A website allows people to auction off items. Some people sell so much that it's a possibility they are evading large amounts of tax. The government cannot know for certain whether they are indeed evading tax, but it would indeed be very bad if they do so. Because site names are anonymous, they request the identities behind the usernames. The individuals identified will have their records checked.
- A website allows people to make posts. Some people make threatening posts that open up the possibility that they are going to committ criminal acts. The government cannot know for certain whether they are intending to committ criminal acts, but it would be very bad if they do so. Because site names are anonymous, they request the identities behind the usernames. The individuals identified will have their records checked.
Difference in... acceptability?
It strikes me that where the justification is checking for tax evasion, I would think that even if there are no limits to the methods employed (requesting usernames, forming databases, correlating information, tapping into financial transaction systems, wiretapping phones, bugging cars etc) it would still get no reactions at all from privacy advocates.
I'd have modded you up just for the Corner Gas reference.
The interesting fallout from this will be the potential effect on prices. Many eBay sellers are cheaper than other merchants *because* they don't pay taxes. If this forces eBay merchant prices to rise, the overall effect could be a decline of sales/profits for eBay overall.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
that Apple Canada and TD don't pay taxes! No, they're not "forced" to, well, because they never started business with the errant notion of ever NOT paying taxes. Jeez!
Vachss wrote about just this situation, way back in 2000 in his novel, Dead and Gone:
Lune tapped a few keys, pointed an immaculate fingernail at his computer screen. "You know what that is?" he asked me, as what looked like a string of auction bids popped into focus.
"A bunch of dope dealers talking in code?"
"No. It's the IRS."
"Huh? I don't get it."
"It's a pattern," he said, spinning on his chair to face me. "You know all this talk about America's 'underground cash economy'?"
"It's not just talk."
"Exactly! It's authenticated fact. And that's where the real money is. Not in cocaine cartels or topless clubs; it's in flea markets, garage sales, all the 'hobbyist' stuff that's being trafficked back and forth every second."
"Flea markets? How much could--?"
"You have to watch the patterns," he said, reciting his mantra.
He turned back to the screen, beckoning me to look over his shoulder. "Look! Here's one, right there on the screen. He's selling a signed copy of a first-edition book by--Martha Grimes. See it?"
"Sure. The highest bidder is--forty-five bucks so far, right?"
"Right. And what this guy--I mean the seller, okay?--what he did was, he bought maybe twenty copies of that book when it was remaindered. You know, you've seen the tables where they sell them in bookstores, haven't you?"
"Yeah," I said, knowing that everybody pays, and that the currency I needed to pay Lune's tolls was patience.
"First, you have to understand that all books get remaindered. It doesn't matter if they sell a million copies, there's always some left over. Well, the publisher isn't going to throw them away, so they sell them, in bulk, very cheaply. A book you spent twenty-five dollars on when it was new, a couple of years later, you'll see it for a dollar ninety-eight."
"Yeah--?"
"Now the guy has all these books, so he waits until this Martha Grimes is doing a book-signing someplace. Then he ambushes her, gets her to sign as many copies as he can get away with. Some writers will just do it, some will limit the number of copies. But this--merchant, his story is always what a huge fan he is and how he's going to give the books away to all his friends as Christmas gifts or for their birthdays or something. See?"
"I--guess so. But --"
"Look at the pattern, Burke. Come on. This guy buys a book for, say, less than two dollars. He gets it signed. Then he sells it for forty-five dollars on this Internet auction site. Do you think, for one single solitary second, that he declares that profit as income?"
"Of course not."
"Good. Now multiply by--oh, ten million transactions per year."
"Are you serious?"
Not a brilliant question to ask Lune. "Come closer," he said, pulling back from the screen so I could do it. "Take a look as I scroll through for you. See how every single seller and every single buyer has to provide information just to participate? Their e-mail, a credit card, a street address--a ton of authentic data. What you see here is the clearest, cleanest audit trail that any IRS agent could ever dream of."
"Damn!"
http://www.vachss.com/updates/040605.html
Vachss is a rather undersung fortune teller.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
Extortion is wrong, even when the government does it, allegedly for essential and even noble ends (unless you believe ends justify means). Sales and luxury taxes on non-essential items could be regarded as less evil, since there's a means to avoid them -- don't buy stuff that's so taxed. But if you're a seller compelled to collect it on behalf of the government you might have some reasonable reservations. People who evade extortion aren't Robin Hoods (even if they gave what they saved from extortion to the poor, it would be their own money), and where income tax evasion is a criminal offense they are indeed criminals, but I wish I had their guts rather than meekly giving in to government extortion every year.
Loose lips lose spit.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
but how is it when things are bought and sold by an individual it is [sometimes] taxable - for instance, a car or a house, but in other instances it is not - like buying a guitar from someone.
I'm currently selling a lot of my musical equipment. Should I have a LOT more than what I have, at what point is it considered income? I mean, I bought it with my income, paid tax on it at that point, and then I go to sell it later.
While I think taxes are a joke (we pay way more in than what we get in return as a society), I do what I'm supposed to do. Just I don't understand the double-taxing of certain goods, and/or why the feds can get involved when a person sells to another.
If it's a storefront, even then, the inter-state e-commerce sales tax doesn't exist. If I go to Texas (I live in Oklahoma) and buy something, I'm expected to pay the tax on it. At the same point, if I buy it online, and have it shipped from Texas, I don't. Anyhow...taxes are confusing - and I think they intend it that way.
The liberal mind does not understand that goverment theft is no different that individual theft. They are tools.
I still remember one time on usenet, some jackass out in Alberta (I think) was spamming the forsale newsgroups incessantly trying to scalp a bunch of Playstations back when they were selling at a premium. The spamming and scalping generated a predictable response from the regulars of the groups, with some people even calling this character a bullshit artist who was never going to be able to sell for the prices he wanted. His ego attacked, this jackass started defending the fact he was making tons of money scalping playstations, and when pressed further, he proved his point by scanning and posting copies of the money orders he had received. These included his full name and address.
:)
I promptly bundled up all the evidence he so kindly provided and sent it off to Canada Revenue Agency along with a nice explanatory note suggesting they audit his ass.
I still chuckle when I think about it
The government probably pisses away more money per day than all the power sellers combined. I LIKE when people figure out ways to cheat the govt. The govt is probably cheating you as we speak, I'll be completely honest whenever they decide to disclose where every penny goes.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I was just being humorous. I am in favor of closing all loopholes. That said, the Fair Tax looks more questionable every time I look into its details. I don't have anything against it, but its proponents seem to engage in an awful lot of hand-waving. (Everyone will pay less tax, but we'll have the exact same tax revenue!)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Actually, my entire post was meant to be read with a tone of sarcasm, as the moderators who modded it funny evidently realized.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The majority of people who bitch are the very people the gear is meant to catch. And they're not really pissed off because of the supposed violation of privacy, it's because they know they won't get away with their previously bad behaviour.
Bullshit. Those cameras are there to increase government revenue plain and simple. After the initial installation cost there is very little additional cost needed to keep the money rolling in. If they were required to put a human police officer at every intersection they felt warranted a camera, the cost ratio would decrease to a point where it wouldn't be worth it to them anymore and thus unnecessary in the first place.
If they want to protect us from the evils of speeding and yellow-light/red-light running, then they ought to be prepared to pony up the dough for a uniformed police officer to stand there 24/7/365 to catch those evil people and write them a ticket. Otherwise, keep your fucking nose out of everyone else's business.
Simply send me the goods and the money and I will guarantee that the Canadian taxman will see none of it
Well, I guess a lot of people here will agree, even more will disagree and some (ok, I) will say "I would agree if".
And that if is, if that money would actually be used for the good of all. Yes, I'm (or rather, was) actually a "tax 'em fuckers" person. More tax == good. The actual Robin Hood IS in this case the state. Or should be. More tax means more social balance and fewer criminals (along the theory of "people who have something to lose are wary to lose it"). In theory.
In fact, with the crooked, inapt, spineless, bend-over-to-corps governments we now have in place, I loathe paying a cent of tax, knowing it will be blown for either some kickbacks to politician supporters or politicians waste it themselves for their own pet projects which usually consist of more surveillance and more war. Neither of which actually is something I'd support.
If that money went into the projects you mention, more power to the taxmen (and women)! Since it doesn't, more power to those that manage to evade paying them!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Lamest troll evar!!
Douchbag doesn't even know enough to use D-cups. ( . )( . )
If you spent more than about 6 months working in any significant civil service capacity in England, you'd realise that it's corrupt through and through. Consider the essential service (essential in the "you'll die if you don't get it" sense) that is healthcare: much of the nursing,cleaning,etc work is via agencies which skim off a good 50%, hospitals are no longer run in the day-to-day sense by senior doctors/sisters but instead by administrative staff (who in turn are responsible for choosing where to get those agency staff and for budgeting - see how the money flows?). When money is injected into a hospital, a diagram with many arrows will usually illustrate the money going straight into the bureaucrat's pockets, or as a cut via the services provided by contractors. Oh, and the house I'm living in now used to belong to an ass of a neurologist, who despite being medically very able, would make a good chunk on the side by offering private consultancy with near-immediate appointments to any patient he thought had substantial savings but little self-confidence (i.e. usually older patients).
I'm from a family comprising several doctors, nurses and other "healthcare workers"[tm], many of whom believe(d) in the founding aims on the NHS; all are/were driven to despair by how it has become corrupted in the last 25 years. When you avoid paying tax,you're denying a small proportion of that money from a needy individual, but a much greater proportion from a corrupt official. "Socialism" - though the word has been corrupted - is about the workers controlling the means of production. Since, in the example of healthcare I have given, it is management rather than workers that currently control the means of production, it is not socialist to pay taxes (it's not capitalist either, mind). If you are actually interested in supporting and advancing healthcare, get to know your local hospital's support associations - find out whether they need equipment, volunteers, etc. Find out if they're working with any local charities that could do with an extra few bob. But please, for the love of FSM, don't think that paying taxes is some magic guilt-reliever just because "in an ideal world" it might improve the lot of the less fortunate. Your heart is clearly in the right place, but those in whom you put your faith do not have your welfare in mind.
whoever marked the parent off-topic is a fucking idiot or a shill.
corner gas for the win as well ... good form.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I love that assbackwards logic. The cameras only catch violators. The theory being that people will drive properly to keep safe, and if not for that, at least to save money.
I do the speed limit and stop for lights because it's safe. But I really don't want a ticket either so I'm extra cautious. Even when it's "safe" to do say 20 over the limit I still don't.
And why is being efficient bad? Should cops forgo using computers to look up license plates because it's too simple when trying to find stolen cars? Or stop using hand guns when trying to defend themselves. Man up loretta, technology is there to improve efficiency, which yes, means they'll catch more people.
So why not grow an adult size set of brain matter, stop breaking the law like the jerk asshole you are, and you can go about not bitching about harmless traffic cameras.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I apologise for the horrendous rhetoric in the parent post. I should have hit Preview. I just become impassioned when I see someone with such worthy beliefs implicitly place honest but misplaced trust in a government that has promised it would look after him. In other words, OP, I admire you, but implore you to analyse whether your methods are achieving your aims.
A Government (read: Canada) without any clue on how to effectively spend our tax money is bad.
If a government chooses to waste our money on overpaid contractors, lame initiatives like fund religious schools, building half a subway line, etc.
I'd happily choose to pay for my own medicare, make my own donations...at least it's my decision.
So why not grow an adult size set of brain matter, stop breaking the law like the jerk asshole you are, and you can go about not bitching about harmless traffic cameras.
How dare you side with Big Government peering into your personal life via computer-aided cameras? You are either not from the US where those intrusions are accepted or you are one of the growing mass of people in the US who are falling for the mass marketing campaign the current administration (and the local administrations) are pushing so hard.
Either support the addition of manpower or don't support this type of revenue building device. For you to claim it's anything else is parroted rhetoric non-sense.
First, I don't see the privacy violation. You are driving on a PUBLIC highway. If you want to remain private, keep private. Don't get in your car in plain sight and drive on a public road.
Second, I don't see why the only viable solution is to put cops out instead of cameras. Obviously the cameras are catching people. Maybe the LAW needs updating. As in, more stiff penalties. Like run two lights in a year and lose your license. Instead of just fining people money, since that seems not to discourage people from speeding/running lights.
How about them apples?
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
However, very few people actually complain about that. Those that do, well, guess who gets audited next? ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This sig all sigs devours
In Houston at least, there are signs posted at all the red light cameras with a (difficult to decipher) pictograph indicating that there is a red light camera at the light. So wherever I go I know where all the red light cameras are.
Red light cameras really don't add safety. Regardless of how long the light has been yellow, if it is yellow, I'm stomping on my brakes. Is there someone 2 feet from my bumper? I don't know- I don't have time to check because I have to stop NOW or I might get a $50 ticket without a court hearing or the chance to confront my accuser*.
*this is unconstitutional
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Dishonest people misreport their income all the time. Honest people don't. Even prostitutes and drug dealers that report their income in Canada are a-ok (as Revenue Canada is bound by privacy legislation.) But this seems like a gross misuse of RC time and resources. Monitoring eBay to find fraud is likely less fruitful than comparing spending vs reported income. If buddy's credit report shows him having a $2M mortgage and reporting income of less than $50k /yr, chances are something is up.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Did you receive MORE or LESS than the original amount you paid for it? If I understand correctly, and I don't know if I do, it isn't income if you are losing money, i.e. underselling.
eBay is well-known in the states for ratting out any sort of "odd" changes in users' purchasing habits. It's old news here. eBay is more than willing to suck up to any sort of government agency. Even without being asked.
As for Canadian taxes, that's what is paying for your nationalized healthcare (don't hit me). We always hear the raving about how wonderful nationalized healthcare is and how much we in the US need it. Granted, we hear it from the asshat nanny-staters who want to control every aspect of our lives from farting to dying.
eBay is a lousy place to expect any sort of privacy.
Speaking as somebody who has never used eBay (well, I once bought something from half.com but that's it) and thus has no particular stake in this, what bothers me isn't so much that you're required to pay taxes on sales online. Technically speaking I believe you're required to do so in the United States right now and I believe you're even supposed to pay sales tax if the site doesn't handle that for you.
What bothers me is that the government seemingly got subpoenas for information on these people solely based on the fact that they're big sellers on eBay. They don't appear to be being accused of any particular crime at this point. There is no evidence that I saw that they have any reason to believe they have done anything wrong.
Further, now that they have this information how are they going to use it? Are they simply going to compare eBay sales numbers and reported income and go "yeah, that sounds about right?" Or are even reasonable numbers going to get these poor people an audit simply by virtue of being a big eBay seller?
If governments want to pass laws saying that eBay must pass along information at the end of the year that includes your name and address information as well as sales totals, I wouldn't mind that so much. This, however, seems to be exceptionally selective enforcement against a particular group of people they have no particular reason to believe have done anything wrong.
Say it with me everyone, "There is no National Sales Tax in the US". Sales tax is left up to the individual States. The laws are pretty clear that you pay sales tax for Internet transactions only if you and the business are from the same State, and even then, only if the State has a sales tax. Oregon doesn't, and it is pretty convenient to buy expensive electronic gadgets online, ship them to my parents in Oregon, who then mail them to me in Texas. Beats paying an extra 8.5 percent (if you can stand the wait).
Seriously no one has mod points for this sick shit???
>It's like when they put in speed/redlight cameras. The majority of people who bitch are the very people the gear is meant to catch. And they're not really pissed off because of the supposed violation of privacy, it's because they know they won't get away with their previously bad behaviour.
Or, maybe it's because they have read the many studies that show that while these cameras may decrease the specific crime in question, they increase the rate of accidents in that general area. I know in my city, the numbers were available through the newspaper. Every single intersection that has a camera is in the top 10 for accidents. Some weren't in that list before the cameras. Remember, the cameras are not reporting accidents (only red light violations) and therefore it isn't a case of better quality reporting. They are actually causing more accidents. Many I have witnessed myself (read-end collisions during a green -> yellow light change). Furthermore, at every one of those intersections, the yellow light is less than 1/2 the length of the yellow light at the nearest neighbouring intersection.
Oh, I've never had a ticket in my entire life, either. But you can sure blame it on that if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, the insurance companies are making out like bandits and providing the city with more donated red light cameras.
The end question is which is more important to you? Less crime, or safer streets? If you are using red light cameras, you can only pick one.
This 'wonderful' Canadian health care forces myself and my family to seek health care in the US and Germany. Waiting time for human specialists is ridiculous, while pets get excellent care in no time, because they do not have to go through the same system. Animal hospitals are privately ran, so care is prompt, there are enough doctors and other staff. My father had to spend 15 hours in emergency, waiting fo 9 hours before they admitted him and then another 3 hours even before the doctor showed up. That's with sharp pain and bleeding. If only I could pay a thousand or two dollars for someone to see him right away, I would have, but it's illegal, and animal hospitals would not accept humans (and probably wouldn't know what to do with a prostate patient anyway.)
You can't handle the truth.
Somewhere in Canadian tax law (don't ask me to look it up, I get a headache just reading the envelope the tax forms come in) it lists what transactions are exempt from tax. Generally it is a private person selling their own used property to another individual.
That is stuff that they bought for personal use, and are now selling to someone else is exempt. Not something that they bought with no intention of using, and then re-sold.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
It's not sales tax they're after, it's income tax!!!
eBay sellers don't have to pay sales tax to the government in most cases. They do, on the other hand, have to pay income tax, and always have. If they make income, they have to pay income tax.
This program is to catch people who are cheating on their taxes. If eBay prices are low because the seller is breaking the law, then that's too bad.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'm glad *somebody* got the reference. I knew I was going out on a limb making it, but I had to.
Why shouldn't it be taxed like any other income?
Why is something that is immoral if I do it (i.e. stealing) suddenly OK when the thief is the government? Shouldn't the government be subordinated to moral law instead of the other way around?
That's a few more potholes in the road, one less nurse looking after you in hospital, a few less books in the school library
And God knows, if the government didn't provide for us, we'd have nothing; people would just sit around and starve to death.
Tax evaders aren't Robin Hood*, they're plain old criminals.
But when the government fancies itself Robin Hood, it's not just OK, it's admirable.
If you give a damn about the quality of your community you probably ought to welcome Uncle Sam getting ideas along the same lines.
Certainly, because as we all know, money is the root of all problems -- except *government* money, which is the solution to all problems.
I'm very aware of how bad it is. Honestly, I am. Nationalized healthcare issues aren't discussed in our press. The politicians only talk about the positives. They always neglect to mention that UNIVERSAL CARE != GOOD CARE.
It's the running joke in british sitcoms, eh? heheh.
"I want private garbage collection - this will save money."
Yeah, 'cause saving money is the number one priority, everything else takes a backseat to that.
$30 an hour (do you have a source for that, btw?) works out to be 55-60K/year. That puts someone at the lower-end of a middle-class income in Toronto. Decent living, but by no means extravagant.
Let's take employees with a middle-class income and replace them with people at a poverty-level income. What's the net effect on your economy if everybody does that? How is something like private garbage collection different from outsourcing your IT job to India?
Why are you committed to the idea that, because someone's job is low-skill, that therefore they have to live in poverty?
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Yeah, 'cause saving money is the number one priority, everything else takes a backseat to that. - in my book it is.
Let's take employees with a middle-class income and replace them with people at a poverty-level income. What's the net effect on your economy if everybody does that? How is something like private garbage collection different from outsourcing your IT job to India?
Why are you committed to the idea that, because someone's job is low-skill, that therefore they have to live in poverty? - so your idea is that if someone's job is a low-skill you have to pay extravagant taxes for the unions to continue running the city into oblivion?
You can't handle the truth.
You are comparing an animal hospital, which is under no obligation to treat an animal and most require cash payment up front, to a human hospital which must see every person regardless of the ability to pay.
Although not perfect, the Canadian system covers everybody. When you have almost 50 million people not covered in the U.S., there is a problem. I am self employed. I pay $30,000 a year for individual coverage. Why so high? I had cancer six years ago and only two providers (out of almost twently that sell individual plans) would cover me. Two years after I got cancer, my provider at that time dropped me. I would gladly take a universal health system, over the patchwork system here in the States.
I object to cameras because I'm not a proponent of the government always watching you looking for you to screw up. Almost everyone commits a minor crime here and there. Ever jay walk? Leave a parking lot stub hanging from your rear view mirror on the drive home? Have your neighbor's mail put in your mailbox by mistake so you put it in theirs for them? Make a joke to a friend about the need to kill a public figure?
I'd rather not have to live in a constant state of fear that I'm going to get busted for something beyond trivial because cameras don't have common sense and they're operated by someone who can obsess over you and just wait for you to screw up. I've been taking care of my dad for years after he had a stroke and, lo and behold, after clearing his name with the local department of social services for a false charge that it took 6 years to get a hearing for him for (which ended up being thrown out with prejudice and expunged), they're suddenly getting "anonymous phone calls" telling them that I don't feed my dad (who weighs 240 pounds) forcing them to come investigate us all the time. Naturally, they can't disclose the supposed source of the phone calls even though they're all obviously false. Any given day, I can wake up to someone knocking on my door insisting that they come in, inspect my kitchen and all of the area my dad has access to just looking for the smallest thing they can charge me with. That I know of, they've stopped over at least 40 times in the last 4 years. Who knows how many times they've tried to snoop around when I wasn't home.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
I for one welcome this. I think there should be a discretion though, I mean if I fail to report the $13 toy I sold on ebay last year I shouldn't face prison time. But if you're doing [say] more than $1000/year in sales it should be mandatory.
No, the criteria is ARE YOU RUNNING A BUSINESS? Selling a $13 toy one time doesn't make you a business.
If you are running a business, then your only-selling-stuff-on-ebay business has to register like any other business and fill out the required paperwork. This doesn't necessarily mean you'll be paying lots of tax, since a business is (generally) entitled to deduct expenses & costs of running a business.
I hear you, but I am not proposing that in Canada we completely drop the universal health care system. I am proposing that we must allow private health care and do something like what Germany does: both systems coexist, doctors must see patients from either system. This is really about allowing private clinics and real private insurance as an option and right now we don't have it, so many of our doctors leave to the US.
You can't handle the truth.
Well, I don't necessarily concede that the city's being run "into oblivion". Deficits have happened before, and the world didn't come to an end.
All I mean is, if you take a large number of people who are making a decent living, and replace them with people who are living paycheck to paycheck, that has an impact on your economy.
People making a decent living spend more and have more disposable income. If you get rid of them in the name of lower taxes, and replace them with people with no purchasing power above and beyond the bare minimums of survival, that will have an impact on your economy, eventually. Also remember that there's no guarantee that getting rid of the unions = lower taxes. It might, but there's no guarantee that politicians will pass the savings on to the taxpayer.
And I think to suggest that it's either "smash the unions" or "the city's finances are in the toilet" is a false dichotomy. I don't live in TO (anymore), but I don't think anybody who lives there would suggest the only city government waste is due to high salaries of union employees.
Let's give a complex problem the respect it deserves.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
You are out of touch with this city. The mayor said it explicitely enough: there is absolutely nothing this city can do, but to raise taxes.
Obviously this is the mayor, who after coming to power has hired 4000 more city workers with no improvement in any city programs. This is the mayor, who 2 months ago lost to the council yet another proposition to raise various taxes. This is the mayor who agreed not to pursue the provincial government for the costs that the province has downloaded onto this city after Lastman left because the provincial dick allowed him to collect his own taxes in the city. This is the mayor who will not look at anything that deals with reducing the unions' power. This is the mayor who closed down the rec centers on Mondays after losing his tax proposal with no financial impact whatsoever, since the union workers still sit on their asses in those closed centers on Mondays. This is the NDP guy, who runs the city like the NDP guy together with the other NDP councils though the city is not supposed to be a place of partisan games.
You can't handle the truth.
Now that's a nice pair.
There are plenty of people who think income shouldn't be taxed at all.
If you look at Robin Hood again, he was robbing from the government and giving (back) to the taxpayers. It's not a rich-vs-poor class struggle, it's a powerful-vs-powerless freedom struggle. Then, "rich" equated to "I run the government here", e.g. King John.
I care about the quality of my community. That's why I would like to keep gov't involvement as far away from it as possible.
Constitutionally Correct
Red light cameras really don't add safety. Regardless of how long the light has been yellow, if it is yellow, I'm stomping on my brakes.
No, they don't add to *your* safety. Not everyone takes the same view regarding yellow lights.
OK, you're right, I haven't kept up on politics in TO recently, but all I'm saying is, even if they manage to say, crush the unions, replace them all with non-union, cheaper workers at half the pay, there's no absolute guarantee that that will lead to lower taxes.
Politicians make all kinds of promises, right?
But to get back to my original point - why is it a good thing to take employees at $30/hour (again, still not sure if that's a sourced number of a "off the top of my head" number...) and replace them with employees at $10/hour?
If a large number of employers did this, wouldn't there _eventually_ come a point where your whole economy is in the toilet?
Henry Ford said something about how he wanted to pay his workers more, so that way they'd buy more of his cars.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Take a look at the Wikipedia article on it. I pointed out a few of the inconsistencies on the talk page, but I never had my concerns satisfactorily addressed. It wasn't for a lack of trying, it just seems that my complaint wasn't getting through -- or their explanations weren't getting through to me. As it's not high on my priority list, I dropped it. If it is high on your priority list, I suggest you help fix Wikipedia's article on it. Again, I have no beef with making our tax situation simpler, and the FairTax might be a good way to do it. Unfortunately, when it comes down to specifics, it seems that the proponents don't yet have all the answers, IMO.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Let's take employees with a middle-class income and replace them with people at a poverty-level income. What's the net effect on your economy if everybody does that?
As long as "everybody" does that (high income as well) the net effect is...nothing. The union membership benefits from a higher than average income NOT from a higher income.
I have a HUGE beef with public sector unions. Unions are intrinsically adversarial entities: they were created to put workers on a more or less equal footing with their employers. I support that in a private sector context because whatever the company makes from their customers has to be divided between the workers and the employers. The result is a system where all three entities have a balance of power: if the workers aren't making enough, they can go on strike. If the employers aren't making enough, they can close shop and if the customers are paying too much, they can shop elsewhere or do without.
A public sector union abuses the taxpayer in exactly the same ways that employees were abused prior to unionization. Since the taxpayers (customers) are not allowed to shop elsewhere or do without, they are forced into a form of reverse indenture where they are required by law to pay some guy much more than they themselves are making to do a job that they would happily do for themselves or could contract for a fraction of the price. The government managers have no stake: for them it ends up being a case of dipping into a bottomless bucket of money everytime some a**hole starts yelling in their face and pounding the table (I mean this literally...I have seen PSU negotiators in action). In fact, the manager has a motivation to give in to the union as a 5% raise across the board is probably eventually going to translate to a raise for him too.
I'll tell you that it really sucks to be the guy who took 7 years of university living in a one-bedroom rented apartment seeing the college-school dropout city worker with a 4 day work week, house, nice car, boat and guaranteed pension all on my dime.
It's very rare that I find myself doing the speed limit and end up in on the boundary of "when I should stop for a yellow" and "when I can go through it." In those cases, I make a judgment call and if possible I stop anyways (having to be restrained by the seat belt and all). Even then it never really amounts to stomping on my brakes, just means I decelerate quicker than normal.
99/100 times when I get a yellow I'm either sufficiently away that I can stop safely, or close enough that I can go through it with time to spare. Did I forget to mention I drive the speed limit? Oh yeah, I drive the speed limit. Lights are usually timed to give you ample stopping time for the speed you're supposed to be doing (if they're not using a standard delay).
If you find yourself stomping on your brakes, it's because you're either not paying attention and notice the yellow too late, or you're speeding, or both.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You can't keep road laws and not enforce them. Safety is up to the driver and other people on the road (cyclists, road workers, etc). It's not the governments place to make sure that you're driving 24/7.
Things like speed traps, red light cameras, etc, are supposed to be reminders of safe driving practices. At the point though, that you need to be reminded that you should stop for red lights because "a camera may be installed," chances are you shouldn't be driving anyways.
And in the end, if someone rear-ends you for stopping at a yellow, THEY'RE at fault. And if the law wasn't so pussy footed about, they would receive a ticket for reckless driving, demerits and their insurance would go up. Do it enough, and they lose their license.
That's the real problem, is that the laws aren't always enforced as they should be. How many people have had speeding tickets reduced? Sounds like a nice gesture, but at the end of the day it's only letting bad drivers get away with not driving correctly. Now I'm not saying there aren't relatively harmless infractions. Like speeding by 15km/h over the limit should still result in a fine, but in many cases it's not unsafe to do so. So I don't think points should be taken. 20+ km/h on the other hand is starting to get into the out of spec zone for speed.
But in the end, it's up to the drivers to drive safe. Just like how I do the speed limit in the fast lane. Which without fault catches at least 10 people on my way to work, passing me doing 20 over the limit. If any one of those people hits my car from behind, THEY'RE at fault. Heck, even if I were doing 20 UNDER the limit, they're still at fault if they hit my car (though I could be fined for obstructing traffic). If they did hit my car it's because they weren't paying attention and driving recklessly. Hence, demerit points. Do that enough times you lose your license.
So really, you shouldn't be super concerned with the people behind you. It's not your responsibility to make sure you're speeding "enough," or running enough red-lights. All you have to do is not hit things in front/side of you, and get out of the way for emergency crews. The rest of society can go fuck themselves if you're not going fast enough for their likings. Do the damn speed limit, stop for reds, and you'll have nothing to bitch about.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Your issues are different than those of road violations. On the road you have to be constantly aware and on the look out for hazards. It's when people let their guards down that they get into accidents. And how does a passerby tell if you're not paying attention? Well two good indications are speeding and running lights. Those are hardly the only signs of drivers not paying attention, but they're certainly the easiest to catch remotely.
It's not big secret that most drivers only plan their driving about 1 second ahead of their car. It's trivial to see, for example, how often do you see people speed from one red light to the next (e.g. the first light turns green, they then zoom by only to stop at the next red light 500 metres away). And even though they should know better, they choose to disregard any common sense and drive however they damn well please.
I don't look at the cameras as a failing of the police, I look at them as a failing of the population. As in, supposedly responsible adults can't abide by trivial rules of the road, and have to be constantly watched and scolded like the five year olds they are.
Actually if you think about it, that's probably why they hate them so much, because they hate being treated like children. Well, as my mama always said, if you don't want to be treated like a child, stop acting like one.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Why do I have a feeling that some canadian tax office worker got caught shopping on eBay, and came up with this amazing excuse to tell his boss so he wouldn't get fired.
(by the way this is ridiculous but my security image word was 'penis')
never met a tax they didn't like!!!! Wouldn't it be great if they could buy decent healthcare on eBay?!!!!!