It would be one thing for there to be a requirement that commercial speech meet certain criteria (i.e. language).
But, the requirement is not what commercial speech has to be, but rather what it may not be in addition. In other words, it isn't enough that a public sign must be in French. There can not be any other lanuage on it.
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down this law, whereupon the Quebec Speech Nazis invoked the "Notwithstanding" clause in the Constitution to trump the court.
I do agree, though, that the Federal hate speech laws are horrid.
I once had a discussion with my daughter on a public street in Whitby, Ontario about why people have to wait for health care services and can't just pay instead of waiting for the "free" service.
I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for uttering offensive speech.
While the charge may have very well been bogus, the effect was chilling on our subsequent conversation.
My daughter's comment was, "Gee, I can say anything in the U.S. if it was true. When can we go back daddy? I don't want to wait to see a doctor."
I refuse TOS that do not let me run a server, I I do wish to sink my own email, as well as have the ability to remotely administer my machines at home via SSH.
I'll happily agree to not run an open relay as well as reasonable, well-defined, upstream bandwidth caps, though I make heavy use of CoIP for non-commercial reasons.
And, no, I do not download copyright material without permission. I have an extensive CD collection, as well as a modest movie collection, all duely licensed.
I will not agree to downstream bandwidth caps, unless they are generous.
I currently pay around US$45 a month for a dedicated Verizon 1.5Mx384k ATM circuit to my ISP, and a further US$40 to that ISP, i.e. around US90 a month, inclusive of taxes, for this level of service. I find that the long distance savings justify the expense, since I save around US$60 a month in long distance charges. So, the US$90 or so strikes me as a fair deal for that level of service.
The main point is that I'm willing to pay around the triple the going rate for what internet service is supposed to be. If you don't deliver it to me, I'll go to your competition. I will fight most vigorously attempts to prohibit any ISP from offering it to me.
I refuse to shop at Best Buy since they refused to take back a DVD player that was dead out of the box, insisting I had to take it up with the manufacturer through the manufacturer's warranty.
They were likely within their rights, but I was so angry about them being rude and unreasonable that I left the DVD player there and swore to never do business with them again, expressing that sentiment a bit loudly, but politely, as I left the store. I haven't. (Fortunately, they didn't try to have me arrested for "littering".)
I've never had such a bad experience with any other merchant over items DOB (dead out of the box). Office Depot, in particular, once took back a CDROM drive gone bad, after 10 months, on a Sunday, still in warranty, refunded my money, and then let my buy a replacement which was now $50 cheaper! They didn't have to take it back, of course -- I was hoping to swap it for a good one that day (a warranty claim would have taken weeks, and I'd get a replacement drive -- I didn't need two but did need a replacement that day), at the original price. The manager said that they could make a warranty claim for reimbursement (which I could not -- only replacement after a delay), and offered an immediate cash refund (not even just a store credit, which would have been fine by me), as a convenience. Talk about curtesy and customer service! I had my original purchase receipt, but was told that even that was unnecessary, though welcome: they sold the product in question, and would have been willing to take me at my word "this one time" that I purchased it there.
I wrote a letter of high praise to Office Depot's corporate office, and made it clear that such actions on part of that particular store's management induced me to spend a great deal more there when I otherwise had a choice, or might save a few dollars shopping elsewhere, and that I lauded their service to all my friends (which, for that particular store, was true).
Such experiences have been the norm for me, over small items, typically where the defective or disputed item cost $200 or less.
The problem with servers and services is that it muddies the line between program linkage and not.
Currently the GPL forbids redistribution of GPL-covered code linked with other code to form a larger work, when that other code is not also distributed under the GPL: the whole larger work must be so distributed. It is a "derived work", and copyright law is clear on this: one can not redistribute derivatives of copyright works without permission. It's that permission that the GPL grants, when you abide by its terms.
Of course, you are not prevented from redistributing GPL code *aggregated* with non-GPL code.
The problem arises from distinguishing between derived and aggregated works: what if I distribute a GPL app that I write, with a bunch of GPL shared libraries that I didn't write (complete with source), and a nonh-GPL proprietary library, essential for the application, that I did write, without which the application is useless.
Is that an aggregate, or a derived work of all the GPL code I did not write?
On the one hand, there's no (legal) requirement that my app even run, and, since I distribute source, one can implement a version of the non-GPL library. The fact that it works when my non-GPL library is installed in the right directory (LD_LIBRARY_PATH, anyone?) is a happy coincidence. Redistributing my GPL app, with modifications is fine, but you can't redistribute my "essential" non-GPL library, rendering the app rather useless without it. You add value to the app, I license more copies of the essential library.
On the other hand, the proprietary library, the foreign GPL libraries, and my app together, constitute a derived work of the GPL libraries, and must be redistributed en masse under the GPL.
If the libraries are statically linked into a monolithic executable, there is little argument that the whole source must be redistributed. The situation is more controversial if a mere aggregate of files is distributed: some argue that not distributing the proprietary library under the GPL is a violation, other's don't.
I tend to believe that if the GPL-covered peices can be redistributed indivudually, without the proprietary library, regardless of whether the result is useless, there is no violation: the fact that the code is actually only useful when the proprietary library is present is but a happy coincidence. What if I distributed a GPL version of the library, and offered a proprietary replacement, with far better performance?
This controvery gets even muddier when one considers alternate ways of effecting program linkage. In effect, the "functional derived work" exists only at run-time, and, indeed, the maner in which the parts of the aggregate are combined, can, itself, be the subject of restrive licencing, and patent. What about linkage via a remote procedure call mechanism? Y'all remember RPC/XDR over TCP/IP, right? Suddenly, self-assembling functional derived works become a reality. Protocols like SOAP, used to support "Web Services" exacerbate the problem.
This leaves a big, gaping hole in the GPL: socket wrappers were a common "hack" to "get around" the GPL: just layer a RPC mechansism around the proprietary library, and a GPL wrapper to call it from the app, and you were all set. And, that didn't even address the issue of inter-machine communication: 127.0.0.1 and Unix sockets are ubiquitous.
Of course, the minute one's app "links" with proprietary code on a different server in this manner, the GPL loses all force, for one did non distribute the proprietary part.
It is this area that the GPL v. 3.0 tries to address, IMHO, perhaps by more differentiating between linkage and aggregation. This can be done, of course, but then the license starts to lose some of its roots in copyright law.
The problem with such an approach, though, is, what constitutes linkage: does an exchange of HTTP requests and responses? What if there is ultimately GPL code satisfying that request? Surely, if I use a program provided by a vendor
The real bugbear is MPEG2 hardware decoding. While you can use a backend server and vlc for MPEG2 encoding (and even that is unnecessary with the Hauppague PVR 250 and 350 cards), decoding has to be done in the theatre "room" (unless you're happy running long cables or PC noise).
A Via M10000 will just about do SD software MPEG2 decoding, but forget about HD. The CLE266 supported by Unichrome and Via's own drivers (and integrated into their Xine fork: VeXP) works well, but follows the model of MPEG2 in, fram data out (dunno if it does YUV->RGB conversion). Most players (mplayer, xine, vlc) use this model: they have a decode phase which can benefit from hardware assist (and, as noted, Via's VeXP and the free Unicrome drivers leverage the CLE266 this way). However, not all hardware works that way.
ATI's X225 Xilleon chip, used in Roku Labs HD10000 "Photobridge" eats MPEG2, demuxes, decodes, and provides digital audio and component (as well as SVideo and composite) video, to HD resulutions.
There are vlc patches to run on this hardware (which is a really slick, fanless, thin client), but it does software MPEG2 decode to drive the graphics overlay buffer (limited to 1024x768, IIRC, so you can't do native 1080i). I'm surprised the X225 has the oomph to do that (It's a MIPS core). It would be nice to use the overlay for decoded SPUs (i.e. DVD menus), and leverage the X225 hardware decoder for the MPEG2 audio and video. Unfortunately, there is no display model in Xine, or VLC, where the display accepts undecoded MPEG2.
The closest one can do is use the streaming function of VLC to feed MPEG2 TS (it will transcode PS to TS just fine) to a TS player leveraging the MPEG2 hardware on the X225, and reserve the graphics overlay for SPUs. Sadly, one can't display SPUs without a video window on which to overlay them, requring MPEG2 video ES decoding.
I wonder them, how hard it would be to modify vlc's MPEG2 decoder to not decode picture, but to display black, for this purpose, overlaying the SPUs, and writing to the graphics overlay page, and splitting the stream into a remuxed (PS to TS) copy to drive the harware MPEG2 decoders. Unfortunately, this would only work for players that can stream: vlc, but not xine, or mplayer. And, it would be a hack at that (the SPUs would be out of time sync with the rest of the program, but that's rarely a big problem for menus).
A decoder/display model where the decoder does nothing, and the display does the decoding would work better here.
Oh, did they forget to patent the "Directional Organic Transducer?". There may be hope for a FOSS implementation then, necessary for this to work. I'll start on the "Movable Organic Universal Text Handler", or MOUTH, right away. Look for a Sourceforge project soon, and contribute!
What's more interesting, is that if one's taxable income is less than $100,000, one must use the tax tables (which, I think, are based on the tax on the mean amount betwen lines, leading to the step function problem you describe).
If you calculated your tax liability using the per-bracket formulas, you would find the grandparent to be correct. Alas, you can't do that. (Even in socialist Canada, you can choose to use the tables, or compute your tax liability to the nearest penny, small comfort though that might be).
When taking my drivers' eye test in Washington State, I had to read a series of letters and numbers.
Almost failed when I recited the last character as "Zed".
Because I came with an out-of-country license, I had to take a road test. Inspector almost freaked when I downshifted going down a long, steep hill, instead of riding the brake. He got really angry when I parked beyond a fire hydrant when asked to "turn left and park at the corner" -- he wanted me to make a three point turn around the corner next and figured that parking beyond the hydrant (instead of illegally in front of it) would make that difficult. What's an extra 20 feet in reverse? I passed, of course, but I think he thought me a smart ass.
When I considered (and subsequently subscribed to) Vonage's service, I thought about the 911 issue at great length.
I decided that, no matter how good it was, I would still retain my POTS line, and further, continue to pay the $4 a month for the "long distance plan" on it (basically calls to Canada for 10 cents a minute).
On the 911 issue, even if the service was ideal, I did not want to deal with the headaches of equipment and power failures on my end of things: my ATA dies, I have no VoIP service; my router dies, I have no VoIP service; the power fails, I have no VoIP service (yes, I can get a UPS, and/or a generator but then I have the reliability of those to worry about). Basically, reliable 911 over VoIP requires the kind of hot-standby failover equipment that I just don't want to have to install at my end.
With POTS, I just need a working phone, and extra phones are cheap. Even this is getting trickier: many wired phones need power to work (or a battery) -- it took me a while to find one that would get dialtone, dial out, and be operational (without bells and whistles like a digital answering machine, or even CID) on telco power alone.
I keep the POTS LD plan for the rare occasions when thge VoIP service is out (or my firewall gets misconfigured on reboot after a powerfail): $48 a year for a "backup" LD plan does not strike me as excessive.
I have one hardwired phone on each floor of our house, that is directly wired to the POTS line. Everyone in the house knows to use it for 911 first, if they safely can. I plan to add stickers to these phones that 911 service is guaranteed to work on them (they don't even permit selection of a non-direct outside POTS line). These phones work without power (i.e. are completely powered by the telco). They are located in central areas of each floor, close to escape routes (kitchen entry, across from main entry door; and lower level by garage exit and across from basement walkout), and fire extinguishers. I wish I could get them in red.
Other hardwired phones will have a sticker indicating what to press for 911 (i.e. line selection), are guaranteed to work if there is power, and have the ability to select the direct outside POTS line. All cordless handsets will be similarly labeled, and will work if the battery is not dead (I am considering a UPS for the cordless basestation). The cordless basestation also has a direct outside POTS line connection on one of the lines.
Other than the emergency phones, the default line selected for all phones is the VoIP line (hence the labelling). The non-direct line might one day go through an Asterisk system, with a dialplan that would route 911 to the direct outside POTS line (and VoIP otherwise). Right now it just goes to the VoIP ATA.
And yes, I have enabled E911 on my Vonage service, and registered my address, on the chance that someone dials 911 on the "wrong" line.
Not all the phones have been appropriately labelled yet, but the members of my household all know how to dial 911, and which phones are "emergency phones". Guests staying a while are instructed as well.
I wonder, did the TI SR-52 appear before or after the HP-65 (and later, the HP-67)?
It too, boasted magnetic card mass storage, and 224 programming "steps".
Yeah, I am aware that a University education in Canada is subsidised. However, I factored that into account when I figured out whether I was getting my money's worth. I really wasn't eager to move to the U.S., and cut all ties: bank accounts, credit cards, health coverage (lol, what a joke). Honest. I liked the freer market, in theory, of course, but practice is a scary thing. Still, it's been amazing, despite suffering through the telecom bust (and having to return to Canada for a bit over a year). My skeptical wife jumped at the chance to return to the U.S. despite being weary of moving.
As for tax rates, with proper tax planning, I'm in a 15% marginal tax bracket on a (low) six figure ($US) income. Of course, owning a home, filing jointly, having two kids, and maxing out a 401(k) are biggies there. Yes, I'm close to the AMT limits, thanks to efficient tax planning. No, this income is not considered wealty.
Frankly, while I don't mind a pragmatic 10% tithe on gross income to help the "less fortunate" (I do oppose it on principle as I am a libertarian), the income redistribution in Canada is draconian, inefficient, and ineffective. My parents and I earned our station in life through hard work, sacrifice, and absolutely nothing in the form of net government "help". Of course, this meant no fancy vacations every year, and one or two toys on birthdays and at Christmas time.
Actually, my moving expenses were about three times that amount, but the bulk of them were paid by my Canadian employer in 2003, and so I could not claim them.
In fact, some of those reimbursed expenses were not eligible as far as the IRS was concerned, so I was careful to take them into 2003 income as appropriate. I also had such inelegible moving expenses in 2004, but because they were not reimbursed, they were not taxable. Neither could I deduct them, though.
Hold your applause until I get my refund. I would not be surprised to be audited.
There is a question of whether I had to make a treaty claim in 2004 as well, in order to use the FEIE, or if the treaty claim in 2003 to be taxed as an American would, and the election to be taxed as a full-year resident in a dual-status year for 2004 is sufficient.
No, I had those moving expenses. Everything I (and my accountant) did was quite legitimate.
Furthermore, the moving expenses had nothing to do with my ability to file a 1040 -- that was due to the U.S.-Canada tax treaty. However, the moving expenses made it worthwhile to take the treaty position.
On a 1040, one can claim moving expenses in the year one actually paid them (within limits), if they are related to a move for employment reasons that meets the time and distance tests (i.e. long enough on the job, and far enough away from one's old home) and the income from that employment is subject to tax for a sufficient period of time in the year it is earned and possibly the next (which, in my case, was entirely the year before I paid the moving expenses -- I made that income from that job subject to tax in 2003, but used the FEIE to exclude it in 2004, when I met the SPT, but elected to file full-year resident instead of dual-status (mostly to file jointly with my wife and deduct Canadian mortgage interest and property taxes against U.S. income)). See what I mean about accounting hacks?:-)
As I did not meet the substantial presence test in 2003 (but did in 2004), I could not ordinarily claim the moving expenses related to the job in Canada that I paid the year after the move (2004) because I was not taxed on the income in the U.S. An American would be taxed on the income (because Americans are taxed on world-wide income, always), could claim a credit for foreign taxes paid, and then deduct the moving expenses the following year, when they were actually paid.
The Canada-U.S. tax treaty has provisions that Canadians can not be subject to harsher requirements or greater taxation than Americans in similar circumstances. The harsher requirement was that I meet the substantial presence test before the Canadian income was subject to U.S. tax. I took an Article XXV.2 treaty positiion on form 8833 to have my world-wide income subject to U.S. tax in 2003, making the moving expenses paid in 2004 related to the move for that job deductible against 2004 income in the U.S.
Now, I took a foreign tax credit, on form 1116, for the foreign (i.e Canadian) taxes paid, so I was not taxed twice (otherwise the whole exercise would be pointless). The way that works is that one's U.S. tax liability is prorated on the basis of how much of the income was foreign (in each of several categories: general (wages), interest, capital gains, etc.) -- in my case about 80%. The lesser of that fraction of total tax owed and the actual foreign tax paid in each of those categories is then credited against the U.S. tax liability. When most of the income is foreign and the foreign taxes are higher than U.S. tax, there is no net tax owing to the U.S. (I actually got a small refund because I could claim the refundable U.S. additional child tax credit for my American born son!).
I was careful to use an accountant: the idea of subjecting some $50k of income to tax, when one doesn't have to, and then using some foreign tax credit magic to make the tax liability go poof again, is a little unnerving: what if the income is accepted for tax, but the credit denied? In particular, the form 8833 treaty position disclosure is tricky because it involves a second tax treaty between the U.S. and Germany: a German national non resident in the U.S. can not be made to pay greater U.S. tax or meet harsher requirements than a U.S. citizen in similar circumstances. So, a German in Canada could take a U.S.-German Article 24.1 non-discrimination clause treaty position to be taxed as an American. The U.S.-Canada tax treaty Article XXV.2 states that a Canadian not resident in the U.S. can not be made to pay any greater U.S. tax or meet harsher requirements than any other national of a country with which the U.S. has a tax treaty with a non-discrimination clause, i.e. Germany. Ta da! And here you though stack frame buffer overflow exploits were 31337.
I wouldnt've bothered if the movi
I paid $700 to have my taxes prepared: worth it!
on
Open Source Tax Products?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I usually do my own taxes, even when dealing with cross-border (U.S./Canada) issues, like foreign tax credits, foreign earned income exclusion, sales of foreign property, dual status U.S. filing, etc.
This year, I hired an accountant (and EA: someone why has worked within the IRS previously in a return-related way for five years), paid $700, and definately got my money's worth: he found about $600 in extra refunds that even I, in my pennypinching, hacker-scheeming, diligence missed. (Of course, I expected this level of work, even though the extra refund was a pleasant surprise).
A good tax accountant will provide a 30 to 60 minute consultation session for free that will give you an idea if it is worthwhile to retain their services.
In my case, I'd already researched a bunch of strategies that I thought would work, but they involved the use of tax treaties. I was over my head in tax legaleese and nomenclature, and I needed someone to refute or verify what I though, and get the i's dotted and t's crossed to make sure I filed correctly.
By "you were there" you mean you were one of the million or so Montrealers who whined about the problem, they helped to create.
First, I lived in Montreal. Second, the mayor of OKA enraged the Mohawk, not Montrealers. Third, my taxes paid for, and supported an open bridge, not a closed one, as well as keeping it clear. Do the job for which I paid you: clear the protestors off the damn bridge! Once attention was drawn to their complaint, there were many ways to continue that (legitimate, IMHO) protest without such disruption. Finesse is providing an honourable withdrawal in the first 24 to 48 hours. After that window closes, you play hardball.
Your comments about the military are WAY off. Ask anyone in the US forces who have trained with us. They get their asses handed to them with regularity in the war games (ya, I know, if it was for real, things would be different, but this is how armies evaluate their skills).
Pretend does not matter. "For real" matters. Idiot grunts with nukes will whallop more disciplined and "better trained" infantry any day. That's all the Canadian military is, these days, infantry, in a time of relatively-soldierless war. (Of course, the U.S. does tend to stumble badly once on the ground -- tell ya what: why not provide cannon fodder for the yanks who are so bad at a ground war, as you say?).
This is typical: the U.S. is a more effective brute (that admitedly may lack finesse, as a result), and Canadians proudly claim that they play a "better game of chess". The old "Yeah, but we're better at..." something that is largely irrelevant. Christ, you can't transport your own troops anymore, you need piggyback transport. Yes, there are times when finesse and diplomacy are called for, but even here, Canada stumbles badly: witness Somalia and Rwanda. They can't keep their idiots under control and they don't have the guts to take charge to prevent a slaughter. Afraid of some bad press, are we?
Face it, socialism is grinding a once-proud nation into the ground.
And your bullshit about taxes is also quite funny. Seems whenever anyone with a background in accounting and taxation does the numbers, the gap is about 5% (give or take, after state and muni taxes
Paraphrasing: Nazi Germany wasn't so bad: only a small percentage of the population was affected in a bad way.
You're playing dirty with statistics. Overall, the gap may be 5%, but for significant minority segments of society, it is much, much higher: single-income families, for example, can't file joint returns in Canada as they can in the U.S. That was the real killer for us.
Of course, the demographics show that such families are in the decline: it takes two parents to work (often, solely because of the income tax burden!). I've done the analysis (crudely, in a related post), and for this group of people, the difference between the tax burden in the U.S. and Canada is insane.
Even in the U.S., it's a little tough to support a family on one income, so those that can come here from Canada and do that tend to be highly skilled and command a premium wage. They generally commanded a comparable (though about 30% lower, on average) premium wage in Canada. However, the tax structure forces them to leave.
Canada is shooting itself in the foot with it's tax policies.
You are funny though. I read one of your previous posts about your C++ godliness. Then someone called you on your "prime numbers at compile time", and you provide "Well, some of those error numbers ARE prime numbers"
The referenced program does produce prime numbers in the error messages at compile time. GCC happens to intersperse many more warning messages -- not all C++ compilers do. You clearly miss the point: that this can be done at all is a testament to the likely Turing-completeness of the template metalanguage, the messy output notwithstanding.
If you saved your employer $10^9, good for you! You should get at least 1% of that as a bonus reward! Enjoy your cool $10 billion. Methinks your employer's accounting will be a little different though.
university scholarship:
You think your 1980's university fees covered the cost of the education you got?
No, of course not. That wasn't the point. The Canadian socialist argument is that the state is entitled to make a tax slave of anyone who receives even the slightest benefit at any point in time, an absurdly bad value proposition.
Even if one takes into account all the other services subsidized, it was a bad value proposition for me given the taxes I paid. Filing jointly in the U.S., with far lower taxes and more relevant deductions (mortgage, property taxes, etc.) is much, much, better.
Bottom line: I was not getting my money's worth. Not by a long shot. And it got far worse when I supported a wife and kids. Despite keeping three other individuals off the public dole, my tax rate remained about the same, with extremely small additional non-refundable credits. I've done the analysis in another post.
Goverment transfer payments covered over 95% of the costs (of the university) for you.
Don't you think you have an obligation to pay for the next generation?
No. See above. I paid back the value of what I received, many times over, taking into account all state benefits received. It was a bad deal. Do you think I left for the U.S. without doing a detailed financial analysis? A small difference would not have induced me to leave. The difference was enormous.
Just like the previous generation did?
Did what? My parents were peniless immigrants who had absolutely no government assistance in the late 40's, 50's, and 60's, and managed to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start a new life, post-WWII, paying medical bills themselves, etc., with no social safety net.
Then, socialism took root in a big way in the 1970s with Trudeaumania, and their standard of living went way down: my mother had to start working to help pay the ever-increasing income taxes. They paid far more than they ever received, and so did I.
Some redistribution to help the truely destitute is reasonable, but even churches only ask for a 10% tithe.
Errr, where do you think that scholarship money comes from... trees? You want the handouts, but you don't want to pay for them. Pretty hypocritical.
This is exactly what I mean. If I accept the CA$10k scholarship, it stands to reason that my increased income as a result of the better education should give rise to higher taxes that help repay that scholarship. Fair enough.
But, that does not mean, that if I pay an extra CA$5k a year in taxes because of the increased income due to my better education, after 5 years of those higher tax payments, I should still "owe" something to repay the scholarship. That translates into a usurous rate of interest.
A scholarship is not a loan: the grantor takes all the risk, but if it were to be viewed fairly as to what I "owe" in return, it should be compared to one at a rate of interest related to market rates and the risk that I would "default" on my education.
I believe I paid my dues in this particular regard, and have learned to shun all government "freebies", for they are handcuffs in disguise. I intend to refuse Canadian CPP, OAS, and U.S. SSI: depite being stolen from me against my will, I can't bring myself to support the stealing from others in kind.
The US is a great country, but it's currently on a course towards disaster. Unfortunately, too many of its less sophisticated citizens (i.e. hicks) are too distracted by the scary brown "evildoers" to notice how badly Bush is screwing things up.
Disaster? I think that's overstating it. Bush won't be around forever. And, it's still a better place than Canada.
The societal pendulum does swing widely in the U.S. though, and, given it's might, is probably somewhat unnerving for the rest of the word.
Oh boy, talk about miss reading thing. "permanently" just means you intend to live there as a resident, as opposed to someone who intends to visit for a few months to get a free lung transplant. Its against the Canadian law to force people stay in Canada for health care.
That's what a reasonable person would think, so I checked with OHIP. They wer quite snipety about "permanent", as in "never leave or pay all benefits back with administrative overhead". Damn, when my wife had emergency IV antibiotics administered on an outpatient basis, I had to pay CA$150 + $10 a page for the damn invoice to file with my insurer! The drugs and service were admitedly cheap at CA$750.
When my son was seen by a Canadian doctor, he only charged me CA$30 for an excellent job. I tipped him another US$100, and admonished him to "charge what he was worth and not prostitute his skill like a $5 whore." He was puzzled, but hapilly took the Benjamin.
If you do the math the HBP is not really as good a deal as it sounds, if you don't beleive me do some googling for some analysis...
It makes sense if you sock as much as you can in an RRSP to avoid a 53% marginal tax rate (I used to live in Quebec at one time), and otherwise can't save a downpayment: you get an interest free loan paid back with pre-tax dollars at the expense of RRSP contribution room that would otherwise grow at market rates of return. Natch, if you had the downpayment outside the RRSP, it would be stupid to raid it.
But, my point was that so much that repaying the RRSP was unfair, as it was that to live a normal life, Canadians have to entangle themselves in many things that make severigng residency hard: much more so than Americans (who can work outside the U.S. and exempt US$80k of foreign earned income and still retain an American home for when they return - Canadians remain tax residents if they own a home in Canada).
Firstly you don't repay scolarships you must be thinking of student loans
I was referring to the maddening Canadian attitude that if one ever got any kind of benefit from the government, like a scholarship, it was carte blance approval to be taxed for life so as to repay it "in spirit".
I was there. I was a Canadian citizen too, and damn it, my taxes were paying you to secure and liberate that bridge along with everything else.
But, of course, the Canadian taxpayer has no rights: they get told to shut up and support the majority freeloaders.
You avoid as much bloodshed as possible by ordering the enemy to stand down, giving non-combattants the freedom to leave safely, arrest those who surrender, and use force against the rest: for nothing will convince them otherwise. What? You'll wait for them to tire, and jail them at my expense? Kill the enemy. Better yet, wound them and let them tend to their own, without aid. Just know who the enemy is before you pull that trigger.
Oh, I get it, you do know who the enemy is: it's the taxpayer, and you do an excellent job of wounding them.
The reputation of Canada's so-called "peacekeepers" was irreperably destroyed when they had every opportunity to prevent a Rwandan genocide and did nothing, claiming to be hamstrung by the U.N. Convenient excuse. Of course, after Somalia, it was no surprise.
The Canadian millitary may have been elite at one time in the past, but that was long ago before socialism eroded the country like a cancer. Good God man! You can't even keep your birds in the air and your boats seaworthy. Open your eyes: not only do you not have laurels upon which to rest anymore, the powers that be are burning them and castrating you!
It's not enough to never actually engage the enemy anymore: you have to pick your battles and win then decisively.
Slashdot Mirror
But, the requirement is not what commercial speech has to be, but rather what it may not be in addition. In other words, it isn't enough that a public sign must be in French. There can not be any other lanuage on it.
The Supreme Court of Canada struck down this law, whereupon the Quebec Speech Nazis invoked the "Notwithstanding" clause in the Constitution to trump the court.
I do agree, though, that the Federal hate speech laws are horrid.
I was threatened with arrest by a police officer for uttering offensive speech.
While the charge may have very well been bogus, the effect was chilling on our subsequent conversation.
My daughter's comment was, "Gee, I can say anything in the U.S. if it was true. When can we go back daddy? I don't want to wait to see a doctor."
I refuse TOS that do not let me run a server, I I do wish to sink my own email, as well as have the ability to remotely administer my machines at home via SSH. I'll happily agree to not run an open relay as well as reasonable, well-defined, upstream bandwidth caps, though I make heavy use of CoIP for non-commercial reasons. And, no, I do not download copyright material without permission. I have an extensive CD collection, as well as a modest movie collection, all duely licensed. I will not agree to downstream bandwidth caps, unless they are generous. I currently pay around US$45 a month for a dedicated Verizon 1.5Mx384k ATM circuit to my ISP, and a further US$40 to that ISP, i.e. around US90 a month, inclusive of taxes, for this level of service. I find that the long distance savings justify the expense, since I save around US$60 a month in long distance charges. So, the US$90 or so strikes me as a fair deal for that level of service. The main point is that I'm willing to pay around the triple the going rate for what internet service is supposed to be. If you don't deliver it to me, I'll go to your competition. I will fight most vigorously attempts to prohibit any ISP from offering it to me.
They were likely within their rights, but I was so angry about them being rude and unreasonable that I left the DVD player there and swore to never do business with them again, expressing that sentiment a bit loudly, but politely, as I left the store. I haven't. (Fortunately, they didn't try to have me arrested for "littering".)
I've never had such a bad experience with any other merchant over items DOB (dead out of the box). Office Depot, in particular, once took back a CDROM drive gone bad, after 10 months, on a Sunday, still in warranty, refunded my money, and then let my buy a replacement which was now $50 cheaper! They didn't have to take it back, of course -- I was hoping to swap it for a good one that day (a warranty claim would have taken weeks, and I'd get a replacement drive -- I didn't need two but did need a replacement that day), at the original price. The manager said that they could make a warranty claim for reimbursement (which I could not -- only replacement after a delay), and offered an immediate cash refund (not even just a store credit, which would have been fine by me), as a convenience. Talk about curtesy and customer service! I had my original purchase receipt, but was told that even that was unnecessary, though welcome: they sold the product in question, and would have been willing to take me at my word "this one time" that I purchased it there.
I wrote a letter of high praise to Office Depot's corporate office, and made it clear that such actions on part of that particular store's management induced me to spend a great deal more there when I otherwise had a choice, or might save a few dollars shopping elsewhere, and that I lauded their service to all my friends (which, for that particular store, was true).
Such experiences have been the norm for me, over small items, typically where the defective or disputed item cost $200 or less.
Contrast Best Buy...
Currently the GPL forbids redistribution of GPL-covered code linked with other code to form a larger work, when that other code is not also distributed under the GPL: the whole larger work must be so distributed. It is a "derived work", and copyright law is clear on this: one can not redistribute derivatives of copyright works without permission. It's that permission that the GPL grants, when you abide by its terms.
Of course, you are not prevented from redistributing GPL code *aggregated* with non-GPL code.
The problem arises from distinguishing between derived and aggregated works: what if I distribute a GPL app that I write, with a bunch of GPL shared libraries that I didn't write (complete with source), and a nonh-GPL proprietary library, essential for the application, that I did write, without which the application is useless.
Is that an aggregate, or a derived work of all the GPL code I did not write?
On the one hand, there's no (legal) requirement that my app even run, and, since I distribute source, one can implement a version of the non-GPL library. The fact that it works when my non-GPL library is installed in the right directory (LD_LIBRARY_PATH, anyone?) is a happy coincidence. Redistributing my GPL app, with modifications is fine, but you can't redistribute my "essential" non-GPL library, rendering the app rather useless without it. You add value to the app, I license more copies of the essential library.
On the other hand, the proprietary library, the foreign GPL libraries, and my app together, constitute a derived work of the GPL libraries, and must be redistributed en masse under the GPL.
If the libraries are statically linked into a monolithic executable, there is little argument that the whole source must be redistributed. The situation is more controversial if a mere aggregate of files is distributed: some argue that not distributing the proprietary library under the GPL is a violation, other's don't.
I tend to believe that if the GPL-covered peices can be redistributed indivudually, without the proprietary library, regardless of whether the result is useless, there is no violation: the fact that the code is actually only useful when the proprietary library is present is but a happy coincidence. What if I distributed a GPL version of the library, and offered a proprietary replacement, with far better performance?
This controvery gets even muddier when one considers alternate ways of effecting program linkage. In effect, the "functional derived work" exists only at run-time, and, indeed, the maner in which the parts of the aggregate are combined, can, itself, be the subject of restrive licencing, and patent. What about linkage via a remote procedure call mechanism? Y'all remember RPC/XDR over TCP/IP, right? Suddenly, self-assembling functional derived works become a reality. Protocols like SOAP, used to support "Web Services" exacerbate the problem.
This leaves a big, gaping hole in the GPL: socket wrappers were a common "hack" to "get around" the GPL: just layer a RPC mechansism around the proprietary library, and a GPL wrapper to call it from the app, and you were all set. And, that didn't even address the issue of inter-machine communication: 127.0.0.1 and Unix sockets are ubiquitous.
Of course, the minute one's app "links" with proprietary code on a different server in this manner, the GPL loses all force, for one did non distribute the proprietary part.
It is this area that the GPL v. 3.0 tries to address, IMHO, perhaps by more differentiating between linkage and aggregation. This can be done, of course, but then the license starts to lose some of its roots in copyright law.
The problem with such an approach, though, is, what constitutes linkage: does an exchange of HTTP requests and responses? What if there is ultimately GPL code satisfying that request? Surely, if I use a program provided by a vendor
...which makes the X225 chip, though I do not currently benefit from its popularity or suffer it it is shunned.
The real bugbear is MPEG2 hardware decoding. While you can use a backend server and vlc for MPEG2 encoding (and even that is unnecessary with the Hauppague PVR 250 and 350 cards), decoding has to be done in the theatre "room" (unless you're happy running long cables or PC noise).
A Via M10000 will just about do SD software MPEG2 decoding, but forget about HD. The CLE266 supported by Unichrome and Via's own drivers (and integrated into their Xine fork: VeXP) works well, but follows the model of MPEG2 in, fram data out (dunno if it does YUV->RGB conversion). Most players (mplayer, xine, vlc) use this model: they have a decode phase which can benefit from hardware assist (and, as noted, Via's VeXP and the free Unicrome drivers leverage the CLE266 this way). However, not all hardware works that way.
ATI's X225 Xilleon chip, used in Roku Labs HD10000 "Photobridge" eats MPEG2, demuxes, decodes, and provides digital audio and component (as well as SVideo and composite) video, to HD resulutions.
There are vlc patches to run on this hardware (which is a really slick, fanless, thin client), but it does software MPEG2 decode to drive the graphics overlay buffer (limited to 1024x768, IIRC, so you can't do native 1080i). I'm surprised the X225 has the oomph to do that (It's a MIPS core). It would be nice to use the overlay for decoded SPUs (i.e. DVD menus), and leverage the X225 hardware decoder for the MPEG2 audio and video. Unfortunately, there is no display model in Xine, or VLC, where the display accepts undecoded MPEG2.
The closest one can do is use the streaming function of VLC to feed MPEG2 TS (it will transcode PS to TS just fine) to a TS player leveraging the MPEG2 hardware on the X225, and reserve the graphics overlay for SPUs. Sadly, one can't display SPUs without a video window on which to overlay them, requring MPEG2 video ES decoding.
I wonder them, how hard it would be to modify vlc's MPEG2 decoder to not decode picture, but to display black, for this purpose, overlaying the SPUs, and writing to the graphics overlay page, and splitting the stream into a remuxed (PS to TS) copy to drive the harware MPEG2 decoders. Unfortunately, this would only work for players that can stream: vlc, but not xine, or mplayer. And, it would be a hack at that (the SPUs would be out of time sync with the rest of the program, but that's rarely a big problem for menus).
A decoder/display model where the decoder does nothing, and the display does the decoding would work better here.
Oh, did they forget to patent the "Directional Organic Transducer?". There may be hope for a FOSS implementation then, necessary for this to work. I'll start on the "Movable Organic Universal Text Handler", or MOUTH, right away. Look for a Sourceforge project soon, and contribute!
er, it's $80,000, not $70,000. Where have you been? And, it's prorated by days of non-residency in the individual's tax year,
If you calculated your tax liability using the per-bracket formulas, you would find the grandparent to be correct. Alas, you can't do that. (Even in socialist Canada, you can choose to use the tables, or compute your tax liability to the nearest penny, small comfort though that might be).
Almost failed when I recited the last character as "Zed".
Because I came with an out-of-country license, I had to take a road test. Inspector almost freaked when I downshifted going down a long, steep hill, instead of riding the brake. He got really angry when I parked beyond a fire hydrant when asked to "turn left and park at the corner" -- he wanted me to make a three point turn around the corner next and figured that parking beyond the hydrant (instead of illegally in front of it) would make that difficult. What's an extra 20 feet in reverse? I passed, of course, but I think he thought me a smart ass.
I decided that, no matter how good it was, I would still retain my POTS line, and further, continue to pay the $4 a month for the "long distance plan" on it (basically calls to Canada for 10 cents a minute).
On the 911 issue, even if the service was ideal, I did not want to deal with the headaches of equipment and power failures on my end of things: my ATA dies, I have no VoIP service; my router dies, I have no VoIP service; the power fails, I have no VoIP service (yes, I can get a UPS, and/or a generator but then I have the reliability of those to worry about). Basically, reliable 911 over VoIP requires the kind of hot-standby failover equipment that I just don't want to have to install at my end.
With POTS, I just need a working phone, and extra phones are cheap. Even this is getting trickier: many wired phones need power to work (or a battery) -- it took me a while to find one that would get dialtone, dial out, and be operational (without bells and whistles like a digital answering machine, or even CID) on telco power alone.
I keep the POTS LD plan for the rare occasions when thge VoIP service is out (or my firewall gets misconfigured on reboot after a powerfail): $48 a year for a "backup" LD plan does not strike me as excessive.
I have one hardwired phone on each floor of our house, that is directly wired to the POTS line. Everyone in the house knows to use it for 911 first, if they safely can. I plan to add stickers to these phones that 911 service is guaranteed to work on them (they don't even permit selection of a non-direct outside POTS line). These phones work without power (i.e. are completely powered by the telco). They are located in central areas of each floor, close to escape routes (kitchen entry, across from main entry door; and lower level by garage exit and across from basement walkout), and fire extinguishers. I wish I could get them in red.
Other hardwired phones will have a sticker indicating what to press for 911 (i.e. line selection), are guaranteed to work if there is power, and have the ability to select the direct outside POTS line. All cordless handsets will be similarly labeled, and will work if the battery is not dead (I am considering a UPS for the cordless basestation). The cordless basestation also has a direct outside POTS line connection on one of the lines.
Other than the emergency phones, the default line selected for all phones is the VoIP line (hence the labelling). The non-direct line might one day go through an Asterisk system, with a dialplan that would route 911 to the direct outside POTS line (and VoIP otherwise). Right now it just goes to the VoIP ATA.
And yes, I have enabled E911 on my Vonage service, and registered my address, on the chance that someone dials 911 on the "wrong" line.
Not all the phones have been appropriately labelled yet, but the members of my household all know how to dial 911, and which phones are "emergency phones". Guests staying a while are instructed as well.
I wonder, did the TI SR-52 appear before or after the HP-65 (and later, the HP-67)? It too, boasted magnetic card mass storage, and 224 programming "steps".
Yeah, I am aware that a University education in Canada is subsidised. However, I factored that into account when I figured out whether I was getting my money's worth. I really wasn't eager to move to the U.S., and cut all ties: bank accounts, credit cards, health coverage (lol, what a joke). Honest. I liked the freer market, in theory, of course, but practice is a scary thing. Still, it's been amazing, despite suffering through the telecom bust (and having to return to Canada for a bit over a year). My skeptical wife jumped at the chance to return to the U.S. despite being weary of moving.
As for tax rates, with proper tax planning, I'm in a 15% marginal tax bracket on a (low) six figure ($US) income. Of course, owning a home, filing jointly, having two kids, and maxing out a 401(k) are biggies there. Yes, I'm close to the AMT limits, thanks to efficient tax planning. No, this income is not considered wealty.
Frankly, while I don't mind a pragmatic 10% tithe on gross income to help the "less fortunate" (I do oppose it on principle as I am a libertarian), the income redistribution in Canada is draconian, inefficient, and ineffective. My parents and I earned our station in life through hard work, sacrifice, and absolutely nothing in the form of net government "help". Of course, this meant no fancy vacations every year, and one or two toys on birthdays and at Christmas time.
In fact, some of those reimbursed expenses were not eligible as far as the IRS was concerned, so I was careful to take them into 2003 income as appropriate. I also had such inelegible moving expenses in 2004, but because they were not reimbursed, they were not taxable. Neither could I deduct them, though.
There is a question of whether I had to make a treaty claim in 2004 as well, in order to use the FEIE, or if the treaty claim in 2003 to be taxed as an American would, and the election to be taxed as a full-year resident in a dual-status year for 2004 is sufficient.
Furthermore, the moving expenses had nothing to do with my ability to file a 1040 -- that was due to the U.S.-Canada tax treaty. However, the moving expenses made it worthwhile to take the treaty position.
On a 1040, one can claim moving expenses in the year one actually paid them (within limits), if they are related to a move for employment reasons that meets the time and distance tests (i.e. long enough on the job, and far enough away from one's old home) and the income from that employment is subject to tax for a sufficient period of time in the year it is earned and possibly the next (which, in my case, was entirely the year before I paid the moving expenses -- I made that income from that job subject to tax in 2003, but used the FEIE to exclude it in 2004, when I met the SPT, but elected to file full-year resident instead of dual-status (mostly to file jointly with my wife and deduct Canadian mortgage interest and property taxes against U.S. income)). See what I mean about accounting hacks? :-)
As I did not meet the substantial presence test in 2003 (but did in 2004), I could not ordinarily claim the moving expenses related to the job in Canada that I paid the year after the move (2004) because I was not taxed on the income in the U.S. An American would be taxed on the income (because Americans are taxed on world-wide income, always), could claim a credit for foreign taxes paid, and then deduct the moving expenses the following year, when they were actually paid.
The Canada-U.S. tax treaty has provisions that Canadians can not be subject to harsher requirements or greater taxation than Americans in similar circumstances. The harsher requirement was that I meet the substantial presence test before the Canadian income was subject to U.S. tax. I took an Article XXV.2 treaty positiion on form 8833 to have my world-wide income subject to U.S. tax in 2003, making the moving expenses paid in 2004 related to the move for that job deductible against 2004 income in the U.S.
Now, I took a foreign tax credit, on form 1116, for the foreign (i.e Canadian) taxes paid, so I was not taxed twice (otherwise the whole exercise would be pointless). The way that works is that one's U.S. tax liability is prorated on the basis of how much of the income was foreign (in each of several categories: general (wages), interest, capital gains, etc.) -- in my case about 80%. The lesser of that fraction of total tax owed and the actual foreign tax paid in each of those categories is then credited against the U.S. tax liability. When most of the income is foreign and the foreign taxes are higher than U.S. tax, there is no net tax owing to the U.S. (I actually got a small refund because I could claim the refundable U.S. additional child tax credit for my American born son!).
I was careful to use an accountant: the idea of subjecting some $50k of income to tax, when one doesn't have to, and then using some foreign tax credit magic to make the tax liability go poof again, is a little unnerving: what if the income is accepted for tax, but the credit denied? In particular, the form 8833 treaty position disclosure is tricky because it involves a second tax treaty between the U.S. and Germany: a German national non resident in the U.S. can not be made to pay greater U.S. tax or meet harsher requirements than a U.S. citizen in similar circumstances. So, a German in Canada could take a U.S.-German Article 24.1 non-discrimination clause treaty position to be taxed as an American. The U.S.-Canada tax treaty Article XXV.2 states that a Canadian not resident in the U.S. can not be made to pay any greater U.S. tax or meet harsher requirements than any other national of a country with which the U.S. has a tax treaty with a non-discrimination clause, i.e. Germany. Ta da! And here you though stack frame buffer overflow exploits were 31337.
I wouldnt've bothered if the movi
This year, I hired an accountant (and EA: someone why has worked within the IRS previously in a return-related way for five years), paid $700, and definately got my money's worth: he found about $600 in extra refunds that even I, in my pennypinching, hacker-scheeming, diligence missed. (Of course, I expected this level of work, even though the extra refund was a pleasant surprise).
A good tax accountant will provide a 30 to 60 minute consultation session for free that will give you an idea if it is worthwhile to retain their services.
In my case, I'd already researched a bunch of strategies that I thought would work, but they involved the use of tax treaties. I was over my head in tax legaleese and nomenclature, and I needed someone to refute or verify what I though, and get the i's dotted and t's crossed to make sure I filed correctly.
First, I lived in Montreal. Second, the mayor of OKA enraged the Mohawk, not Montrealers. Third, my taxes paid for, and supported an open bridge, not a closed one, as well as keeping it clear. Do the job for which I paid you: clear the protestors off the damn bridge! Once attention was drawn to their complaint, there were many ways to continue that (legitimate, IMHO) protest without such disruption. Finesse is providing an honourable withdrawal in the first 24 to 48 hours. After that window closes, you play hardball.
Your comments about the military are WAY off. Ask anyone in the US forces who have trained with us. They get their asses handed to them with regularity in the war games (ya, I know, if it was for real, things would be different, but this is how armies evaluate their skills).
Pretend does not matter. "For real" matters. Idiot grunts with nukes will whallop more disciplined and "better trained" infantry any day. That's all the Canadian military is, these days, infantry, in a time of relatively-soldierless war. (Of course, the U.S. does tend to stumble badly once on the ground -- tell ya what: why not provide cannon fodder for the yanks who are so bad at a ground war, as you say?).
This is typical: the U.S. is a more effective brute (that admitedly may lack finesse, as a result), and Canadians proudly claim that they play a "better game of chess". The old "Yeah, but we're better at..." something that is largely irrelevant. Christ, you can't transport your own troops anymore, you need piggyback transport. Yes, there are times when finesse and diplomacy are called for, but even here, Canada stumbles badly: witness Somalia and Rwanda. They can't keep their idiots under control and they don't have the guts to take charge to prevent a slaughter. Afraid of some bad press, are we?
Face it, socialism is grinding a once-proud nation into the ground.
Paraphrasing: Nazi Germany wasn't so bad: only a small percentage of the population was affected in a bad way.
You're playing dirty with statistics. Overall, the gap may be 5%, but for significant minority segments of society, it is much, much higher: single-income families, for example, can't file joint returns in Canada as they can in the U.S. That was the real killer for us.
Of course, the demographics show that such families are in the decline: it takes two parents to work (often, solely because of the income tax burden!). I've done the analysis (crudely, in a related post), and for this group of people, the difference between the tax burden in the U.S. and Canada is insane.
Even in the U.S., it's a little tough to support a family on one income, so those that can come here from Canada and do that tend to be highly skilled and command a premium wage. They generally commanded a comparable (though about 30% lower, on average) premium wage in Canada. However, the tax structure forces them to leave.
Canada is shooting itself in the foot with it's tax policies.
You are funny though. I read one of your previous posts about your C++ godliness. Then someone called you on your "prime numbers at compile time", and you provide "Well, some of those error numbers ARE prime numbers"
The referenced program does produce prime numbers in the error messages at compile time. GCC happens to intersperse many more warning messages -- not all C++ compilers do. You clearly miss the point: that this can be done at all is a testament to the likely Turing-completeness of the template metalanguage, the messy output notwithstanding.
If you saved your employer $10^9, good for you! You should get at least 1% of that as a bonus reward! Enjoy your cool $10 billion. Methinks your employer's accounting will be a little different though.
No, of course not. That wasn't the point. The Canadian socialist argument is that the state is entitled to make a tax slave of anyone who receives even the slightest benefit at any point in time, an absurdly bad value proposition.
Even if one takes into account all the other services subsidized, it was a bad value proposition for me given the taxes I paid. Filing jointly in the U.S., with far lower taxes and more relevant deductions (mortgage, property taxes, etc.) is much, much, better.
Bottom line: I was not getting my money's worth. Not by a long shot. And it got far worse when I supported a wife and kids. Despite keeping three other individuals off the public dole, my tax rate remained about the same, with extremely small additional non-refundable credits. I've done the analysis in another post.
Goverment transfer payments covered over 95% of the costs (of the university) for you. Don't you think you have an obligation to pay for the next generation?
No. See above. I paid back the value of what I received, many times over, taking into account all state benefits received. It was a bad deal. Do you think I left for the U.S. without doing a detailed financial analysis? A small difference would not have induced me to leave. The difference was enormous.
Just like the previous generation did?
Did what? My parents were peniless immigrants who had absolutely no government assistance in the late 40's, 50's, and 60's, and managed to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and start a new life, post-WWII, paying medical bills themselves, etc., with no social safety net.
Then, socialism took root in a big way in the 1970s with Trudeaumania, and their standard of living went way down: my mother had to start working to help pay the ever-increasing income taxes. They paid far more than they ever received, and so did I.
Some redistribution to help the truely destitute is reasonable, but even churches only ask for a 10% tithe.
This is exactly what I mean. If I accept the CA$10k scholarship, it stands to reason that my increased income as a result of the better education should give rise to higher taxes that help repay that scholarship. Fair enough.
But, that does not mean, that if I pay an extra CA$5k a year in taxes because of the increased income due to my better education, after 5 years of those higher tax payments, I should still "owe" something to repay the scholarship. That translates into a usurous rate of interest.
A scholarship is not a loan: the grantor takes all the risk, but if it were to be viewed fairly as to what I "owe" in return, it should be compared to one at a rate of interest related to market rates and the risk that I would "default" on my education.
I believe I paid my dues in this particular regard, and have learned to shun all government "freebies", for they are handcuffs in disguise. I intend to refuse Canadian CPP, OAS, and U.S. SSI: depite being stolen from me against my will, I can't bring myself to support the stealing from others in kind.
Disaster? I think that's overstating it. Bush won't be around forever. And, it's still a better place than Canada.
The societal pendulum does swing widely in the U.S. though, and, given it's might, is probably somewhat unnerving for the rest of the word.
That much, I'll grant.
That's what a reasonable person would think, so I checked with OHIP. They wer quite snipety about "permanent", as in "never leave or pay all benefits back with administrative overhead". Damn, when my wife had emergency IV antibiotics administered on an outpatient basis, I had to pay CA$150 + $10 a page for the damn invoice to file with my insurer! The drugs and service were admitedly cheap at CA$750.
When my son was seen by a Canadian doctor, he only charged me CA$30 for an excellent job. I tipped him another US$100, and admonished him to "charge what he was worth and not prostitute his skill like a $5 whore." He was puzzled, but hapilly took the Benjamin.
If you do the math the HBP is not really as good a deal as it sounds, if you don't beleive me do some googling for some analysis...
It makes sense if you sock as much as you can in an RRSP to avoid a 53% marginal tax rate (I used to live in Quebec at one time), and otherwise can't save a downpayment: you get an interest free loan paid back with pre-tax dollars at the expense of RRSP contribution room that would otherwise grow at market rates of return. Natch, if you had the downpayment outside the RRSP, it would be stupid to raid it.
But, my point was that so much that repaying the RRSP was unfair, as it was that to live a normal life, Canadians have to entangle themselves in many things that make severigng residency hard: much more so than Americans (who can work outside the U.S. and exempt US$80k of foreign earned income and still retain an American home for when they return - Canadians remain tax residents if they own a home in Canada).
Firstly you don't repay scolarships you must be thinking of student loans
I was referring to the maddening Canadian attitude that if one ever got any kind of benefit from the government, like a scholarship, it was carte blance approval to be taxed for life so as to repay it "in spirit".
But, of course, the Canadian taxpayer has no rights: they get told to shut up and support the majority freeloaders.
You avoid as much bloodshed as possible by ordering the enemy to stand down, giving non-combattants the freedom to leave safely, arrest those who surrender, and use force against the rest: for nothing will convince them otherwise. What? You'll wait for them to tire, and jail them at my expense? Kill the enemy. Better yet, wound them and let them tend to their own, without aid. Just know who the enemy is before you pull that trigger.
Oh, I get it, you do know who the enemy is: it's the taxpayer, and you do an excellent job of wounding them.
The reputation of Canada's so-called "peacekeepers" was irreperably destroyed when they had every opportunity to prevent a Rwandan genocide and did nothing, claiming to be hamstrung by the U.N. Convenient excuse. Of course, after Somalia, it was no surprise.
The Canadian millitary may have been elite at one time in the past, but that was long ago before socialism eroded the country like a cancer. Good God man! You can't even keep your birds in the air and your boats seaworthy. Open your eyes: not only do you not have laurels upon which to rest anymore, the powers that be are burning them and castrating you!
It's not enough to never actually engage the enemy anymore: you have to pick your battles and win then decisively.