Um, no shit you have to live in Ontario permanently. As opposed to say, living in Quebec and renting an apartment in Ottawa for the weekend, then claiming both OHIP and Quebec Health Benefits?
No, as opposed to leaving after 10, or 20, or five years. Requiring a mininum waiting period before being eligible for benefits is reasonable. Requireing any benefits provided within a modest period before leaving would be reasonable as well. But, no, the requirement is to live in Ontario permanently, not simply to have one's primary residency in Ontaro for some mimumum contigous time.
That form seems simple enough to me if you keep your idology in check. Permanent as in primary residence, not forever.
Yeah, that's what I thought. OHIP told me, in writing, otherwise.
"For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income
You're correct, I would consider this "fair". You can't possibly suggest that it isn't because you feel overtaxed. Again, you fail to support your argument. RRSP have that second "R" in them for a reason. The gov't is trying to get you to save for retirement, not issuing a tax break.
You missed my point. It could be considered "fair" except that is the only way many Canadians can afford a home: making the downpayment with an interest-free loan of their own pre-tax earnings. To live a life comparable to the typical middle class American requires taking advantage of so many "tax breaks", that it becomes impossible to leave if one wants. Americans have no such burdens.
Since you missed the point, let me exaggerate the problem to make it clearer: let's say you're taxed 100% on your earnings, but the government provides everything: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, etc. You can leave the country, but only if you repay all the government "benefits" you received. Clearly, that's impossible. The liberty to exercise the fruits of you labour gets perverted from a natural right to a state-granted "benefit" or permission. Granted, that is an example in extremis of the problem, but Canadian taxation is so severe that it is close to that extreme rather than the "natural rights" position.
I'm not familiar with US tax law, but if your spouse was a stay-at-home type, then he/she would pay no tax at all in Canada, and you could claim the spousal amount.
Ah yes, the measely "spousal amount". What this is is, for the benefit of Americans not familiar with Canadian taxation, is CA$7298 (about US$5838), less any income your spouse earns, with a minimum at $0. That translates into a credit against tax at the lowest tax rate, currently 16% federally, and 6.05% in Ontario, against tax owing. So, for someone in Ontrio, that's about a US$1290 tax credit, regardless of income (though it is non-refundable).
Let's say that you make CA$71.2k a year, or about US$57k. If you and your spouse were both working, each might earn US$28.5k to match that family income level, and would be effectively taxed as singles, with no spousal deduction. Your individual marginal tax rates would be low: 16% federally, and 6.05% in Ontario. However, when that extra US$28.5k is earned by one person on top of their US$28.5k, it is taxed at a much higher marginal rate: 22% federally, and about 9.15% in Ontario (the federal and provincial rate scales don't match perfectly, but are close), an overall difference of 31.15%=22.05%=9.1% That's about US$2600 of extra tax. (Americans are gasping in horror at the sheer level of taxation on such low incomes). The US$1290 spousal credit rather sucks, doesn't it? I haven't even addressed the federal and provincial surtaxes (an extra tax paid on income tax over a certain amount), so the situation is worse. A hundred dollars a month penalty for supporting a family. Of course, the Canadian will argue that that's reasonable to pay for the "luxery" of a spouse that doesn't have to work.
1. It was never deterimined who killed the SQ officer, though there was substantial evidence that it was not from a bullet matching an enemy firearm.
2. It does not take several weeks to allow non-combatants in a dispute opportunity to leave: there was no siege.
3. The Mohawks were better trained and more disciplined than the Army, many of them having received training in the U.S.
4. The Mohawks also had popular support: it was a city government that gave permission for a nine hole golf course to be expanded to an eighteen hole golf course. What few remember was that that original nine-hole course was built when the natives were duped in the 1950s: constrution was halted when they protested then, but they permitted a "road" to continue to be built, as it would benefit them even if the dispute eventually resulted in the halting of construction of the nine hole course. Well, that "road" became the nine hole course. Kind of hard to legislate the "not doing" of something that was done. If anything, they showed extreme restraint by not "going crazy" this second time around.
Nevertheless, if the objective was to secure the bridge they were blocking, the Army should have given 24 to 48 hours for the non-combattants to clear the area, and then engage the enemy with force. They didn't because they couldn't. Bunch of wimps.
This was far simpler than the situation at Wounded Knee, Wako, or, for that matter, Ruby Ridge: there was no siege with innocents who could not leave.
The notwithstanding clause can be use by either the Federal or Provincial governments, though, to my knowledge, only Quebec has ever used it.
I have moved. I am living, at least temporarily, in the U.S. and there is a good change I will may be able to stay.
As much as you seem to think it's the equivilant to soviet russia, last time I checked I was still allowed to emigrate.
Hold, on there buckaroo.
It may not be that simple. If, for example you move to Ontario, you will have to register for OHIP to replace your existing provincial health insurance coverage. Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently. You could chose to not participate in OHIP, of course, but then you can't purchase private health insurance for things that OHIP covers: that's illegal for a Canadian citizen to do. And, your taxes will still be funding (a horribly broken) system from which you've excluded yourself from receiving even minimal benefit.
So, no, Canada does not prevent emigration, but, in many cases it makes it illegal. Even here, the law is not really enforced, but as the tax base is eroded by people leaving to work in the U.S., it has become more and more difficult to leave in a strictly legal fashion.
Furthermore, it's sneaky. To survive, many Canadians have to take advantage of programs that require immediate reimbursement if they become non-residents. For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income. One the surface it seams reasonable that if the government provides a tax break, one should stick around for ones taxes to "repay the favour", as it were. However, many people have to take advantage of similar plans precisely because they're taxed so heavily and could otherwise not live a normal life. (Yes, I know that home ownership is considered a bourgois luxery in Canada, and not normal. I disagree.) Of course, once resident, one remains heavily taxed, and trapped.
This is particularly severe for traditional families where one spouse works and the other raises the children without resorting to government subsidized mediocre day care: there is no joint tax filing as there is in the U.S., so single-income families pay astronomical income taxes compared to their American counterparts.
There is also the Canadian tradition of holding an individual enslaved to the state to "repay" any social benefit they may have received at some time in the past over and over and over again. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s. I thought that three was more than enough.
If the government services were on a par with the taxes paid, it would not be so bad, from a pragmatic standpoint (even as the libertarian in me gags at the stench of the notion of any tax). But, Canadian government services are among the most inefficiently delivered ones there are.
If Canadians ever engaged in a peaceful protest in numbers comparable to an American protest, they'd be arrested for "inciting to riot".
People are scared shitless to be held accountable to any of a number of laws they must break to survive.
Now, the Army is a joke, and if a million Canadians ever assebled in non-peaceful protest, they could likely decimate it: a million people with rocks can likely defeat a few thousand with rifles, and choppers that fall out of the sky. It would be bloddy, to be sure, with tens of thousands dead, but the Army would lose. But, don't expect that to happen. It took one third the army to put down a native Indian uprising protesting development of a golf course expansion in O.K.A. in the mid-90s, and it took them some six weeks to get the job done. Idiots even, quite likely, shot and killed one of their own. But, people remain scared shitless.
You see, Canada is a democracy with no real restraining constititution: the notwithstanding clause makes it possible for the government to pass a law overriding any judgement against it. All you need is a majority to enslave the minority, so safest is to "shut up, blend in, and go along".
We Canucks call this "Peace, Order, and Good Government."
When the Meech Lake Accord failed to be ratified, the Quebec government issued a decree that anyone flying a Canadian flag on Canada Day (the equivalent of the 4th of July) risked getting arrested for inciting to riot. Heck, it would be unamerican to not stand there, on one's own property, flying the flag, and defending the freedom do do so with some second ammendment firepower, if the U.S. government ever tried to pull a stunt like that.
When Cree chief Mathew Coon Come took the Quebec government to task for flooding one sixth the province (an area about the size of Europe, excluding Russia), for hydro-electric projects, and displacing native Cree, he risked arrest for libel, for speaking the truth!
No, Canada stays peaceful, by "shutting up" troublemakers. For all the criticism about the U.S. breaking its own constitution in the detainment of terrorism suspects, from north of the border, few question the horrors behind a Canadian "Security Certificate".
When some missile gets lobbed across the North Pole at the U.S., this Candian hopes the fallout from a U.S. missle defense shield takes out some of the murderous assholes in power in Canada. If Canada can't control it's airspace, it should still be held accountable for what flies through it toward the U.S., one way or another.
I just don't know what it will take for the average Canadian to "wake up" and see how they've been royally fucked over by big government since socialism really took off in the late 1960s.
Americans: kiss the ground you walk on, for this is the best place on earth (yeah, even it you hate Bush in the worst way). Perhaps some day my son, who's an American citizen, might serve to defend the principles upon which the nation was founded. Me, I'm just a wanna-be. Guilty as charged.
U.S. non-resident Canadian citizen is ordinarily required to meet the substantial presence test to file 1040 on world-wide income. U.S. non-resident German nationals are not required to meet substantial presence test to file 1040 on world-wide income, by virtue of U.S.-German Tax Treaty Article 24.1 which relieves German nationals from suffering more burdensome requirements or tax than U.S. citizens in similar circumstances. Article XXV.2 of the U.S.-Canada Tax Treaty relieves U.S. non-resident Canadian citizens from suffering more burdensome requirements or tax than nationals of another country with which the U.S. has a tax treaty, i.e. Germany. Thus, taxpayer takes a position under the U.S.-Canada Tax Treaty Article XXV.2 that relieves him from having to meet the substantial presence test before filing 1040. Taxpayer thus elects to be taxed on world-wide income for 2003.
The intended benefit to taxpayer is that eligible moving expenses related to an employment move from U.S. to Canada in 2003 were likely to be paid in 2004 and not reimbursed by Canadian employer. Taxpayer seeks to ensure the deductibility of these moving expenses in 2004 by subjecting the related earned income to U.S. tax, avoiding dual taxation by means of offsetting foreign tax credits.
Phbbbbbtttt!!!
The bottom line is that a Canadian citizen can file a U.S. 1040 return anytime they want to. Sometimes it is beneficial to do so, even if not required.
Except now you are an accountant. Gah i'd rather jab pointy objects into my eyes than have to be an accountant. Or even worse - program accounting software.
You sir, have never experienced the joy of using not one, but two international tax treaties, to make income from a foreign assignment by a non-U.S. citizen that would otherwise not be taxable in the U.S. intentionally so taxable (and, *poof*, completely offset by foreign tax credits, ta da!), so the eligible moving expenses associated with the assignment, but paid in the following year, when a U.S. tax resident, are deductable against U.S. income in that following year.
Accounting has the potential for some interesting hacks. When was the last time you got to (figuratively), go "Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!" to the IRS, and the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency)?
I am Canadian, and thus subject to Canadian law if my wife returns to Canada: Canada and the U.S. have treaties regarding "deadbeat" spouses.
The feminazis there have lobbied for laws that basically make any accusation a woman makes against a man taken as fact, i.e. "he beats me"; but any accusation a man makes against a woman as requiring proof beyond a resonable doubt, i.e. "she does not meet her obligations under the marriage contract."
Furthermore, a husband must support a spouse in the manner to which she is accustomed, or go to jail -- one can't, for example, take a lower paying, but more-satisfying job, without worrying about the "deadbeat police". (Admitedly, this happens rarely, but it is a stick the commies there have to keep people making the highest possible wages and paying the correspondinh high taxes).
We are in the U.S. If she returns to Canada, I am taxed as a Canadian resident, and could not possibly support her lifestyle there, without triple the salary. Thus, I'd be a "deadbeat" husband, and subject to deporatation to Canada and jailing.
I didn't think there was such a thing as a working wife: mine drops candy wrappers, and cookie crumbs on the way from the kitchen to the media room, after feeding the kids something out of a can, or a sandwich, and complains that I wasn't around to pick up the mess she made because I was at work.
I had to rip out the carpets and replace them with hardwood floors because of all the spilled soft-drink stains. Sadly, Coca Cola(tm) appears to corrode the finish if not wiped up right away.
My family contributes absolutely nothing toward their welfare (food, shelter, clothing, etc.).
My employer does.
In fact my family causes a great deal of wear and tear on their shelter (clothing too, but that's to be expected). I could've retired three years ago if I never got married. Single slashdotters, take note of that: marriage is unbelievably expensive, kids more so.
When my wife gets bitchy about my hours, I ask her if she likes to eat, sleep out of the rain, cold and other weather, and if she wants to return to that communist hell hole known as Canada (my opinion on Canada is well documented, and she shares it.) She shuts up.
There are plenty who would and prefer demonstration of a more "pedestrian" writing style. The speech recognition articles I co-authored, in particular, are in "PHD-ese".
Now, in all fairness, it relies on generating error messages that include prime numbers in the output (and gcc produces a bunch of warnings that pollute the output), but it's still a neat hack.
It's not ego... it's skill. How many world class profitable products have your had a major role in shipping in your career?
However, it is difficult to get some interviewers to belive that one is not bullshitting.
I find the idiots just assume I'm full of bull because I'm not appropriately humble, the smart ones however take the "Oh yeah, you think you're shit hot? Prove it! How about..." and I do.
I usually get an unsolicited job offer about once a month.
The hard part is when trying to tone down honest skill:
"Are you a C++ expert?"
"No."
"Hmm, you seam skilled... why do you say that?"
"Well, while I can understand much of Alexandrescu's "Modern C++ Design", template template parameters and some of the nifty things he does with type traits threw me for a loop at first, and it does take me a couple of scans to get some of the subtleties in his approach. I don't grok them intuitevely at first blush."
"A template? Oh, you mean like a C++ class as opposed to just a C struct, right?"
"Sigh:-( O.K. look, how about I give you an example?"
"Sure!"
"Consider a need to have a numeric type that's wide enough to hold some compile-time constant number of bits. How do you do that?"
"Oh, #defines in a common include file somewhere, where are you going with this?"
"Well, that requires you to change the file for each new platform, or supply a different version. Now, C++ has standard short, int, and long sizes, but they're minima, and while an int might be big enough on one platform, it might be too big on another. This is particularly true on embededded platforms, where compilers tend to be non-standard."
"Er, O.K. Go on." (looks at watch and rolls eyes)
"So what you do, is set up a TypeList a la Alexandrescu in one of his introductory chapters, with element types that know the size of each of the basic types, and you have a template use that typelist, to return the type that best matches the size you need."
"But..." (confused) "... functions don't return types, they return object... are you talking about RTTI? Because we don't use that."
"No, RTTI tends to be expensive at run-time, as well as exceptions and multiple inheritence and is best avoided if at all possible. Though, I can see the need to do this dynamically, but then it's easier with a classical rather than a template metaprogramming approach. You see, you use template metaprogramming techniques to do the computation at compile time, for bit-widths that you know at compile time -- the compiler does the work so you don't have to, and so your code doesn't have to at run time -- the whole point of template metaprogramming."
"...?..."
"The template resolves to a type that has an inner typedef by a fixed name that resoves to the type you need."
"Er, we don't use C++ that way".
"Well, it isn't necessary, and frankly, while the C++ template metaprogramming environment is Turing -complete (not sure about C# with generics, though), it is rather an ugly way to code. Simply reading Alexandrescu is hard if you don't grok the idioms. Still, there are times when it's increadibly useful to let the compiler do the work instead of doing it manually when porting to a new architecture. Look, you don't do it everywhere, in the same way as your 'common include file' tends to be small (or at least starts out that way), but it is handy."
"Wow! You are a C++ expert!"
"No, I actually have to think about such esoteric techniques and work at them. An expert would crank them out in their sleep. Alexandrescu, I'd call an expert. I'm disclosing the limits of my skill, to be completely honest. If you had to chose betweem me and Alexandrescu on the basis of expertise, he'd be a better choise, probably. Fortuantely for me, I don't think he's interviewing for this position. Still, you should know the limits of my skill."
"Tell me more: why are you interested in such esoteric things?"
I once had a late stage job interviewer where the interview wanted to see samples of code I had written.
"You're kidding, right?"
"No, why?"
"Well, all the code I've written for other employers is owned by them. It would be improper for me to disclose it. I have written GPL code for some of those employers, but they did not distribute binaries to me so I can't disclose that either.
I understand that you probably want to see if I can "cut the mustard", right?"
"Duh!"
"Then give me a coding task that should take, oh, a week or two. I'll likely get some working code back to you in 48 hours. We can even do some refinement cycles in that week, to see how flexible I am, and how open to expandability my designs are."
"You're hired!"
"No review of my code first?"
"No, not necessary! Anyone that bold must know their stuff!!"
"O.K. Put an offer in writing. I've got a plane to catch."
Later...
Wife: "So, you gonna take the offer?"
"Not unless it's so good that I could stand to work for idiots who don't even check my creds. Sheesh!!"
Yes, I would have sent them a custom sample of code -- even assigned rights to them: they took the time and effort to fly me in and intervew me, after all: worth a KLOC or two. No, I will not work for people that don't check their final cut interview candiate's skills. I have been known to turn down jobs on the basis of the incompetence of the people interviewing me. I have been known to accept jobs precisely because the interviews were "tough" and the interviewers sharp.
I work between 10-12 hours a day about 6 days a week. That's an average week: crunch time will have me working 100-120 hours a week. I've done this for over 20 years and am now 43 years old. My weight is stable, I am not obese (though I don't need to gain any more weight and could probably stand to lose 10-15 pounds), and (this is the most important part), I love my work.
This does not mean that I do not get exhausted at times. I'll take the odd two or even three day weekend if I need to recharge -- on my schedule. I can come in at 10 or 11 or later or whenever I like, for the most part (unless I have an important meeting scheduled) -- my hours are flexible, so if I happen to sleep in an extra hour or 90 minutes, it's no disaster. Yeah, there are the times when I work until 2-3 A.M., or even all night (about 3-4 times a year), and a regular 8 hour day after that.
My commute is better than yours though: only 45 minutes one way.
The thing is that I have control over when I work those hours and that makes all the difference in the word. 4x12 hours a week on the clock would probably be far worse.
What do I do to relax? I take quick frequent breaks at the office, sometimes 5 minutes every 15 to 30. While I'll often be oblivious to the fact that the lunch and dinner hour have passed, I'll go and eat when I feel hungry, regardless of the time (it's rarely noon and 6:00 PM).
Now, I'm not given that much work -- I take it on: trying my best to accomodate feature requests from those that use the software I produce (mostly test automation support tools these days) request (particularly when they are useful to a wider audience), even if they arrive, well, "informally".
I'm an asshole if you get on my bad side, but will bend over backwards to help anyone who's willing to contribute at least half the work. I must be doing something right if the number of "Rene went above and beyond the call of duty to help me" emails my boss (and his) gets are any indication: it's starting to get embarassing. My "self-assessment" on annual reviews is usually far harsher than my boss's -- I don't give a shit if I "exceeded" goals: they could always have been "exceeded" more, and to rest on one's laurels is a death sentence for a software dev. Heck, I code in C# on a.NET platform precisely because I knew nothing about it a year ago. I hold my own. Being a C++ expert gets boring after a while, ya know?
I'm not a "team player": I prefer to stay at work and code up a little utility that would help a bunch of people be more productive, rather than go on "morale events". If I died tomorrow, what would leave a better impact, if globally imperceptible, on the world?
In short, I have no one to blame for my work ethic than myself.
Perhaps that's the difference: I have control over the hours I work, and if I decided that I needed a 2-3 week break (I rarely take more than one week of vacation a year), no one would likely blink an eyelid. I suspect, however, if my hours were regimented, even if they amounted to 40-50 a week, I'd be miserable.
So, I wonder, if part of your problem is misery regarding your working conditions, and a lack of control over them. I don't think anything can really help overcome that, except looking for a better job. I've been in shops like that and utterly miserable too (and not particularly productive).
While I don't always like my job I love my work. Do you love yours?
Most VSP's (as you say) that offer unlimited calling plans require locked down ATAs that authenticate when announcing their location, and originating calls.
If this were not the case, then one could share a single account with others.
There are ways around this, of course and, IIRC, Broadvoice has opened up their service (and is Asterisk-friendly) but they start per-minute billing on unlimited plans when there are simultaneous calls in session. I can only presume that other VoIP providers do not want to go to the trouble to detect that and/or deal with "but my account/password was stolen" claims.
I've been tinkering with the idea of using Asterisk with Vonage, by having A* sit in between a Vonage-locked ATA and the 'net, spoofing the analog port on the ATA if necessary to get it to originate a call, and enter the appropriate state to answer Vonage's SIP server's authentication queries. Classic man in the middle eaversdropping and spoofing technique.
I have no desire to defraud Vonage (and couldn't this way, unless I shared out access to the ATA in some manner), but I would like to use A* to manage multiple VoIP services and local SIP phones.
What's really frustrating is extending/enhancing (and, obviously embracing) some F/OSS code, carefully ensuring the modified source gets redistributed to those to whom one's employer distributes binaries, with nothing returned to the community at large -- Oh sure, the companies we distribute to (all 12 or so) have the freedom to redistribute... but, having spent million$ for our changes, aren't about to give them away, mostly because they don't want their competition (i.e. the other 11) to get them for free.
I had some real fun extending Anaconda and building a custom Red Hat-6.2 derived distro.
Unless you have few financial obligations, it is always best to line up a new job before leaving an old one. Even if you can afford to be unemployed, it's "bad form" when looking for another job.
In any case, I found the xenophobic work environment hostile enough to want to leave and unlikely to change to accomodate me.
I started looking for my current job two days after starting my last one: my boss forwarded me an anti-American email (my son is American), that he received from his boss. I was reprimanded when I complained that (a) I found it offensive, (b) thought it inappropriate for a work environment, and (c) requested that I not receive such "humour" in the future. In Canada, U.S.-bashing is acceptable workplace banter, apparently, though, for some strange reason, the "Canadian goose" does not like to be treated as it treats the "American Gander". "Canada sucks!" might get one fired and arrested for a hate crime.
Of course, I didn't have to look hard, as many unsolicited enquiries for my services arrive every week. It took a little over a year to find one I decided to accept.
FWIW, I went from a Linux C/C++ shop to a managed C#,.NET Windows(tm) one -- the experience with a new technology (I never really got "into" Java), and programming language makes it fun again, even though my programming language of preference remains C++ and development environment remains Linux/BSD/Unix.
Obviously, I was referring to health care obtained in Canada.
It is illegal for a healthcare provider that subscribes to the provincial health care plan to accept funds for services covered by such plans. It is illegal to make use of private insurance without subscribing to the public system. Private health services providers are heavily regulated by the province and there is a general trend to not license their practitionors these days, severly limiting the number of such providers -- where they exist, they often have to cater exclusively to non-citizens or non-immigrants. Of course, paying such a provider when they are not allowed to receive payment is colluding with them to break the law, and thus illegal.
Canada does not (yet) crack down on those seeking care in other countries, however, most provinces (Ontario, certainly) require those who subscribe to the provincial plan to agree to live in the province permanently -- Google the application forms for Ontario OHIP, for example. While this does not preclude trips outside the country, it makes becoming a non-resident fare more difficult without breaking the law, if one ever subscribed to a provincial health plan (or moving from one province to another, for that matter).
To be sure, Canada does not appear to crack down on those who break these laws, but it only takes an instant for that policy to change, and for people to start "being made examples of".
Finally, with the high taxes in Canada, it is rare that one can amass even $8k to travel for surgery. I consider it criminal that the government will not spend at least as much as it collects in the health care portion of taxes from an individual on that individual's care, when it is medically necessary (i.e. to save a life).
The whole system is a fraud: there is the appearance of an attempt to avoid a two-tier health care system where "the rich" pay to get better or faster service, yet, "the rich" can easily get such care outside the country.
... by spending your own money: its "unfair" to those who can't afford to do so.
The world is full of horrible, authoritarian, regimes.
Making VoIP illegal in Costa Rica is probably justified by protecting people's jobs at traditional circuit-switched telcos. We can't have the buggy-whip manufacturers starve, can we?
It's all analog at some level (unless you get to the quantum level).
But, things work for the cop because s/he is using spacial diversity antennas: either at the transmitter (rare), or at the receiver (common). At the carrier frequences these services operate, the individial antennals (three are typically used, though two can suffice), need only be inches apart, not feet, and are often in a common housing.
However, bewarned that (a) we chose error-correcting codes where the minimum speed was something like 20 km/h (about 16 mph), and (b) modern equipment works at sufficiently high carrier frequencies that spacial diversity antennas can be used instead.
So, unless you were speeding in a parking lot, or 15 mph school zone, driving a 15 to 20 year old car, with equally old radio equipment, and likely a Zenith clamshell laptop running DOS (yes, been there, done that -- except for the speeding part), I doubt the judge will buy it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, as opposed to leaving after 10, or 20, or five years. Requiring a mininum waiting period before being eligible for benefits is reasonable. Requireing any benefits provided within a modest period before leaving would be reasonable as well. But, no, the requirement is to live in Ontario permanently, not simply to have one's primary residency in Ontaro for some mimumum contigous time.
That form seems simple enough to me if you keep your idology in check. Permanent as in primary residence, not forever.
Yeah, that's what I thought. OHIP told me, in writing, otherwise.
"For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income
You're correct, I would consider this "fair". You can't possibly suggest that it isn't because you feel overtaxed. Again, you fail to support your argument. RRSP have that second "R" in them for a reason. The gov't is trying to get you to save for retirement, not issuing a tax break.
You missed my point. It could be considered "fair" except that is the only way many Canadians can afford a home: making the downpayment with an interest-free loan of their own pre-tax earnings. To live a life comparable to the typical middle class American requires taking advantage of so many "tax breaks", that it becomes impossible to leave if one wants. Americans have no such burdens.
Since you missed the point, let me exaggerate the problem to make it clearer: let's say you're taxed 100% on your earnings, but the government provides everything: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, etc. You can leave the country, but only if you repay all the government "benefits" you received. Clearly, that's impossible. The liberty to exercise the fruits of you labour gets perverted from a natural right to a state-granted "benefit" or permission. Granted, that is an example in extremis of the problem, but Canadian taxation is so severe that it is close to that extreme rather than the "natural rights" position.
I'm not familiar with US tax law, but if your spouse was a stay-at-home type, then he/she would pay no tax at all in Canada, and you could claim the spousal amount.
Ah yes, the measely "spousal amount". What this is is, for the benefit of Americans not familiar with Canadian taxation, is CA$7298 (about US$5838), less any income your spouse earns, with a minimum at $0. That translates into a credit against tax at the lowest tax rate, currently 16% federally, and 6.05% in Ontario, against tax owing. So, for someone in Ontrio, that's about a US$1290 tax credit, regardless of income (though it is non-refundable).
Let's say that you make CA$71.2k a year, or about US$57k. If you and your spouse were both working, each might earn US$28.5k to match that family income level, and would be effectively taxed as singles, with no spousal deduction. Your individual marginal tax rates would be low: 16% federally, and 6.05% in Ontario. However, when that extra US$28.5k is earned by one person on top of their US$28.5k, it is taxed at a much higher marginal rate: 22% federally, and about 9.15% in Ontario (the federal and provincial rate scales don't match perfectly, but are close), an overall difference of 31.15%=22.05%=9.1% That's about US$2600 of extra tax. (Americans are gasping in horror at the sheer level of taxation on such low incomes). The US$1290 spousal credit rather sucks, doesn't it? I haven't even addressed the federal and provincial surtaxes (an extra tax paid on income tax over a certain amount), so the situation is worse. A hundred dollars a month penalty for supporting a family. Of course, the Canadian will argue that that's reasonable to pay for the "luxery" of a spouse that doesn't have to work.
Now, let's look at it the 'merkan way: you ba
2. It does not take several weeks to allow non-combatants in a dispute opportunity to leave: there was no siege.
3. The Mohawks were better trained and more disciplined than the Army, many of them having received training in the U.S.
4. The Mohawks also had popular support: it was a city government that gave permission for a nine hole golf course to be expanded to an eighteen hole golf course. What few remember was that that original nine-hole course was built when the natives were duped in the 1950s: constrution was halted when they protested then, but they permitted a "road" to continue to be built, as it would benefit them even if the dispute eventually resulted in the halting of construction of the nine hole course. Well, that "road" became the nine hole course. Kind of hard to legislate the "not doing" of something that was done. If anything, they showed extreme restraint by not "going crazy" this second time around.
Nevertheless, if the objective was to secure the bridge they were blocking, the Army should have given 24 to 48 hours for the non-combattants to clear the area, and then engage the enemy with force. They didn't because they couldn't. Bunch of wimps.
This was far simpler than the situation at Wounded Knee, Wako, or, for that matter, Ruby Ridge: there was no siege with innocents who could not leave.
The notwithstanding clause can be use by either the Federal or Provincial governments, though, to my knowledge, only Quebec has ever used it.
As much as you seem to think it's the equivilant to soviet russia, last time I checked I was still allowed to emigrate.
Hold, on there buckaroo.
It may not be that simple. If, for example you move to Ontario, you will have to register for OHIP to replace your existing provincial health insurance coverage. Read the application forms carefully: you have to agree to live in Ontario permanently. You could chose to not participate in OHIP, of course, but then you can't purchase private health insurance for things that OHIP covers: that's illegal for a Canadian citizen to do. And, your taxes will still be funding (a horribly broken) system from which you've excluded yourself from receiving even minimal benefit.
So, no, Canada does not prevent emigration, but, in many cases it makes it illegal. Even here, the law is not really enforced, but as the tax base is eroded by people leaving to work in the U.S., it has become more and more difficult to leave in a strictly legal fashion.
Furthermore, it's sneaky. To survive, many Canadians have to take advantage of programs that require immediate reimbursement if they become non-residents. For example, RRSP HBPs become repayable in full within 60 days of becoming non-resident, or subject to being included in income. One the surface it seams reasonable that if the government provides a tax break, one should stick around for ones taxes to "repay the favour", as it were. However, many people have to take advantage of similar plans precisely because they're taxed so heavily and could otherwise not live a normal life. (Yes, I know that home ownership is considered a bourgois luxery in Canada, and not normal. I disagree.) Of course, once resident, one remains heavily taxed, and trapped.
This is particularly severe for traditional families where one spouse works and the other raises the children without resorting to government subsidized mediocre day care: there is no joint tax filing as there is in the U.S., so single-income families pay astronomical income taxes compared to their American counterparts.
There is also the Canadian tradition of holding an individual enslaved to the state to "repay" any social benefit they may have received at some time in the past over and over and over again. How many hundreds of thousands of dollars do I have to repay to make up for a CA$10k government scholarship I foolishly accepted in the 1980s. I thought that three was more than enough.
If the government services were on a par with the taxes paid, it would not be so bad, from a pragmatic standpoint (even as the libertarian in me gags at the stench of the notion of any tax). But, Canadian government services are among the most inefficiently delivered ones there are.
People are scared shitless to be held accountable to any of a number of laws they must break to survive.
Now, the Army is a joke, and if a million Canadians ever assebled in non-peaceful protest, they could likely decimate it: a million people with rocks can likely defeat a few thousand with rifles, and choppers that fall out of the sky. It would be bloddy, to be sure, with tens of thousands dead, but the Army would lose. But, don't expect that to happen. It took one third the army to put down a native Indian uprising protesting development of a golf course expansion in O.K.A. in the mid-90s, and it took them some six weeks to get the job done. Idiots even, quite likely, shot and killed one of their own. But, people remain scared shitless.
You see, Canada is a democracy with no real restraining constititution: the notwithstanding clause makes it possible for the government to pass a law overriding any judgement against it. All you need is a majority to enslave the minority, so safest is to "shut up, blend in, and go along".
We Canucks call this "Peace, Order, and Good Government."
When the Meech Lake Accord failed to be ratified, the Quebec government issued a decree that anyone flying a Canadian flag on Canada Day (the equivalent of the 4th of July) risked getting arrested for inciting to riot. Heck, it would be unamerican to not stand there, on one's own property, flying the flag, and defending the freedom do do so with some second ammendment firepower, if the U.S. government ever tried to pull a stunt like that.
When Cree chief Mathew Coon Come took the Quebec government to task for flooding one sixth the province (an area about the size of Europe, excluding Russia), for hydro-electric projects, and displacing native Cree, he risked arrest for libel, for speaking the truth!
No, Canada stays peaceful, by "shutting up" troublemakers. For all the criticism about the U.S. breaking its own constitution in the detainment of terrorism suspects, from north of the border, few question the horrors behind a Canadian "Security Certificate".
When some missile gets lobbed across the North Pole at the U.S., this Candian hopes the fallout from a U.S. missle defense shield takes out some of the murderous assholes in power in Canada. If Canada can't control it's airspace, it should still be held accountable for what flies through it toward the U.S., one way or another.
I just don't know what it will take for the average Canadian to "wake up" and see how they've been royally fucked over by big government since socialism really took off in the late 1960s.
Americans: kiss the ground you walk on, for this is the best place on earth (yeah, even it you hate Bush in the worst way). Perhaps some day my son, who's an American citizen, might serve to defend the principles upon which the nation was founded. Me, I'm just a wanna-be. Guilty as charged.
1 a) Treaty Country: Canada (Germany)
b) Articles XXV.2 (Germany 24.1)
2 Internal Revenue Code provisions overruled: 7701(b)(a)(A), 7701(b)(1)(A)(ii), 7701(b)(3).
5. Explain.
U.S. non-resident Canadian citizen is ordinarily required to meet the substantial presence test to file 1040 on world-wide income. U.S. non-resident German nationals are not required to meet substantial presence test to file 1040 on world-wide income, by virtue of U.S.-German Tax Treaty Article 24.1 which relieves German nationals from suffering more burdensome requirements or tax than U.S. citizens in similar circumstances. Article XXV.2 of the U.S.-Canada Tax Treaty relieves U.S. non-resident Canadian citizens from suffering more burdensome requirements or tax than nationals of another country with which the U.S. has a tax treaty, i.e. Germany. Thus, taxpayer takes a position under the U.S.-Canada Tax Treaty Article XXV.2 that relieves him from having to meet the substantial presence test before filing 1040. Taxpayer thus elects to be taxed on world-wide income for 2003.
The intended benefit to taxpayer is that eligible moving expenses related to an employment move from U.S. to Canada in 2003 were likely to be paid in 2004 and not reimbursed by Canadian employer. Taxpayer seeks to ensure the deductibility of these moving expenses in 2004 by subjecting the related earned income to U.S. tax, avoiding dual taxation by means of offsetting foreign tax credits.
Phbbbbbtttt!!!
The bottom line is that a Canadian citizen can file a U.S. 1040 return anytime they want to. Sometimes it is beneficial to do so, even if not required.
You sir, have never experienced the joy of using not one, but two international tax treaties, to make income from a foreign assignment by a non-U.S. citizen that would otherwise not be taxable in the U.S. intentionally so taxable (and, *poof*, completely offset by foreign tax credits, ta da!), so the eligible moving expenses associated with the assignment, but paid in the following year, when a U.S. tax resident, are deductable against U.S. income in that following year.
Accounting has the potential for some interesting hacks. When was the last time you got to (figuratively), go "Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah!" to the IRS, and the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency)?
The feminazis there have lobbied for laws that basically make any accusation a woman makes against a man taken as fact, i.e. "he beats me"; but any accusation a man makes against a woman as requiring proof beyond a resonable doubt, i.e. "she does not meet her obligations under the marriage contract."
Furthermore, a husband must support a spouse in the manner to which she is accustomed, or go to jail -- one can't, for example, take a lower paying, but more-satisfying job, without worrying about the "deadbeat police". (Admitedly, this happens rarely, but it is a stick the commies there have to keep people making the highest possible wages and paying the correspondinh high taxes).
We are in the U.S. If she returns to Canada, I am taxed as a Canadian resident, and could not possibly support her lifestyle there, without triple the salary. Thus, I'd be a "deadbeat" husband, and subject to deporatation to Canada and jailing.
And people wonder why I hate Canada so much.
Now, about that "bitter", thing, you were saying?
I didn't think there was such a thing as a working wife: mine drops candy wrappers, and cookie crumbs on the way from the kitchen to the media room, after feeding the kids something out of a can, or a sandwich, and complains that I wasn't around to pick up the mess she made because I was at work.
I had to rip out the carpets and replace them with hardwood floors because of all the spilled soft-drink stains. Sadly, Coca Cola(tm) appears to corrode the finish if not wiped up right away.
My employer does.
In fact my family causes a great deal of wear and tear on their shelter (clothing too, but that's to be expected). I could've retired three years ago if I never got married. Single slashdotters, take note of that: marriage is unbelievably expensive, kids more so.
When my wife gets bitchy about my hours, I ask her if she likes to eat, sleep out of the rain, cold and other weather, and if she wants to return to that communist hell hole known as Canada (my opinion on Canada is well documented, and she shares it.) She shuts up.
There are plenty who would and prefer demonstration of a more "pedestrian" writing style. The speech recognition articles I co-authored, in particular, are in "PHD-ese".
Among the results are this one.
Now, in all fairness, it relies on generating error messages that include prime numbers in the output (and gcc produces a bunch of warnings that pollute the output), but it's still a neat hack.
However, it is difficult to get some interviewers to belive that one is not bullshitting.
I find the idiots just assume I'm full of bull because I'm not appropriately humble, the smart ones however take the "Oh yeah, you think you're shit hot? Prove it! How about..." and I do.
I usually get an unsolicited job offer about once a month.
The hard part is when trying to tone down honest skill:
"Are you a C++ expert?"
"No."
"Hmm, you seam skilled... why do you say that?"
"Well, while I can understand much of Alexandrescu's "Modern C++ Design", template template parameters and some of the nifty things he does with type traits threw me for a loop at first, and it does take me a couple of scans to get some of the subtleties in his approach. I don't grok them intuitevely at first blush."
"A template? Oh, you mean like a C++ class as opposed to just a C struct, right?"
"Sigh :-( O.K. look, how about I give you an example?"
"Sure!"
"Consider a need to have a numeric type that's wide enough to hold some compile-time constant number of bits. How do you do that?"
"Oh, #defines in a common include file somewhere, where are you going with this?"
"Well, that requires you to change the file for each new platform, or supply a different version. Now, C++ has standard short, int, and long sizes, but they're minima, and while an int might be big enough on one platform, it might be too big on another. This is particularly true on embededded platforms, where compilers tend to be non-standard."
"Er, O.K. Go on." (looks at watch and rolls eyes)
"So what you do, is set up a TypeList a la Alexandrescu in one of his introductory chapters, with element types that know the size of each of the basic types, and you have a template use that typelist, to return the type that best matches the size you need."
"But..." (confused) "... functions don't return types, they return object... are you talking about RTTI? Because we don't use that."
"No, RTTI tends to be expensive at run-time, as well as exceptions and multiple inheritence and is best avoided if at all possible. Though, I can see the need to do this dynamically, but then it's easier with a classical rather than a template metaprogramming approach. You see, you use template metaprogramming techniques to do the computation at compile time, for bit-widths that you know at compile time -- the compiler does the work so you don't have to, and so your code doesn't have to at run time -- the whole point of template metaprogramming."
"...?..."
"The template resolves to a type that has an inner typedef by a fixed name that resoves to the type you need."
"Er, we don't use C++ that way".
"Well, it isn't necessary, and frankly, while the C++ template metaprogramming environment is Turing -complete (not sure about C# with generics, though), it is rather an ugly way to code. Simply reading Alexandrescu is hard if you don't grok the idioms. Still, there are times when it's increadibly useful to let the compiler do the work instead of doing it manually when porting to a new architecture. Look, you don't do it everywhere, in the same way as your 'common include file' tends to be small (or at least starts out that way), but it is handy."
"Wow! You are a C++ expert!"
"No, I actually have to think about such esoteric techniques and work at them. An expert would crank them out in their sleep. Alexandrescu, I'd call an expert. I'm disclosing the limits of my skill, to be completely honest. If you had to chose betweem me and Alexandrescu on the basis of expertise, he'd be a better choise, probably. Fortuantely for me, I don't think he's interviewing for this position. Still, you should know the limits of my skill."
"Tell me more: why are you interested in such esoteric things?"
"You're kidding, right?"
"No, why?"
"Well, all the code I've written for other employers is owned by them. It would be improper for me to disclose it. I have written GPL code for some of those employers, but they did not distribute binaries to me so I can't disclose that either.
I understand that you probably want to see if I can "cut the mustard", right?"
"Duh!"
"Then give me a coding task that should take, oh, a week or two. I'll likely get some working code back to you in 48 hours. We can even do some refinement cycles in that week, to see how flexible I am, and how open to expandability my designs are."
"You're hired!"
"No review of my code first?"
"No, not necessary! Anyone that bold must know their stuff!!"
"O.K. Put an offer in writing. I've got a plane to catch."
Later...
Wife: "So, you gonna take the offer?"
"Not unless it's so good that I could stand to work for idiots who don't even check my creds. Sheesh!!"
Yes, I would have sent them a custom sample of code -- even assigned rights to them: they took the time and effort to fly me in and intervew me, after all: worth a KLOC or two. No, I will not work for people that don't check their final cut interview candiate's skills. I have been known to turn down jobs on the basis of the incompetence of the people interviewing me. I have been known to accept jobs precisely because the interviews were "tough" and the interviewers sharp.
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I shall not put!"
This does not mean that I do not get exhausted at times. I'll take the odd two or even three day weekend if I need to recharge -- on my schedule. I can come in at 10 or 11 or later or whenever I like, for the most part (unless I have an important meeting scheduled) -- my hours are flexible, so if I happen to sleep in an extra hour or 90 minutes, it's no disaster. Yeah, there are the times when I work until 2-3 A.M., or even all night (about 3-4 times a year), and a regular 8 hour day after that.
My commute is better than yours though: only 45 minutes one way.
The thing is that I have control over when I work those hours and that makes all the difference in the word. 4x12 hours a week on the clock would probably be far worse.
What do I do to relax? I take quick frequent breaks at the office, sometimes 5 minutes every 15 to 30. While I'll often be oblivious to the fact that the lunch and dinner hour have passed, I'll go and eat when I feel hungry, regardless of the time (it's rarely noon and 6:00 PM).
Now, I'm not given that much work -- I take it on: trying my best to accomodate feature requests from those that use the software I produce (mostly test automation support tools these days) request (particularly when they are useful to a wider audience), even if they arrive, well, "informally".
I'm an asshole if you get on my bad side, but will bend over backwards to help anyone who's willing to contribute at least half the work. I must be doing something right if the number of "Rene went above and beyond the call of duty to help me" emails my boss (and his) gets are any indication: it's starting to get embarassing. My "self-assessment" on annual reviews is usually far harsher than my boss's -- I don't give a shit if I "exceeded" goals: they could always have been "exceeded" more, and to rest on one's laurels is a death sentence for a software dev. Heck, I code in C# on a .NET platform precisely because I knew nothing about it a year ago. I hold my own. Being a C++ expert gets boring after a while, ya know?
I'm not a "team player": I prefer to stay at work and code up a little utility that would help a bunch of people be more productive, rather than go on "morale events". If I died tomorrow, what would leave a better impact, if globally imperceptible, on the world?
In short, I have no one to blame for my work ethic than myself.
Perhaps that's the difference: I have control over the hours I work, and if I decided that I needed a 2-3 week break (I rarely take more than one week of vacation a year), no one would likely blink an eyelid. I suspect, however, if my hours were regimented, even if they amounted to 40-50 a week, I'd be miserable.
So, I wonder, if part of your problem is misery regarding your working conditions, and a lack of control over them. I don't think anything can really help overcome that, except looking for a better job. I've been in shops like that and utterly miserable too (and not particularly productive).
While I don't always like my job I love my work. Do you love yours?
Never did try reading Stanislaw Lem's works in the original Polish... I'm told the puns don't translate to English all that well.
If this were not the case, then one could share a single account with others.
There are ways around this, of course and, IIRC, Broadvoice has opened up their service (and is Asterisk-friendly) but they start per-minute billing on unlimited plans when there are simultaneous calls in session. I can only presume that other VoIP providers do not want to go to the trouble to detect that and/or deal with "but my account/password was stolen" claims.
I've been tinkering with the idea of using Asterisk with Vonage, by having A* sit in between a Vonage-locked ATA and the 'net, spoofing the analog port on the ATA if necessary to get it to originate a call, and enter the appropriate state to answer Vonage's SIP server's authentication queries. Classic man in the middle eaversdropping and spoofing technique.
I have no desire to defraud Vonage (and couldn't this way, unless I shared out access to the ATA in some manner), but I would like to use A* to manage multiple VoIP services and local SIP phones.
What's really frustrating is extending/enhancing (and, obviously embracing) some F/OSS code, carefully ensuring the modified source gets redistributed to those to whom one's employer distributes binaries, with nothing returned to the community at large -- Oh sure, the companies we distribute to (all 12 or so) have the freedom to redistribute... but, having spent million$ for our changes, aren't about to give them away, mostly because they don't want their competition (i.e. the other 11) to get them for free. I had some real fun extending Anaconda and building a custom Red Hat-6.2 derived distro.
It should be noted that the FDA does not have a particularly good track record at judging the relative safety of pain medication these days.
In any case, I found the xenophobic work environment hostile enough to want to leave and unlikely to change to accomodate me.
I started looking for my current job two days after starting my last one: my boss forwarded me an anti-American email (my son is American), that he received from his boss. I was reprimanded when I complained that (a) I found it offensive, (b) thought it inappropriate for a work environment, and (c) requested that I not receive such "humour" in the future. In Canada, U.S.-bashing is acceptable workplace banter, apparently, though, for some strange reason, the "Canadian goose" does not like to be treated as it treats the "American Gander". "Canada sucks!" might get one fired and arrested for a hate crime.
Of course, I didn't have to look hard, as many unsolicited enquiries for my services arrive every week. It took a little over a year to find one I decided to accept.
FWIW, I went from a Linux C/C++ shop to a managed C#, .NET Windows(tm) one -- the experience with a new technology (I never really got "into" Java), and programming language makes it fun again, even though my programming language of preference remains C++ and development environment remains Linux/BSD/Unix.
It is illegal for a healthcare provider that subscribes to the provincial health care plan to accept funds for services covered by such plans. It is illegal to make use of private insurance without subscribing to the public system. Private health services providers are heavily regulated by the province and there is a general trend to not license their practitionors these days, severly limiting the number of such providers -- where they exist, they often have to cater exclusively to non-citizens or non-immigrants. Of course, paying such a provider when they are not allowed to receive payment is colluding with them to break the law, and thus illegal.
Canada does not (yet) crack down on those seeking care in other countries, however, most provinces (Ontario, certainly) require those who subscribe to the provincial plan to agree to live in the province permanently -- Google the application forms for Ontario OHIP, for example. While this does not preclude trips outside the country, it makes becoming a non-resident fare more difficult without breaking the law, if one ever subscribed to a provincial health plan (or moving from one province to another, for that matter).
To be sure, Canada does not appear to crack down on those who break these laws, but it only takes an instant for that policy to change, and for people to start "being made examples of".
Finally, with the high taxes in Canada, it is rare that one can amass even $8k to travel for surgery. I consider it criminal that the government will not spend at least as much as it collects in the health care portion of taxes from an individual on that individual's care, when it is medically necessary (i.e. to save a life).
The whole system is a fraud: there is the appearance of an attempt to avoid a two-tier health care system where "the rich" pay to get better or faster service, yet, "the rich" can easily get such care outside the country.
The world is full of horrible, authoritarian, regimes.
Making VoIP illegal in Costa Rica is probably justified by protecting people's jobs at traditional circuit-switched telcos. We can't have the buggy-whip manufacturers starve, can we?
But, things work for the cop because s/he is using spacial diversity antennas: either at the transmitter (rare), or at the receiver (common). At the carrier frequences these services operate, the individial antennals (three are typically used, though two can suffice), need only be inches apart, not feet, and are often in a common housing.
However, bewarned that (a) we chose error-correcting codes where the minimum speed was something like 20 km/h (about 16 mph), and (b) modern equipment works at sufficiently high carrier frequencies that spacial diversity antennas can be used instead.
So, unless you were speeding in a parking lot, or 15 mph school zone, driving a 15 to 20 year old car, with equally old radio equipment, and likely a Zenith clamshell laptop running DOS (yes, been there, done that -- except for the speeding part), I doubt the judge will buy it.
He didn't get the joke.
I quit that job and got a different one as fast as practical.