|
Did you get your HST rebate? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
(Mind you, if the Conservatives sell the cash-cows [LCBO, Hydro, Lottery, etc.] they too will be making poor decisions. |
Wait, Hydro is a cash cow? I haven't seen their balance sheet, but how is that possible when consumers are only paying a fraction of what it costs to generate the electricity? |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
my gf lives with me and we are therefore considered "common law" and this is stated on our taxes |
I hope you don't split up. If you do she is entitled to half your assets.
Common-law is a very dangerous classification. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Wait, Hydro is a cash cow? I haven't seen their balance sheet, but how is that possible when consumers are only paying a fraction of what it costs to generate the electricity? |
I meant infrastructure not generation. |
|
|
| cammaxwell |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
I hope you don't split up. If you do she is entitled to half your assets.
Common-law is a very dangerous classification. |
Actually you are wrong there, common law does not affect assets at all. Trust me, I went through this with a ex of ten years. Assets can't be touched.
The only thing a common law partner can go after is child support if there is a child (which would be there anyway) and alimony support if you supported her and she didn't work. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Sigh. I didnt see this coming at all. First, the government passed the new tax without proper consultation with the public. Now they are sending around the bribes to make people shup up and accept it.
I got $100 cheque in the mail. ONLY $100???? I refuse to cash it, I will call on Monday and tell them to shove it up their ass.
I will probably pay more in one month in the increased tax levies than the $100 to offset it for the year. It is a joke, it is an insult. Yes, maybe I have some pride, a sense of dignity, but they cant buy me off or shut me up. I want them to know that I DID NOT ACCEPT this tax.
So its not free money, folks. It ts money that the government gave to shut you up, to BUY your permission to accept this HST tax.
Enough with giving big business tax breaks and rebates and while shifting the tax weight/burden on us the taxpayers. While they're enjoying their $1.2 billion G8/G20 party and talking about freezing public service workers wages to deal with the deficit while maintaining irresponsible spending practises.
People need to be heard. People need to understand what this is all about. Alleged HST tax benefits are mostly a theory. How do they know if they will create jobs, and not be used to pay CEO's even more bonuses? |
Sign it over to me, I'll take it. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sentinal
My $100 has been cashed and the donation has been made to the Ontario Conservative Party. Time to get this head out of power. |
Are you giving the next to the Federal NDP? As you do realize that the HST was organized by "THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY"
HST = Harper's Tax. The money from the rebates is coming from the 3 billion that is being sent to Ontario for implementing the tax.
Both BC and Ontario are "hold outs" on HST - places like nova scotia already have HST (Nova Scotia's HST is 15%). The implementation was brought on by buying off the provincial governments. Causing huge discontent in the two most liberal provinces in Canada. This is no coincidence. The conservative party of Canada engineered this tax implemnation (A FEDERAL TAX, not a provincial tax), and it clearly was due to the backlash the public would have against two multiterm majority liberal governments.
Recognize the REAL headcase behind this - that would be Mr. Harper and the CPC.
Not happy about your 8% tax increase on your gas bill - well it was Harper's government that bought off the provincial government - not the other way around. Harper knocked 2% off gst then added 8% to it - that isn't knocking 2% off gst that is adding 6% for a 13% tax instead of a 7% tax.
Also if you didn't get it the current finance minister of Canada - who just happened to be the provincial finance minister in Ontario Progressive Conservative Party - the same that the industry minister was party of... are all Ontario Conservatives that are currently in the Federal CPC. So your donation just went to the people same people that implemented this tax - and bought them off. Basically you just gave your money on the people that increased your taxes by 6% on a handful of goods.
Articles are a good first look at the real motivators
http://gordonfdwilson.com/212/the-i...ng-health-care/
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...326?hub=Toronto
This is what the Ontario Conservative website describes itself by
"The Official Opposition in Ontario, the Tories were in power from 1995 to 2003. Site includes party policies and membership information. Led by Tim Hudak."
Yet it is THOSE CONSERVATIVES who bought this tax on ontario for $3.9 billion and you are donating to them for it?
HEAD TAX MAN Flaherty - excerpt from wikipedia
Cabinet
He was named Minister of Labour in the cabinet of Premier Mike Harris on October 10, 1997, and kept this position until after the 1999 election. He also served as interim Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services from April 27 to July 27, 1998, when Bob Runciman temporarily resigned from active duty after revealing privileged information in the legislature.
Flaherty was re-elected in the 1999 election in the redistributed riding of Whitby—Ajax, and was named Attorney General with responsibility for Native Affairs on June 17, 1999. On February 8, 2001, he was appointed Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier. He was a key promoter of tax credits for parents sending their children to private and denominational schools, which the Tories had campaigned against in 1999. Minister of Education Janet Ecker did not support this policy change, and there are reports that she considered leaving cabinet after its announcement.
------ meanwhile in Canada
Flaherty has become a central figure in the debate surrounding the new proposed rules for taxation of Canadian income trusts. His announcement on October 31, 2006 of a rule change to tax income trusts levelled the playing field between forms of business such that businesses operating as income trusts no longer enjoyed a tax advantage over businesses operating as corporations. The announcement was accompanied by a further planned reduction in the corporate rate so that the two moves together were not expected to generate additional revenue for the government.
There had been an increasing number of corporations converting to income trusts which would result in them paying lowered taxes; Flaherty argued that income trusts would cost the government hundreds of millions in lost revenue and shift the burden onto ordinary people.[5] The Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors have argued that foreign takeovers of Canadian income trusts have had the opposite effect and caused decrease in federal government tax revenues.[6][7]
Diane Francis, editor-at-large for the National Post, urged that the rule changes be recanted, arguing that there were flaws in the policy which hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors.[8][9] Francis pointed out that the root of the problem is that the decision was based on analysis by federal officials who regard RRSPs and pensions as tax "exempts" even though they are merely deferral mechanisms. So the tax leakage analysis numbers incorrect when it comes to taxes paid by Canadian income trust unitholders.[10] Nevertheless, the income from ordinary corporate stock is of course also taxed, and the companies that converted to 'income trusts' from corporations were taking advantage of tax rules designed to benefit retirees rather than ordinary stockholders who became the beneficiaries of the new trusts. It was causing a reduction in estimated government revenue even when future tax revenues were factored in; the advocates for the rule change argued that income trusts were not meant to be a new label for something that effectively acted as a corporation. Canadian Press voted the Harper government and Flaherty 'Business Newsmaker of 2006' for the income trust announcement.[11][12]
Special hearings by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance commenced January 30, 2007. John McCallum, the Liberal finance critic, called on Flaherty to explain the reasoning behind the change in income trust tax policy. McCallum said "Your first problem is that having lured hundreds of thousands of ordinary Canadians into income trusts by promising not to raise taxes you then cut them off at the knees."[13][14][15]
On February 28, 2007, the committee released their report, Taxing Income Trusts: Reconcilable or Irreconcilable differences?, recommending a reduction of the proposed tax to 10% from 31.5%.
In a July 9, 2007 interview on Business News Network, former Conservative Alberta Premier Ralph Klein criticized Harper and Flaherty for their mishandling of the income trust issue, and for not keeping their word on income trust taxation.[16] According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors, the change in tax rules cost investors $35 billion dollars in market value. Stephen Harper specifically promised "not to raid Senior's nest eggs" during the 2006 federal election.[17]
[edit] Flaherty challenged to debate tax leakage
On August 21, 2008, Brent Fullard, president of the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors, challenged Flaherty to debate supposed tax leakage associated with income trusts. Fullard was responding to a comment attributed to a Flaherty spokesperson in April 2008, as quoted in The Hill Times: "I don't think Jim's losing any sleep over it. As a matter of fact, I'm sure of it. I'm sure he'd love to go a couple of rounds with these CAITI guys in a debate situation." Fullard announced he would put up $50,000, payable to his favorite charity. Given the minister's "current crusade on financial literacy," Fullard believed a suitable charitable cause would be a scholarship for business education. "By doing this we could help repair the damage caused by the Minister's statement that Ontario is the last place to invest."[18] Flaherty has turned down the request. "The tax fairness plan is law. The Minister made his position clear before the finance committee and there is no need for further debate," according to his press spokesperson.[19]
[edit] Federation of Canadian Municipalities report on infrastructure
Flaherty responded to a report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that suggested that cities had an infrastructure deficit of $123 billion and the federal government should step up with some cash with the suggestion cities should stop “whining” and repair their own crumbling infrastructure.
Calgary Mayor Dave Bronconnier claims Flaherty sidestepped responsibility for billions in infrastructure dollars being sought, when Flaherty advised municipalities to “do their job” because the feds are “not in the pothole business.” “Let’s get on with the job and stop complaining about it and do their job,” Flaherty continued, noting the Building Canada fund will inject $33 billion into cities to help deal with the infrastructure crunch. However Bronconnier said the plan is merely a “repackaging” of a number of pre-existing funding arrangements.[20] The Building Canada Fund has been strongly criticized for being designed to fail, due to excessive red tape, which has delayed much of the funding from being awarded.[21]
Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion went further by issuing a challenge to Flaherty to publicly debate the need for permanent federal funding for the repair and upkeep of municipal roads and bridges. McCallion said “Flaherty has stated in the media that some of the municipalities have not kept up with infrastructure and did not establish adequate reserves. Well, I can tell him that he is dead wrong. The facts are that Mississauga has carefully set aside reserves for infrastructure for years.” McCallion noted that cities are trying to maintain 58 per cent of public infrastructure with eight cents of every tax dollar.[22] Flaherty did not accept Hazel McCallion's offer to debate.[23]
[edit] Department of Finance contracts questioned
Despite Treasury Board rules requiring a bidding process for contracts of $25,000 or more, Flaherty admitted his office broke government contracting rules in hiring Hugh MacPhie to help write the 2007 budget speech and provide advice on how to sell the document. MacPhie, who had written speeches for former Ontario Tory premier Mike Harris, was awarded the $122,000 contract without tender by Flaherty's office.[24] On February 7, 2008, Liberal finance critic John McCallum formally called on Auditor General Sheila Fraser to conduct an audit into the untendered contract awarded by Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty to MacPhie for work done in advance of the 2007 budget.[25]
The Toronto Star determined that several people who supported Flaherty when he was an Ontario cabinet minister or who supported his two failed bids to lead the Ontario Tories were awarded employment contracts or given appointments. The employment contracts awarded were under the $25,000 Treasury Board contract bidding limit. Bronwen Evans received a $24,877.50 contract to write speeches for Flaherty from June 2006 until last February. David Curtain, who worked on Flaherty's Ontario leadership campaign, received $24,877.50 to write the finance minister's first budget speech. Curtain was also paid $3,350 to write a keynote address earlier in 2008 for Flaherty. Lawyer James Love, who donated $63,000 to Flaherty over two leadership campaigns, was appointed to the Royal Canadian Mint. Another Flaherty donor, Carol Hansell, was appointed to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada in October 2006. Toronto family law lawyer Sara Beth Mintz, an Ontario Progressive Conservative Party vice-president, received $24,900 for budget "analysis, assessment and advice." MacPhie also got another contract for $24,645 for work done on Advantage Canada, a long-term, national economic plan. Opposition parties say they are suspicious that contracts are coming in just under $25,000 in order to give business to Flaherty's friends and supporters.[26]
On May 13, 2008, Flaherty appeared before the Public Accounts committee, facing questions about multiple sole-sourced contracts worth more than $300,000 that were given by the government.[27] The finance minister says he was unaware his former chief of staff broke government rules in handing a well-connected Tory an untendered contract to write the 2007 budget speech.[28]
----------------------------------
Tony Clement - the guy behind some of the most anti public tax and fee measures to date
He was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in the provincial election of 1995, defeating incumbent Liberal Bob Callahan by over 6,000 votes in the riding of Brampton South. After serving as a parliamentary assistant for two years, he was appointed Minister of Transportation on October 10, 1997. One of the initiatives under his watch was the completion of Highway 403, which had been discontinuous for decades. He also represented the Progressive Conservative government on a variety of televised discussion panels, and won a reputation as a rising star in the party.
Clement was re-elected in the provincial election of 1999, defeating Liberal candidate Vic Dhillon by over 8,000 votes. He was promoted to Minister of the Environment on June 17, 1999, and served in this capacity until May 3, 2000. In this role he established the program known as Ontario's Drive Clean, which mandated periodic emissions tests on vehicles in southern Ontario.
Clement was appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on October 25, 1999, and held this position until February 8, 2001.
On February 8, 2001, Clement was appointed Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. He initiated primary care reform, oversaw the implementation of Telehealth Ontario (a toll-free health information line staffed by registered nurses), and expanded Ontario's hospitals system. He also introduced elements of private delivery within the single-payer public system by approving a private cancer care clinic in Toronto and entered into a public-private partnership for a hospital redevelopment in Brampton. His supporters launded him as an innovative and effective administrator, while critics disapproved of his advocacy of public-private partnerships and gave him the nickname "two-tier Tony".
When Mike Harris resigned as party leader, Clement ran to succeed him in the party's 2002 leadership election. During this campaign, his relationship with rival candidate Jim Flaherty deteriorated significantly. The atmosphere between them became poisoned through a series of personal attacks (some have suggested that Flaherty's campaign was behind a broadside that described Clement's wife as a lawyer for abortion doctors). While both Clement and Flaherty were perceived as being on the right wing of the party, Clement challenged his opponent's policies on the homeless, a proposal to ban teachers' strikes and other issues.
Clement finished third on the first ballot, and threw his support to victorious candidate Ernie Eves on the second. When Eves became Premier, he kept Clement in the Health portfolio.
Clement was especially prominent when Toronto suffered an outbreak of SARS in the summer of 2003, travelling to Geneva in a successful bid to urge the World Health Organization to lift a travel ban to Canada's largest city.[5]
The Eves government was defeated in the 2003 provincial election, and Clement was unexpectedly defeated by Vic Dhillon by about 2,500 votes in a rematch from 1999. Clement afterwards worked as a counsel for Bennett Jones LLP.
meanwhile in canada
Minister of Health
He was criticized for continuing to hold a 25% stake in a pharmaceutical company (Prudential Chem Inc.) when appointed, a conflict of interest. Clement divested himself of these holdings in October 2006.[6]
Some of Clement's initiatives included establishing the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, announcing a national strategy on Autism, and working towards establishing Canada's first Patient Wait Times Guarantees.
Clement attended the XVI International AIDS Conference in Toronto in August 2006, which Prime Minister Stephen Harper did not attend, causing some controversy. Clement was booed by some conference participants, likely because of his role as surrogate for the Prime Minister. He focused most of his time at the conference promising to investigate the failure of the Canada Access to Medicines Regime to effectively fulfill its purpose of sending Canadian-manufactured generic drugs to developing countries, as per the August 30 Agreement at the World Trade Organization. After further criticism on the lack of new announcement on its efforts to combat AIDS, Clement responded saying that the atmosphere at the conference had become too "politicized". On December 1, World AIDS Day, International Cooperation Minister Josee Verner announced a $450 million investment over the next 10 years to fight AIDS.
On September 29, 2007, the CBC reported Clement's new strategy to combat the growing drug abuse problem in Canada. "The party is over" for illicit drug users, he announced, with the new policy aiming towards widespread arrest of drug users, in contrast to the old strategy of targeting dealers. Over 130 physicians and scientists signed a petition condemning the Conservative government's "potentially deadly" misrepresentation of the positive evidence for harm reduction programs. Clement stated that governments in Canada have been sending the wrong message about drug use, and he wanted to clear up the mixed messages going out about illicit drugs.[7]
[edit] Insite safe injection site
On May 29, 2008, Clement announced that the federal government would oppose Vancouver's safe injection site Insite and would appeal a recent court ruling allowing the site to stay open. Clement's position is that "supervised injection is not medicine; it does not heal the person addicted to drugs. Injection not only causes physical harm, it also deepens and prolongs the addiction. Programs to support supervised injection divert valuable dollars away from treatment. And government-sponsored supervised injection sends a very mixed message to young people who are contemplating the use of illicit drugs." In his ruling, Mr. Justice Ian Pitfield upheld arguments that Insite provided vital health services to addicts by reducing the possibility of drug overdoses, curbing the risk of transmitting infectious diseases and giving users access to counselling that may lead to abstinence. As a result, Insite's injection-drug users have the right to protection from drug laws under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees everyone "life, liberty and security of the person," . The federal government was given until June 30, 2009, to redraft laws against possession and trafficking of illegal drugs to accommodate Insite's operation. Without that adjustment, those key sections of the law are unconstitutional, Judge Pitfield said.[8]
On August 18, 2008 Clement asked an annual gathering of doctors in Montreal “Is it unethical for health-care professionals to support the administration of drugs that are of unknown substance or purity or potency, drugs that cannot otherwise be legally prescribed?” and went on to say that doctors who worked at Insite have created a "slippery slope". Dr. Brian Day, president of the Canadian Medical Association, responded to Mr. Clement by saying 79 per cent of [Canadian Medical Association] members agree that the injection sites work because they advocate harm reduction. Dr. Gabor Mate, a physician that works with drug addicts, said “The repugnant aspect is his attack on the morality and ethics of human beings who are trying to work with a very difficult population." and “I mean where does he come off? Where does he appoint himself as a moral judge of professionals who he doesn't understand and knows nothing about?”[9]
[edit] Minister of Industry
On October 30, 2008, Clement was sworn into the office of Industry Minister.[10] This includes the appointment to the Office of the Registrar General of Canada.
He came under fire in July 2009 when, in an interview with the Sudbury Star regarding a strike at Vale Inco's operations in Sudbury, he characterized Vale's 2006 takeover of Inco as having saved the company from imminent bankruptcy, and the city of Sudbury from becoming a "valley of death".[11] Former Inco CEO Scott Hand noted that at the time of the takeover, Inco was in fact a very stable and wealthy company which was the target of one of the most hotly-contested bidding wars in recent Canadian business history, and that the company had not made any announcement suggesting that any jobs in the Sudbury area were under threat.[12] He backtracked from the comment on July 24, calling it a "boneheaded" way to express the point he had been making.[13] When asked if he was apologizing, however, Clement replied: "I think, you know, apologies are for tragedies."[14]
Mr. Clement also received attention in early 2010 for statements regarding the Right Honourable Stephen Harper's act of proroguing the 40th Canadian Parliament in December 2009, a continuation of the 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute. Despite public outrage regarding the progrogation, Clement claimed that only the “elites” and “chattering classes” care about prorogation. [3] Thousands of Canadians protested in the streets during the 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests.
-----------------------------------
THIS IS YOUR ONTARIO LEADING PC PARTY... BRING OF PUBLIC SELL OFFS TOLLS FEES AND TAXES.
(On a personal note: I wouldn't say I would disagree with all the measures highlighted in totality - but I found the comment above about donating to the conservative party "to fend off tax increases" to be absurd. All you get are lower corporate rates and less services while the personal amount stays the same and you have to pay more and more in fees and tolls. Just a side note as stated already I'm not against all measures above but some are questionable - and some activities are questionable.
I know a weak respite but hopefully you can understand that this is A FEDERAL TAX, not a provincial tax.
GET THIS
COSTS ARE GOING UP... the HST may free prices -- but the costs can go down for businesses especially resellers and finishers. BUSINESSES BENEFIT FROM HST while individuals are left at the whim of businesses for any savings. THIS IS A CLASSIC CONSERVATIVE TAX MEASURE - PRO BUSINESS THE OTHER GUY. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
Also by Flaherty in today
We reject a voluntary plan because that would very much disturb the work of the Canada Pension Plan which operates on a different basis, but the plan can administer a modest, phased-in increase on the mandatory side.”
on a side note again - I get all my for free from the government - but I can see why people who actually work and pay taxes should be pissed off they are going to have to pay more CPP.
I know I know that is contradictory to the whole pro business with payroll tax increases... anyway. No comment. Just saying. |
|
|
| MissK |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
I haven't received anything yet, but I don't qualify personally. BUT....my gf lives with me and we are therefore considered "common law" and this is stated on our taxes, so since she doesn't work I do qualify now with the "couple" income.
So should I be getting a cheque then? Does it matter if I haven't done my 2009 taxes yet? |
I'm too busy to find the source right now. But I read that common law do not receive a cheque. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
I love the fake outrage by the right wingers in here...
| quote: | | ...we understand how that (single sales tax) can help the economy. |
- Tim Hudak, March 2009
| quote: | | I agree that there's little sense in allowing two separate governments to apply two separate taxes and policies and collect two separate groups of sales taxes. |
- Tim Hudak, April 2009
Truth is the PCs supported this tax for years (until the Liberals actually moved to bring it into effect) and still do. I assure you there will be no repeal or changes to this tax under a PC government. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by devnull
Natives to win HST concessions from Ottawa
|
Sensitive situation indeed.
I think modern Canada (and Canadians) needs to seriously consider how -all- citizens are treated (equally?) and the importance of having (better) balance across peoples. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by MissK
I'm too busy to find the source right now. But I read that common law do not receive a cheque. |
yes they do. see my earlier post and link. common law is treated the same as a married couple. |
|
|
|
|
