Canadian Economy - Buoyant

Frankfooter · Sep 16, 2017

JohnLarue said:
Exactly how will the changes differentiate between a business where family members are paid yet do no work and a business where family members are paid yet work their asses off?
It cant
the only way to differentiate would be to investigate the operations via an audit, which can be done now without changing the tax code

The changes will make income sprinkling illegal, hence they will make legitimate employment of family members problematic, perhaps even illegal and certainly not advantageous from a taxation perspective

do you support having the wives and kids work for no pay?
A stupid assed question often gets a similar one directed back at you

If they are working legitimate hours there won't be questions. But if it looks too suspect they could be audited, just like everyone else that files taxes.
In what reality do you think this would make wives and kids work for no pay?

Are you really suggesting that without income sprinkling businesses will fail?

fuji · Sep 16, 2017

JohnLarue said:
You know even less about small business than you do about the oil industry

Sputter. Not content.

Not if it costs thousands of jobs it is not

Sputter. Not content.

Now your an expert on how small business should invest
Perhaps they are saving to buy that new equipment, however higher minimum wage laws have meant it will take several years to save for it

Sputter. Not content.

It like the current FX system we have, these tax laws have worked well for decades. No need for your 2 cents worth (and that is its true value)

The FX system has not worked, the oil price fluctuations have discouraged investment in other industries.

Bullshit
I have seen it many times. Incremental expenses results in cost cutting>> job losses or delayed hiring

Sputter. Not content.

You need to take your head out of the text book (or your ass)

Sputter. Not content.

Not all small business owners want to grow huge companies

Often the goal is affording a decent lifestyle, steady manageable growth, being their own boss and having something of value their kids can inherent
Some also get a lot of satisfaction from employing a hand full of people

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing. So closing the loop holes they use to avoid paying the tax others with the same income would pay does nothing to cut employment. These no ambition companies likely employ only immediate family.

If they are time to grow they have a business plan that looks beyond the small busines credit and likely won't declare much income in those years anyway, owing to any extra funds being put back into the business.

according to bver_hunter Small business employ 70% of all Canadians so you very wrong once again

Sputter. Not content.

according to bver_hunter the tax changes will impact 1/3 of small business
That was way more than I expected

And the ones that make a DIFFERENCE to employment based on profit expectations are the ones trying to grow.

Bullshit
Just like Western Canada will do as they were told when you proposed discounting their oil revenue
That is your opinion and we know the value of that (excrement)

Sputter. Not content.

That are what audits are for
Go after some, make some high profile examples but do not tamper with the driver of job creation in this country
changing the tax laws for by companies employing 70% of Canadians is a damn fool thing to do

Audits don't help since the loopholes exist in the tax come it isn't illegal to use the loopholes. The loopholes need to be closed.

But then you are accustom to supporting damn fool ideas arn't you?

Sputter. Not content.

JohnLarue · Sep 16, 2017

Frankfooter said:
If they are working legitimate hours there won't be questions. But if it looks too suspect they could be audited, just like everyone else that files taxes.
In what reality do you think this would make wives and kids work for no pay?

Are you really suggesting that without income sprinkling businesses will fail?

A few might, a few more will decide the risks are to high for the reduced reward and fold up shop, most will just fire a couple of employees to make up for the reduced cash flow. (nice work Justin, is this how you propose to grow an economy?)

In what reality do you think this would make wives and kids work for no pay?

I am guessing in a lot of cases the wife and kids do make a legitimate contribution to the business
However the changes to the tax laws will prevent a small business attributing any of the business earnings to his wife or kids, so he will be taxed at the top rate,
His wife and kids will not be able to claim any of that income at a lower rate, despite their partial ownership and legitimate contribution to the business and expenses as employees
That is messed up
So does the business owner stop paying dividends to wify and kids?

JohnLarue · Sep 16, 2017

fuji said:
Sputter. Not content.
The FX system has not worked, the oil price fluctuations have discouraged investment in other industries.

Bullshit
If you mean our manufacturing sector. That is a sunset industry where the cost of labor has been the driving force of lost business re china
You are the only one who has this view, Currency is not a significant policy issue for any of the parties
Again Fuji and his army of one

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Yes they are.
Again if you had the first clue about economics you know how important small business is to our economy
Day in day out you prove you are a know nothing

So closing the loop holes they use to avoid paying the tax others with the same income would pay does nothing to cut employment.

you are total wrong.
Learn something about small business :
http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/july_august_2013/small_business_powering_economy.html
Small Business: Powering the Canadian Economy

They are risk takers, they are inventors, they are community builders - but perhaps the most important title a small business owner holds is "job creator."

http://blog.corporationcentre.ca/2011/09/why-small-businesses-are-important-for.html
Why Small Businesses are Important for the Canadian Economy

Are you considering starting up or working for a small business? If so, you will be making a strong positive contribution to the Canadian economy. In recent years, small businesses across the country have played a crucial role in stabilizing the often volatile economy in Canada, and there are a variety of reasons why.
Small businesses are job creators.

http://www.mdbinsight.com/blog/the-importance-of-small-business-to-our-economy
The Importance of Small Business to Our Economy

I recently came across two resources that quantify the importance of small business to the economy. Statistics Canada’s report titled The Contribution of Small and Medium-Sized Businesses to Gross Domestic Product and TD Economics Special Report titled Small Businesses will Reclaim the Driver’s Seat Behind the Economic Engine.

It is mind boggling how you can be so arrogant and stupid at the same time

These no ambition companies likely employ only immediate family.

Another totally incorrect statement from Fuji the Fool. See above. They employ lots of people besides family

You say you are paid in the top 1%
Top 1% earners know this stuff cold,
You getting paid in the top 1% , ....more Fuji bovine scatology

If they are time to grow they have a business plan that looks beyond the small busines credit and likely won't declare much income in those years anyway, owing to any extra funds being put back into the business.

???
Nonsense

Sputter. Not content.

That's what you do

And the ones that make a DIFFERENCE to employment based on profit expectations are the ones trying to grow.

Apparently not

Audits don't help since the loopholes exist in the tax come it isn't illegal to use the loopholes. The loopholes need to be closed.

How stupid are you?
If a business owner claims his wife and kids are making a legitimate contribution and he used their salary as a legitimate business expense, but they did no work, he has filed a false tax return, under current law
If he pays them a dividend because they are a legitimate owner of the business then that is OK

Sputter. Not content.

Enough content to prove you do not know what you speak of
Again

Do you not get tired of me proving you wrong over and over again?
Do you not get tired of wearing the dunce cap?

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap

Frankfooter · Sep 17, 2017

JohnLarue said:
A few might, a few more will decide the risks are to high for the reduced reward and fold up shop, most will just fire a couple of employees to make up for the reduced cash flow. (nice work Justin, is this how you propose to grow an economy?)

If that happens, the wife and kids may actually have to do some work, instead of just be tax dodges.
Anything wrong with that, on your end?

You argument rests on your claim that small businesses can't operate profitably unless they can funnel profit through nepotism to avoid taxes and your claim that new changes will make it impossible to legitimately hire family members to work for a company.

You have provided no evidence to back either claim.

JohnLarue · Sep 17, 2017

Frankfooter said:
If that happens, the wife and kids may actually have to do some work, instead of just be tax dodges.
Anything wrong with that, on your end?

You are assuming the vast majority of small business are dodging taxes via income sprinkling
Now I know it is difficult for you to imagine anyone who makes more than $150 K is not a thief, however just suppose the majority of small business owners actually do get their wife's and kids to make a significant contribution to the business and therefore sprinkling the income among them is appropriate ?

after the changes they will no longer be able to distribute income amongst family members and it will all be taxed at the highest rate + 57.7%
a significant increase in the tax burden on the business
So they have to wack a couple of employees to maintain the cash flow . Despite doing well Rich folk also have mortgages (bigger ones) and have made long term commitments for their cash flow, so they will not just say oh well we have to pay $50 to $150 K more in taxes this year and not do anything about it

In addition at a marginal tax rate of 57.7%, more than half of the companies profit goes to the governments
That is a recipe for disaster as the governments are not assuming any of the risk associated with the business
"I take all the risk , yet the government takes more than half the profit ??? Why am I taking any risks at all?
Essentially they are working for Justin , who has never had to worry about business risk in his very privileged life

You argument rests on your claim that small businesses can't operate profitably unless they can funnel profit through nepotism to avoid taxes and your claim that new changes will make it impossible to legitimately hire family members to work for a company.

No it rests on the claim that the majority of family members in small business actually work and work very hard
You want to paint all small business owners with the same brush and that is
a) not fair (as long as you are claiming you are basing all decisions on what you think is fair)
b) a piss poor way to formulate and implement policy
c) an economic mistake which could be very detrimental to the Canadian economy and a lot of employees (not high end earners )

Ready, shoot, aim policy making
Doomed for failure

You have provided no evidence to back either claim.

I have worked for several small business and I know a number of people running their own small business
In all cases I observed the family members worked their asses off
And each of them would lay off employees if their cash flow were to be impacted

the rest is common sense

BTW what cocoon did you say that you worked in
Federal, Provincial or Municipal?

It is obvious you have zero experience with small business, yet you feel you know enough to cast them as cheats , crooks and villains,
you also appear to think you understand small business well enough to determine what they should be paying in tax without any regard about the potential job loss

No you formed your opinion long before the details about these changes came out
"If they make more than me , tax them to the max, no questions asked"

fuji · Sep 17, 2017

JohnLarue said:
Bullshit
If you mean our manufacturing sector. That is a sunset industry where the cost of labor has been the driving force of lost business re china

Untrue. Automation is the driving force in manufacturing.

You are the only one who has this view, Currency is not a significant policy issue for any of the parties

Nope. I provided you a link to an article by a Nobel prize winning economist who discussed the pernicious impact of oil price fluctuations on currency, the negative impact that has on other industries, and there need to do something about it.

You have provided sputter.

Again if you had the first clue about economics you know how important small business is to our economy

I have demonstrated that I understand economics. You have claimed you do but so far you have been unable to demonstrate it.

You simply lose this point: businesses that don't expand f don't drive employment. It's the businesses that grow that drive growth.

We all know people in these fake small businesses. They could and should be employees doing the same work but they operate as single person or single family small businesses so they can write off a crazy amount of stuff. Then they pack their small business with stocks so they can avoid taxes on that too. Then they buy their primary home through it so later they can avoid land transfer tax.

Those aren't real small businesses. Those are just people gaming the tax code and that's what needs to stop.

Day in day out you prove you are a know nothing

you are total wrong.

More sputter.

Learn something about small business :
http://www.canadaone.com/ezine/july_august_2013/small_business_powering_economy.html

Nothing in that link about the impact of tax on small business and certainly nothing there about the percentage of small businesses that exist just to abuse tax loopholes.

At least you tried to come up with a link, that's progress, but next time actually read your link and try and make it relevant to the conversation.

http://blog.corporationcentre.ca/2011/09/why-small-businesses-are-important-for.html
Why Small Businesses are Important for the Canadian Economy

Sure they're important, but that's not what we are debating. We are discussing the way many people use the small business tax credit as a loophole.

And again, one differentiation between those fake small businesses and real ones will be growth plans. Real growth drivers grow.

http://www.mdbinsight.com/blog/the-importance-of-small-business-to-our-economy
The Importance of Small Business to Our Economy

I'm now wondering whether you even read any of these links. I think you just googled "importance of small business".

Did you have a reason to post this link?

Where does it discuss the abuse of the tax code by people operating small business?

It is mind boggling how you can be so arrogant and stupid at the same time

Another totally incorrect statement from Fuji the Fool. See above. They employ lots of people besides family

More sputter.

You say you are paid in the top 1%
Top 1% earners know this stuff cold,
You getting paid in the top 1% , ....more Fuji bovine scatology

I have shown that I know more than you. You have claimed things but not shown that you know them. When you are able to hold you own in a debate then you may make comments like this. Until then...

???
Nonsense

That's what you do

Apparently not

How stupid are you?

Utter sputter.

If a business owner claims his wife and kids are making a legitimate contribution and he used their salary as a legitimate business expense, but they did no work, he has filed a false tax return, under current law

If he pays them a dividend because they are a legitimate owner of the business then that is OK

Yes and the proposal is to close that loophole.

Enough content to prove you do not know what you speak of
Again

Do you not get tired of me proving you wrong over and over again?
Do you not get tired of wearing the dunce cap?

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap

Sputter. Not content.

Why don't you go through your long winded, rambling posts and remove the mindless sputter yourself before posting, it'll lead to a higher quality conversation and your reputation may be salvaged.

Frankfooter · Sep 17, 2017

JohnLarue said:
You are assuming the vast majority of small business are dodging taxes via income sprinkling

Its not even worth reading the rest of your post if you're going to start with a straw man argument, as I never claimed that the 'vast majority' are dodging taxes.
Are your points so weak that you need to be this dishonest?

JohnLarue · Sep 17, 2017

Frankfooter said:
Its not even worth reading the rest of your post if you're going to start with a straw man argument, as I never claimed that the 'vast majority' are dodging taxes.
Are your points so weak that you need to be this dishonest?

Convenient excuse when you have been show how wrong you are

If the majority are not dodging taxes then the simple solution is to conduct more audits
Instead you & Justin want to close off a legitimate tax planning tool which may impact a great deal of hard working, tax law abiding small business owners who also happen to employ a lot of people.
All so he can say "its fair"
Fair to who ?
The ones whos job may be lost?
Those who abide by the tax laws and have to watch Justin tax them @ 577% ?

It is a lot more complicated than "Its not fair"

BTW what cocoon did you say that you worked in
Federal, Provincial or Municipal?

Frankfooter · Sep 17, 2017

JohnLarue said:
Convenient excuse when you have been show how wrong you are

If the majority are not dodging taxes then the simple solution is to conduct more audits
Instead you & Justin want to close off a legitimate tax planning tool

When your 'proof' is based off straw man claims then its worth nothing.

So you think paying your kids for not working, just to avoid paying taxes, is a 'legitimate tax planning tool'?
Sounds like fraud to me.

Claiming they worked when they didn't is telling the CRA lies to avoid paying taxes.
And if the majority aren't using fraud as a basis for lowering their taxes, then its only fair that nobody should be able to use it.

JohnLarue · Sep 17, 2017

fuji said:
I have demonstrated that I understand economics. You have claimed you do but so far you have been unable to demonstrate it.

You demonstrated you do not even understand the importance of small business in our economy
I learned this fact in first year economics
You incorrectly stated they are insignificant

fuji said:
Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Meanwhile all one needs to do is google "importance of small business to the Canadian Economy" and count the number of articles

So you have proven once again that you are an economic ignoramus
And you think you know enough to develop national policy?
How about you stick to addressing the local pooper scooper laws. That's is more in line with your expertise

You simply lose this point: businesses that don't expand f don't drive employment. It's the businesses that grow that drive growth.

Lost of small business which are growing, some very quickly, some at a more moderate pace, some much more slowly
Bottom line is the links I provided prove small business are a very important part of Canadian Job creation
(only in Fuji Fantasy land do I lose that point are you going to hold another victory parade of one?)

Since your an economic ignoramus I will clarify the real point
in addition to small business being a very important driver of job creation, it is critical that any tax changes which may impact this group must be carefully considered, particularly the impact on job creation (only downside there)

We all know people in these fake small businesses. They could and should be employees doing the same work but they operate as single person or single family small businesses so they can write off a crazy amount of stuff. Then they pack their small business with stocks so they can avoid taxes on that too. Then they buy their primary home through it so later they can avoid land transfer tax.

Those aren't real small businesses. Those are just people gaming the tax code and that's what needs to stop.

Audits would be required to prove such misdeed, no need to screw over the vast majority of law abiding small business owners when audits are already available

Nothing in that link about the impact of tax on small business and certainly nothing there about the percentage of small businesses that exist just to abuse tax loopholes.

Well you stated

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Which was absolutely 100% incorrect and they are drivers of employment
How can I possible let you form an opinion / judgement when you do not understand the basic economic importance of this group and their very important impact on job creation
I had to help you learn so that you can make an objective informed decision

At least you tried to come up with a link, that's progress, but next time actually read your link and try and make it relevant to the conversation.

Hold on you explicitly stated

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

So I prove they in fact are drivers of employment . which was the point we were discussing
Then you retort it was not relevant to the conversation ?
How much more relevant can it be than disproving your statement which as you say "as the point we were discussing"???

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance

The only issue that matters is how many jobs will this tax change kill, so you misunderstanding of the important of this group on job creation was extremely relevant
If you are too stupid to put 2 & 2 together , whos fault is that ?

Sure they're important, but that's not what we are debating. We are discussing the way many people use the small business tax credit as a loophole.

Too bad you were just so emphatic

Then they are not drivers of employment, which was the point we were discussing.

Once proven to be ignorant of this issue you switch to

We are discussing the way many people use the small business tax credit as a loophole

Too bad you do not get to define the parameters of the debate when it turns to shit for you

You lie with such ease.
Does that not bother you ?
Oh yes you have no integrity

I do not know about you but I am only concerned with how many jobs this change could kill

And again, one differentiation between those fake small businesses and real ones will be growth plans. Real growth drivers grow.

You have already displayed your ignorance wrt small business
There are 1.17 million in Canada, some will grow quickly, some not so fast
Growth is not the driver wrt how many jobs this tax change will cost
It is more a matter of how many small business will be adversely impacted and how much will be the incremental tax burden on each

I'm now wondering whether you even read any of these links. I think you just googled "importance of small business".
Did you have a reason to post this link?
Where does it discuss the abuse of the tax code by people operating small business?

It does prove you wrong about small business being drivers of employment ,

which was the point we were discussing

as you clearly stated

I have shown that I know more than you.

You are a know nothing
you did not know basic economics
You think you can control the FX market (with a throttle no less). What a joke
You wanted to tax the oil industry at a level exceeding their accounting profit. Moron
You wanted the government to sponsor the production of unwanted bastard children by welfare mommas. Another example of your stupidity
You openly admit plotting to screw your best friends wife - so thrustworthy
You want to impose the burden of carbon pricing on consumers while giving Chain a pass to increase its emissions
And you have never ever admit you are wrong , not once in 80,000 + posts. So much for integrity.

Fuji the fool

You have claimed things but not shown that you know them. When you are able to hold you own in a debate then you may make comments like this. Until then...

You have been schooled once again, but will not admit it because you lack integrity

Yes and the proposal is to close that loophole.

At what cost to the economy?

Why don't you go through your long winded, rambling posts and remove the mindless sputter yourself before posting, it'll lead to a higher quality conversation and your reputation may be salvaged.

Fuji
You can not keep up to me on an intellectual level
You just resort to ignoring the truth, trying to change the focus or redefining the topic. It is not working
Do you not think anyone notices, how you have never once admitted you are wrong in 80,000 posts
You are a professional bullshit artist and a dummy

JohnLarue · Sep 17, 2017

Frankfooter said:
When your 'proof' is based off straw man claims then its worth nothing.

So you think paying your kids for not working, just to avoid paying taxes, is a 'legitimate tax planning tool'?

jesus,

I explained this already
Are you not paying attention?

For those that are "paying their kids for not working to avoid paying taxes" this is not a legitimate tax planning tool and they will have filed a false tax return which is a serious crime.
They should be audited and if warranted prosecuted
The audit can occur now without need to attack the law abiding small business owner's

For those vast majority who pay their kids for work their kids do it is a legitimate tax planning tool , however these tax changes will make this illegal and apply an incremental tax burden, which may have an impact on job creation

Sounds like fraud to me.

It sounds like you are not paying attention

Claiming they worked when they didn't is telling the CRA lies to avoid paying taxes.

That is a crime
However you are painting all small business owners as "Criminals"
That is not fair

And if the majority aren't using fraud as a basis for lowering their taxes, then its only fair that nobody should be able to use it.

That's messed up logic
"Its only fair" ???
That is the logic a 10 year applies.

There are ongoing fraud amongst both welfare and unemployment recipients
The majority of recipients aren't using fraud as a basis for receiving benefits, then by your messed up logic its only fair that nobody should be receive benefits

No, I am pretty sure you just want to stick it to the rich, you view taxes as your opportunity and "Fairness" has absolutely nothing to with it for you

I will try to explain it to You 1 more time , however I sense you at not paying attention
If wify and kids are making a legitimate contribution to the business through their time and effort they should be able to realize some of the income of the business
if wiffy and kids own part of the business they should be able to realize some of the income of the business

You want to take that away because "Its not fair"
What is not fair is you making a judgment about issues which impact others when you clearly do not fully understand the issues

BTW what cocoon did you say that you worked in
Federal, Provincial or Municipal?

Why are you reluctant to answer this question ?
if it about privacy, I will respect that, however, I do not sense this is the case

bver_hunter · Sep 17, 2017

JohnLarue said:
You messed up the quotes, in addition to your poor communications skills, messed up quotes make it more difficult to educate you
Please be more careful

Let me clairify for you
Self employed are not included in the 1.14 Million Employer Small Business

Employer means that your business employs other people
Self employed means you work for yourself generally by yourself
besides if there are 2.2 Million Self employed how can they be a subset of 1.14 Million Employer Small Business?

Again that is a value judgment and does not view the issue objectively
How can you weigh the costs of the job losses when all you are focused on is what feels right, not what is best for the Canadian economy

Any tax credits or legal deductions they can use to reduce their tax burden is fine by me
both self employed and Employer small business will make much better use of the money than will Justin.
the small business owner puts people to work nd the spin off effect is far better than from the government

That is for an audit to determine
What about the ones where the wife and kids do work and work hard for the business. The changes will impact that legitimate arrangement
But you must have your blood lust

I call it a family business. I worked for one many years ago. The family members ( wife, son, daughter, ) worked harder than most of the employees but nobody worked as hard as the old man
He was going to succeed no matter what came at him. Employed about 20 people too

So you want to shut down all the hard working family business because you incorrectly pre-judged them.
Damn Fool

Any business where husband and wife work together has some extra marital risk issues , and it can be difficult for other employees when ther is a disagreement, however a lot of couples have made it work

You are not
Your prejudging all small business owners because taxing he rich is your objective. Lost jobs just do not enter into the equation for you

so you understand then that there are 1/3 * 1.14 Million = approx. 350,000 small business all of whom employ others and all of whom will be impacted by these potential changes to the tax code
that is a lot of jobs at risk

Again please let us know what number of job loss is acceptable to you in exchange your god given right to tax the rich
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
Any amount of job loss is acceptable as long as they pay more

Yeah, I do not think so
You would have a much better insight into how they operate than you have displayed here

Really ?
None of them employ their wife's or kids?
Come on lets be truthful
If none of them do then you do not know many at all

Oh you mean legally abiding by the rules as currently in the tax code?
Or those currently playing by the rules as per the proposed changes ?

They are all currently playing by the current rules
If not they should be audited

And laying on an additional 10K-100K of tax burden will not make there business more difficult ?
You really need to think about these issues and drill deeper into them as your arguments are not at all compelling and a man of your education should be viewing issues at a far more advanced level

??
That is not at all relevant,
?????

Given they have not broken any laws lets give them the benefit of doubt and assume they will pay overtime if needed.
again # 1 rule make sure the client is pleased, # 2 rule do not walk away from a sale

Jesus it is like trying to teach a chimp

Please pay attention
Wayne Easter is a sitting MP and the Liberal party Finance Chairman
i.e he is a well respected voice and a powerful man within the Liberal party
When he complains about how his government has rolled out this mess, you know that is a big deal
Do you get it now ?????

Yara, yara, yara. Same old nonsense over and over again.
Wayne Easter has his views and that is called democracy, just like the backlash from his own party, when The late Jim Flaherty imposed taxes on income trusts in 2006.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/flaherty-imposes-new-tax-on-income-trusts-1.573751

That is not what Steve promised when he got elected and without warning subsequently introduced this legislation. George Kesteven the President of CAIF mentioned that the proposed tax would risk the financial security of millions of Americans. Likewise, George Kesteven is an honorable person in the industry with his knowledge and experience. Even the TSX fell 300 points when it was introduced. So was that just scaremongering or did it benefit the Canadians?

https://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story_open.asp?storyname=25356

So do not go on with this nonsense that Justin this and Justin that. Mr Trudeau promised more fairness as far as taxes for all are concerned, and it is not far different from what the previous Steve Government implied was fair with their taxes.

No jobs will be lost as I clearly mentioned with the number of businesses starting up every year. Any jobs lost will be due to the fault of businesses as their strategy was not clearly planned and implemented. Small businesses are more vulnerable to competition then large businesses who have monopolies of their brands.

Stop the insults as well, as only pompous and arrogant grumpy old morons do so.

Frankfooter · Sep 17, 2017

JohnLarue said:
For those that are "paying their kids for not working to avoid paying taxes" this is not a legitimate tax planning tool and they will have filed a false tax return which is a serious crime.
They should be audited and if warranted prosecuted
The audit can occur now without need to attack the law abiding small business owner's

For those vast majority who pay their kids for work their kids do it is a legitimate tax planning tool , however these tax changes will make this illegal and apply an incremental tax burden, which may have an impact on job creation

This change will not make legitimate work illegal, your claims are nonsense.
For those claiming to pay kids and wives for not working, as a tax dodge, this will just cement tools for the CRA to audit for fraud.

So by your own arguments, this change won't effect legitimate businesses in any way, just those abusing the system by filing fake income through nepotism.

Which means you shouldn't care about this change.

Now that we've covered this one of three changes, its time to look at incorporation.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...letter-in-support-of-federal-tax-reforms.html

JohnLarue · Sep 18, 2017

bver_hunter said:
Yara, yara, yara. Same old nonsense over and over again.
Wayne Easter has his views and that is called democracy, just like the backlash from his own party, when The late Jim Flaherty imposed taxes on income trusts in 2006.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/flaherty-imposes-new-tax-on-income-trusts-1.573751

does one ensure the other will be resolved easily?
Nope
Your story is not really overly relevant

That is not what Steve promised when he got elected and without warning subsequently introduced this legislation.

In response to some very serious corporate tax leakage and two large companies, BCE and Encana were going to convert to trusts, a trend which was only going to accelerate . Risk of $ billions in tax dollar leakage.
he had to act
How much does Justin except to gain from these changes ?

George Kesteven the President of CAIF mentioned that the proposed tax would risk the financial security of millions of Americans

.
Again your message is unclear, which proposed tax. Small business tax changes or the income trust tax change years ago?
Proposed means it is not yet implemented so therefore it must be the future proposed change

Likewise, George Kesteven is an honorable person in the industry with his knowledge and experience. Even the TSX fell 300 points when it was introduced.

If it fell , then it is past tense.So it was the historical tax change then
So far I have you implying both

So was that just scaremongering or did it benefit the Canadians?

Was ?
So now you are implying historical
Lets see you have two historical implications and a one future implication
I could hazard a guess ,based just the 2 to 1 ratio but then I have spent enough time re-reading whatever your comment / point was

https://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/story_open.asp?storyname=25356

So do not go on with this nonsense that Justin this and Justin that. Mr Trudeau promised more fairness as far as taxes for all are concerned, and it is not far different from what the previous Steve Government implied was fair with their taxes

.

Two very different scenarios, however
You are trying to justify the proposed change by saying what your mortal enemy former PM Harper did was the right thing?
Gee that would mean you would have something positive to say about PM Harper
Somehow I just can not see you with a positive thing say about former PM Harper, so again your message is unclear
If not ......What else did you admire about him?

No jobs will be lost as I clearly mentioned with the number of businesses starting up every year.

So are you saying less than the 10,000 per month we created in July or less than 350,000 created over the past twelve months
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...35880487/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

That could still be a big number of jobs/ voters

Naturally if the gains are offset by losses in the Small Business Sector it will make for a lot of political hay

What's your source for that bold prediction / estimate you could drive a truck through?

Any jobs lost will be due to the fault of businesses as their strategy was not clearly planned and implemented.

Say something in adult next time please , what a ridiculous thing to say

Small businesses are more vulnerable to competition then large businesses who have monopolies of their brands.

???
All the more reason not to lump an additional tax burden on them

You do realize it is the Canadian Governments duty and responsibility to help Canadian business succeed right ?

JohnLarue · Sep 18, 2017

Frankfooter said:
This change will not make legitimate work illegal, your claims are nonsense.

So you got wify and two kids working in your business. They work hard and own shares. The Kids may run it some day
You make 200 K profit, and sprinkle the income over your hard working family so each member gets 50 K in income
Your family in total pays approx. 30-35 K in taxes = 4 X (1-T)* 50 K each

Next year you make the same $200 K profit , but is it now illegal to sprinkle income on your family
You pay tax on the entire $200 K at the top rate = $70-75 K

$50 K extra out of his families pocket
So what exactly did he do wrong? Nothing illegal, his family works / owns the business

This is the issue

so do you not pay one of your kids (he wants his $50K, remember he worked his ass off) or look elsewhere to save $50 K
About the same time the second tranche of Granny Wynn's minimum wage increases will be coming into effect

The most recent hire is a decent guy, but you have to take care of your family
What are you to do ?

For those claiming to pay kids and wives for not working, as a tax dodge, this will just cement tools for the CRA to audit for fraud.

More tools for the CRA to conduct an Audit they can conduct already?
If that is meant to justify the proposed tax changes. it isn't working

So by your own arguments, this change won't effect legitimate businesses in any way, just those abusing the system by filing fake income through nepotism.

For the tenth time that is illegal and those people should be prosecuted.
You do not need any changes to tax laws to go after anyone who files a false claim.
I am sure every year people have been prosecuted for this

Which means you shouldn't care about this change.

Well too bad you still have not thought this trough
Even though as a legitimate, hard working, law abiding small business owner you are down $50K or down a employee (you decided to pay your son, otherwise you will never hear the end of it from wify)
Get it now ?

Now that we've covered this one of three changes, its time to look at incorporation.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...letter-in-support-of-federal-tax-reforms.html

Ah No.
I suggest you digest the implications of the first change on your small business family first
No sense moving on until you understand what you are moving from. And clearly you did not

bver_hunter · Sep 18, 2017

JohnLarue said:
does one ensure the other will be resolved easily?
Nope
Your story is not really overly relevant

In response to some very serious corporate tax leakage and two large companies, BCE and Encana were going to convert to trusts, a trend which was only going to accelerate . Risk of $ billions in tax dollar leakage.
he had to act
How much does Justin except to gain from these changes ?

.u
Again your message is unclear, which proposed tax. Small business tax changes or the income trust tax change years ago?
Proposed means it is not yet implemented so therefore it must be the future proposed change

If it fell , then it is past tense.So it was the historical tax change then
So far I have you implying both

Was ?
So now you are implying historical
Lets see you have two historical implications and a one future implication
I could hazard a guess ,based just the 2 to 1 ratio but then I have spent enough time re-reading whatever your comment / point was

.

Two very different scenarios, however
You are trying to justify the proposed change by saying what your mortal enemy former PM Harper did was the right thing?
Gee that would mean you would have something positive to say about PM Harper
Somehow I just can not see you with a positive thing say about former PM Harper, so again your message is unclear
If not ......What else did you admire about him?

So are you saying less than the 10,000 per month we created in July or less than 350,000 created over the past twelve months
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...35880487/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

That could still be a big number of jobs/ voters

Naturally if the gains are offset by losses in the Small Business Sector it will make for a lot of political hay

What's your source for that bold prediction / estimate you could drive a truck through?

Say something in adult next time please , what a ridiculous thing to say

???
All the more reason not to lump an additional tax burden on them

You do realize it is the Canadian Governments duty and responsibility to help Canadian business succeed right ?

Obviously, you have not read the whole CBC link to see the comparative analysis of the Steve Income Trusts versus the fair tax to be implemented. You believe that the businesses should be sheltered from paying their fair share so that they can enjoy a higher standard of living than the average Middle Class Canadian who has to pick up the tab.

So you are saying that you support what Steve implemented although that is not what he campaigned to do. As I mentioned even members of his own party were concerned about implementing the income trust tax at that time.

In a similar manner there are billions of dollars of tax that can be recovered by closing the loopholes on businesses that take full advantage of it.

At the time of the proposed implementation of the Income Trust tax George Kesteven mentioned just like how you are screaming about the costs of millions of dollars to the many Canadians. Do not know what you do not understand, as George Kesteven has not said anything about Mr. Trudeau's proposed tax. The link was very clear. Anyway, it was implemented by Steven and you tell me if there were any jobs lost? Do not know what you are ranting about the tenses and the 2:1 ratio. I cannot read between these lines.

I did not criticise Steven for implementing or not but will take your word that it was a "good tax". Yes, that seems to have brought some degree of fairness to that scenario. If you deem that I have said something positive about Steven, then I have not heard you say anything positive about Mr Trudeau and I do not have to guess that he is your mortal enemy.

Read this link about the number of businesses started per year in Canada. Around 115,000 on a good year and 90,000 during the recession. Not sure what else you are asking and how relevant it is to your anti Trudeau predicted losses of jobs due to the implementation of this legislation. Scaremongering by you, even though you do not know the exact content of this legislation. The majority of Canadians support it, and I do not blame them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/10-surprising-stats-about-small-business-in-canada-1.1083238

By the way I could not open your globe and mail link, as I do not subscribe to their online mail.

Say something IN ADULT? What kind of grammar is this supposed to be. I am not surprised that you did not understand plain English. What a ridiculous statement on your part.

Again it is not "lumping" a tax burden. It is asking them to pay their fair share. You seem to think that someone who earns $150,000 as his income from his business and an employee with an income of $50,000 paying the same taxes seem to be okay with you although the guy owning the business may not be investing a cent from this income, into his business. Again if he pulls the plug on an employee's job, the 100,000 or so new businesses will benefit as they will want to pick up on the slack. It is called competition. Yes, it is the duty of the Canadian Government to help businesses. They do so in tax credits for the actual business expenses, research and innovation and not in just keeping the unfair loopholes wide open to be unfairly exploited by the minority of businesses.

Frankfooter · Sep 18, 2017

JohnLarue said:
So you got wify and two kids working in your business. They work hard and own shares. The Kids may run it some day
You make 200 K profit, and sprinkle the income over your hard working family so each member gets 50 K in income
Your family in total pays approx. 30-35 K in taxes = 4 X (1-T)* 50 K each

Next year you make the same $200 K profit , but is it now illegal to sprinkle income on your family
You pay tax on the entire $200 K at the top rate = $70-75 K

$50 K extra out of his families pocket
So what exactly did he do wrong? Nothing illegal, his family works / owns the business

This is the issue

According to what I've read of the changes this will still be fine and you'd still be taxed at the same rate.
The only difference goes to where wify and the kids aren't working at all and its just a tax dodge.

Your business owner won't be down anything if the work is legit.
Get it now?

JohnLarue · Sep 18, 2017

bver_hunter said:
Obviously, you have not read the whole CBC link to see the comparative analysis of the Steve Income Trusts versus the fair tax to be implemented. You believe that the businesses should be sheltered from paying their fair share so that they can enjoy a higher standard of living than the average Middle Class Canadian who has to pick up the tab.

Click to expand...

Business do not enjoy a standard of living
They exist to create wealth for their owners, provide goods / services for their clients and assuming they are profitable they also employ people

nobody ever started a business with the objective of redistributing wealth between classes
You sure have a very strange way of viewing issues comrade

So you are saying that you support what Steve implemented although that is not what he campaigned to do.

Click to expand...

Your point is not relaavant
However he did not campaign on taxing income trusts as that was not a serious issue until after the election
I doubt the question was ever asked during the campaign
When faced with a new and unexpected problem he acted and acted appropriately
The same could be said about his reaction to the 2008 financial crisis . He did not campaign on deficit spending, however When faced with a new and unexpected problem he acted and acted appropriately

As I mentioned even members of his own party were concerned about implementing the income trust tax at that time.

Click to expand...

So
That does not mitigate the different risks related to the current proposed tax changes

In a similar manner there are billions of dollars of tax that can be recovered by closing the loopholes on businesses that take full advantage of it.

Click to expand...

Loopholes = legitimate business expenses and credits which are designed to encourage economic growth and investment
Some may be dated and could be updated, however not with the preconceived objective of "Tax the rick" or "Close every loophole"
Instead they should be reviewed with the objective of determining if they still encourage economic growth and investment

You want tax policy which is driven by a social agenda, not an economic one
Sadly you will likely never understand that the economic agenda must be given primary consideration over a social agenda

At the time of the proposed implementation of the Income Trust tax George Kesteven mentioned just like how you are screaming about the costs of millions of dollars to the many Canadians. Do not know what you do not understand, as George Kesteven has not said anything about Mr. Trudeau's proposed tax. The link was very clear. Anyway, it was implemented by Steven and you tell me if there were any jobs lost?

Click to expand...

None to speck of
This was not about incremental tax burden, It was about maintaining existing tax revenue
Do you not understand the difference?

Do not know what you are ranting about the tenses and the 2:1 ratio. I cannot read between these lines.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify for you
Your writing style is very difficult to understand as you wander from past to present to future tense.
I reread you post three times and I could never be sure which tax change you were referring to in many different sentences
a) the tax on income trusts or
b) the proposed tax changes on small business

Since it was not clear I did not wish to spend any additional time trying to decipher your message
I suggest you consider take a business writing coarse
seriously, you really could use some help to improve your written communications

I did not criticise Steven for implementing or not but will take your word that it was a "good tax". Yes, that seems to have brought some degree of fairness to that scenario.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "Fairness:
Revenue Canada had a serious tax leakage problem which would led to deficits
it had to be addressed

If you deem that I have said something positive about Steven, then I have not heard you say anything positive about Mr Trudeau and I do not have to guess that he is your mortal enemy.

Click to expand...

As I have said on many occasions
Justin is highly principled and very energetic
The camera also loves him

Read this link about the number of businesses started per year in Canada. Around 115,000 on a good year and 90,000 during the recession. Not sure what else you are asking and how relevant it is to your anti Trudeau predicted losses of jobs due to the implementation of this legislation. Scaremongering by you, even though you do not know the exact content of this legislation. The majority of Canadians support it, and I do not blame them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/10-surprising-stats-about-small-business-in-canada-1.1083238

By the way I could not open your globe and mail link, as I do not subscribe to their online mail.

Click to expand...

You indicated any job losses related to this tax change would be offset by job growth
So I was simply trying to determine what you think is an expectable number of job losses in order to bring your definition of "Fair ness" to Small Business taxation
So you are OK with less than 115,000 jobs lost in a good year and less than 90,00 jobs lost in a bad year as a result of the proposed tax changes
Is that correct?

Say something IN ADULT? What kind of grammar is this supposed to be. I am not surprised that you did not understand plain English. What a ridiculous statement on your part.

Click to expand...

Your statement

Any jobs lost will be due to the fault of businesses as their strategy was not clearly planned and implemented

Click to expand...

was absolutely ridiculous, something a child would say
I was hoping you could elevate you game to an adult level

Again it is not "lumping" a tax burden. It is asking them to pay their fair share.

Click to expand...

It is incremental, so yes it is lumping a new and significant tax burden on them

You seem to think that someone who earns $150,000 as his income from his business and an employee with an income of $50,000 paying the same taxes seem to be okay with you although the guy owning the business may not be investing a cent from this income, into his business.

Click to expand...

Please review your writing
This is a convoluted run on sentence
I get your general displeasure, however I can not address specifics if you are unclear

Again if he pulls the plug on an employee's job, the 100,000 or so new businesses will benefit as they will want to pick up on the slack. It is called competition.

Click to expand...

You assume a lost employee automatically means lost business
That is not correct and I have already addressed this
Please pay attention

Yes, it is the duty of the Canadian Government to help businesses. They do so in tax credits for the actual business expenses, research and innovation and not in just keeping the unfair loopholes wide open to be unfairly exploited by the minority of businesses.

Click to expand...

You were Ok right up to the point where you mentioned loophole
Closing legitimate tax planning tools does not help Canadian business
Again "Fairness " must be weighed against the economic cost

JohnLarue · Sep 18, 2017

Frankfooter said:
According to what I've read of the changes this will still be fine and you'd still be taxed at the same rate.
The only difference goes to where wify and the kids aren't working at all and its just a tax dodge.

Your business owner won't be down anything if the work is legit.
Get it now?

So you are saying Income Sprinkling will still be legal after the propose tax changes?
Then what is changing?

Currently if wify and the kids are not working and do not own shares then it is illegal to file a return indicating they are working or entitled to dividends
No need to change anything to prosecute this illegal act

Then what is changing?

Please provide a link clarifying this as I do not believe you have understood this correctly

http://nationalpost.com/news/politi...prinkling-and-what-does-it-have-to-do-with-me

The government says it’s trying to fix three issues with the tax code. First, it will try to put a stop to “income sprinkling,” where money is transferred from a family member in a high tax bracket to one in a lower bracket, via wages in a corporation. Tax officials will have the difficult task of distinguishing between actual income based on a family member’s contribution to the business and money that is paid to avoid taxes.

It will put a stop to income sprinkling

Get it now?

Canadian Economy - Buoyant

dangling member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Banned

dangling member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

dangling member

Well-known member

Well-known member