Canadian Economy - Buoyant

[JohnLarue]

150K is dick all for what small business owners put into their business, the risk, the hours of work, lack of government benefits,... what they add to employment stats,... plus they could loose everything over night.

The only ones who think that small business owners toping out at 150k shouldn't be give tax breaks,... are those who don't have the guts and drive to even attempt a startup,.... let alone survive one year in business.

Exactly
They really do not have the first clues what is required to make $150 K in the real world

What is even more important is small business are the heart of job creation.
Everyone knows somebody who works for a small business owner. These changes will put that persons job at risk
If anything The government should be doing more to support small business owner , not attacking them, labeling them as tax cheats and grabbing more of their hard earned money
This Liberal policy is a disaster in the making

 

[bver_hunter]

It is legal and has worked well in Canada for 40 years


It sure as hell will
Prove it will not


that is a nonsense example
he would have to declare less than (approx) $50K in income to owe $10K in taxes
How you go from 300,000 to 50,000 is bullshit
this not happening at 1/3 of the small business in Canada

However in the extreme of your example if a business owner sees his tax bill going from $10K (as you say) to 57% of $300K = $171K , then he will lay people off and more than just one that is for sure
You do not think these issues through
You live in a black and white world were things are either right or they are wrong
The real world is more complicated than that

Given how he takes on all kinds of risks that you can not even fathom and employs more people than you do and given he has likely paid more taxes in a year then you have in a decade, I am all for him reducing his tax burden.
So he can reinvest in his business and hire more people

He will spend the money a whole lot more effectively than Justin will
That is for sure




Your living in wonderland

Lets look at some real numbers
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/h_03018.html#point1-1


So Justin is going to increase the tax burden on 1/3 of 97.9% of all Canadian business or approx. 350,000 business

If just one in three of those business lays off one employee or rejects their plan to hire an additional employee because of this extra burden that is over 110,000 lost jobs
How many extra will be lost because of the increased burden of meeting huge minimum wage increases is incremental Liberal damage

110,000 lost jobs = Justin's concept of "fairness"
There comes a time when one have to weigh one principals against the harse reality of peoples reactions to any (well intended, but misguided) actions
Sadly Justin is not that street smart and instead will stick to his principals and watch in horror as it goes terrible wrong

350,000 small businesses will not obediently absorb a much higher tax burden, without touching headcount
That is a guarantee

It may have worked in the past, because no one cared about the rich getting richer while stuff like owning a home, is getting out of reach with the middle class. Again this is not going to affect the business owners that are already paying their fair share of the taxes. It is the ones who are exploiting the loopholes that are a very small percentage. Obviously, you are okay with it regardless of whether they are investing it in their business or not. Remember that a lot of small businesses are actually getting grants from the government to invest into research and cutting edge technology. This actually pays for the salaries of the employees involved in the small business. If they decide to cut the jobs within their businesses do you think they will do the job themselves? Nope, unless they have a spouse or child who is doing sweet nothing, but earning the salaries and dividends. Then they can get them to earn that living.

Again your scaremongering two years ago, is proving you wrong with where the economy is. The average salary is up, and thanks to their tax cuts to the middle income earners, this is what is driving the economy. So once again you are coming up with even more scaremongering. The vast majority of the middle class and low income earners do support this legislation. Nothing wrong with everyone paying their fair share. Period.

Start responding like a more respectable person. You are really slandering everyone who do not agree with your point of view. First you have a go at Fuji, then me, and now Frankfooter. Try and understand that this board / forum is for all points of views not just the right wing.

 

[Frankfooter]

Since 97% of business are small business ...

Great, now why do you think that businesses can't succeed if business owner's can hire their wife or kid and funnel money through them to avoid paying taxes.

 

[bver_hunter]

Since 97% of business are small business you can bet the farm that there will be less working Canadians to insult if these tax changes go through
Mark my words this will happen

By the way if 97% of businesses are small business then the "loopholes (I prefer the term legitimate tax planning) are essential applicable to 97 % (close to all) business. so no one is getting special treatment
the other 3%, large and medium business get support (Bombardier) which is not available to small business

You should focus on how the government can contain their costs, not on how they can extract more from the Canadian economy

You did not answer my question
what cocoon do you work in?
Provincial, municipal or Federal

The small businesses employ roughly 70% of the workforce, the medium businesses employ roughly 20 % and the large businesses 10%.
Again innovation and R&D get tax credits however small or big. Small businesses can again expense the Government at tax time. You will be surprised at the percentage they recoup from the Government. One business owner even asked for the receipt when we went for a casual dinner. They were going to use it to expense it as a business event. The loopholes knows no bounds, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[fuji]

Says the fool who has not been able to convince one other person his Franken plan is nothing more than a joke
Go away and come back when you have something which is not a ridiculous joke



Not end of discussion as you will never ever, ever get one MP to buy into your joke of a plan, let alone a majority
It is politically and regional divisive. In addition it is illegal under NAFTA. No Canadian politician will take that nightmare on.
I guarantee that
End of discussion




No I understand it
Where the understanding is missing is with you
Ie It is illegal under NAFTA would stop 99.9% of the population, but not Fuji the Fool who thinks he knows better than anyone else
You are a fool

I have provide far more facts that you

All you have provided is your opinion and misrepresented a Noble Peace Prize winner by saying he endorses your Franken Plan
Your opinion here is worthless (less than worthless)



You think we should just believe you because we should have the confidence that you can
1. change NAFTA with no downside,
2. redefine the Bank of Canada to police the oil industry
3. persuade Western Canada to accept an additional burden on their economy for the sake of Ontario's manufactures
4. Apply precision control to this Franken Plan with your throttle
???

Well Frankly Fuji, we do not have any confidence you can even admit when you are wrong (80,000+ posts and never once were you wrong)
So nobody has confidence in you and nobody ever will
That is why nobody here backed your Franken Plan (That and the fact it is ridiculous idea)


Nope
This is about you Fuji
It is your nightmare of a plan and you get to wear it along with the dunce cap

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap



Well enough to recognise your plan as a smoldering turd of an idea

All sputter. No content.

You opinion isn't content. You declaring what you think is true without any reasons isn't content. You running from the reference that destroyed your claims isn't content. You hurling insults isn't content.

You haven't got what it takes to participate in a debate. You're just a windbag

 

[fuji]

Since 97% of business are small business you can bet the farm that there will be less working Canadians to insult if these tax changes go through
Mark my words this will happen

By the way if 97% of businesses are small business then the "loopholes (I prefer the term legitimate tax planning) are essential applicable to 97 % (close to all) business. so no one is getting special treatment
the other 3%, large and medium business get support (Bombardier) which is not available to small business

You should focus on how the government can contain their costs, not on how they can extract more from the Canadian economy

You did not answer my question
what cocoon do you work in?
Provincial, municipal or Federal

Another set of pronouncements, without any facts, reasons, or arguments. You're just spewing your Ayn Rand nonsense none of which you really understand.

Closing tax loopholes that are used by the rich to avoid paying is a good thing.

What true small business sinks money into passive investments? None. Real small businesses should have an expected return on capital greater than the stock market and would be expected to invest any free cash back into their own operations.

Moreover the tax on money extracted from a small business is only very indirectly related to hiring. The growth driving small businesses hope to become large businesses so wouldn't ordinary report profit anyway, they're reinvesting, and the short term tax rate is irrelevant to their long term plan to become big business.

Even for small businesses that have no reasonable prospects for growth it's not going to be an employment driver. These would be basically employment vehicles for their own owners and their families, convenience stores and such. It won't change their employment decisions.

Yes you can come up with cases, but they would be exceptions, as a rule the effect well be quite muted.

On the flip side there is real value in stopping tax cheats who use fake business setups to avoid their fair taxes.

 

[JohnLarue]

It may have worked in the past, because no one cared about the rich getting richer while stuff like owning a home, is getting out of reach with the middle class.

Adding additional tax burden on small business will not help the middle class to purchse a home
If fact many of the potential layoffs which will happen will be the middle class

Again this is not going to affect the business owners that are already paying their fair share of the taxes. It is the ones who are exploiting the loopholes that are a very small percentage.

You said it would impact 1/3 of small business
1/3 of 97.9% of all Canadian business 1.17 mm or approx. 350,000 business

Obviously, you are okay with it regardless of whether they are investing it in their business or not.

If they are employing people yeah I am OK with it

Remember that a lot of small businesses are actually getting grants from the government to invest into research and cutting edge technology. This actually pays for the salaries of the employees involved in the small business.

Who do you think you can convince with that argument?
The grant money is but a tickle and the paper work is so cumbersome many do not bother.

if need be take the grant money away, but DO NOT screw with the taxation on small business

If they decide to cut the jobs within their businesses do you think they will do the job themselves? Nope, unless they have a spouse or child who is doing sweet nothing, but earning the salaries and dividends. Then they can get them to earn that living.

do you not pay attention?
If faced with an incremental tax bill of $50K +++ they will not absorb that alone
they will layoff some staff and re-organise their remaining staff to manage the work load
So may even call it a day and shut down their operation as the reward will no longer compensate them properly for the risks they are taking
Business evaluate scenarios discounting after tax cash flows. The discount rate is determined by the risks associated with the business, project

They will not absorb all of that incremental tax themselves

Again your scaremongering two years ago, is proving you wrong with where the economy is.

As mentioned before economic results lag policy decisions

The average salary is up, and thanks to their tax cuts to the middle income earners, this is what is driving the economy.

Tax cuts??
Miniscule
Actually the wage gains in Canada have been non-existent until just recently.
the consumer has driven the positive GDP growth, but that has been consumer debt driven. Our exports are up significantly as well

So once again you are coming up with even more scaremongering.

No it is factual and real. I have seen it many times. When a small business owner gets a significant increase in expenses they cut costs and it is often staffing levels

The vast majority of the middle class and low income earners do support this legislation.

I bet they would not if they understood the impact on employment

Nothing wrong with everyone paying their fair share. Period.

if you kill thousands of jobs there is huge problem.
You and Justin do not have the right to put those jobs at risk

Start responding like a more respectable person.

Start responding like a more intelligent person
Put me on ignore if you do not like it

You are really slandering everyone who do not agree with your point of view.

First you have a go at Fuji, then me, and now Frankfooter.

well Fuji's a fool and neither you nor Frank footer appear to understand the economic risks surrounding this tax proposal.
Worse you would prefer to ignore them because they do not jive with you utopian (yet unachievable) view of the world

Try and understand that this board / forum is for all points of views not just the right wing.

??? your free to express you views
Given your inability to comprehend basic economic reality's I will just continue to correct you
BTW. Do not tell me what to do

 

[JohnLarue]

The small businesses employ roughly 70% of the workforce, the medium businesses employ roughly 20 % and the large businesses 10%.
Again innovation and R&D get tax credits however small or big. Small businesses can again expense the Government at tax time. You will be surprised at the percentage they recoup from the Government. One business owner even asked for the receipt when we went for a casual dinner. They were going to use it to expense it as a business event. The loopholes knows no bounds, whether you agree with it or not.

You are taking about R&D tax credits (chump change)!!!! vs the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of incremental tax for a small business owner these changes may cost
Exactly what R&D does a small construction company perform ?
Not a whole lot of R&D occurring at most restaurants
A distributor/ imported/ exporter R&D budget is zero
I certainly do not want my doctor or dentist performing any R&D while I am the patient
Nor do I think the local Farmer should be experimenting with my food

R&D credits may be applicable to a very very small number of small business
come on, lets be serious when discussing the real economics here

Your position is you do not think its fair
well you have to weigh that against the potential for a huge number of job losses
Do you think it would be fair for some poor smuck to lose his job because you have a an uninformed blood lust for small business owners and demand everyone to pay their fair share?

It is hardly fair that rich and middle class get to defer taxes via RRSPs while the lower income earners can not possibly afford to shelter money in that vehicle
If it is fairness you really want then why not attack the middle class too and eliminate RRSPs as well ?

Oh yes that would be political suicide for Justin
His principals for fairness only reach so far it appears

If you can live with tax breaks for the middle class you can live with tax breaks for those that employ 70% of all Canadians

I strongly suggest you grow up and take a more realistic view of the world.
You will forever be disappointed by things that do not appear fair at first glance.
however these may appear to be acceptable when you apply pragmatic instead of ideological logic to them
eg. small business owners employ 70% of all Canadians, therefore it may be best not to attack them less they start to employ less

 

[JohnLarue]

All sputter. No content.

You opinion isn't content. You declaring what you think is true without any reasons isn't content. You running from the reference that destroyed your claims isn't content. You hurling insults isn't content.

You haven't got what it takes to participate in a debate. You're just a windbag

Well Frankly Fuji, we do not have any confidence you can even admit when you are wrong (80,000+ posts and never once were you wrong)
So nobody has confidence in you and nobody ever will
That is why nobody here backed your Franken Plan (That and the fact it is ridiculous idea)

Fuji the Fool sitting in the corner wearing his dunce cap

 

[Frankfooter]

Your position is you do not think its fair
well you have to weigh that against the potential for a huge number of job losses
Do you think it would be fair for some poor smuck to lose his job because you have a an uninformed blood lust for small business owners and demand everyone to pay their fair share?

Why do you think that businesses can't succeed if business owner's can hire their wife or kid and funnel money through them to avoid paying taxes.

 

[JohnLarue]

Another set of pronouncements, without any facts, reasons, or arguments. You're just spewing your Ayn Rand nonsense none of which you really understand.

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

Closing tax loopholes that are used by the rich to avoid paying is a good thing.

Not if it costs thousands of jobs it is not

What true small business sinks money into passive investments? None. Real small businesses should have an expected return on capital greater than the stock market and would be expected to invest any free cash back into their own operations.

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

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)

Moreover the tax on money extracted from a small business is only very indirectly related to hiring.

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

The growth driving small businesses hope to become large businesses so wouldn't ordinary report profit anyway, they're reinvesting, and the short term tax rate is irrelevant to their long term plan to become big business.

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

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

Once again you prove you really do not understand what you claim

Even for small businesses that have no reasonable prospects for growth it's not going to be an employment driver. These would be basically employment vehicles for their own owners and their families, convenience stores and such. It won't change their employment decisions.

according to bver_hunter Small business employ 70% of all Canadians so you very wrong once again
according to bver_hunter the tax changes will impact 1/3 of small business
That was way more than I expected

Yes you can come up with cases, but they would be exceptions, as a rule the effect well be quite muted.

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)

On the flip side there is real value in stopping tax cheats who use fake business setups to avoid their fair taxes.

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

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

 

[bver_hunter]

You are taking about R&D tax credits (chump change)!!!! vs the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of incremental tax for a small business owner these changes may cost
Exactly what R&D does a small construction company perform ?
Not a whole lot of R&D occurring at most restaurants
A distributor/ imported/ exporter R&D budget is zero
I certainly do not want my doctor or dentist performing any R&D while I am the patient
Nor do I think the local Farmer should be experimenting with my food

R&D credits may be applicable to a very very small number of small business
come on, lets be serious when discussing the real economics here

Your position is you do not think its fair
well you have to weigh that against the potential for a huge number of job losses
Do you think it would be fair for some poor smuck to lose his job because you have a an uninformed blood lust for small business owners and demand everyone to pay their fair share?

It is hardly fair that rich and middle class get to defer taxes via RRSPs while the lower income earners can not possibly afford to shelter money in that vehicle
If it is fairness you really want then why not attack the middle class too and eliminate RRSPs as well ?

Oh yes that would be political suicide for Justin
His principals for fairness only reach so far it appears

If you can live with tax breaks for the middle class you can live with tax breaks for those that employ 70% of all Canadians

I strongly suggest you grow up and take a more realistic view of the world.
You will forever be disappointed by things that do not appear fair at first glance.
however these may appear to be acceptable when you apply pragmatic instead of ideological logic to them
eg. small business owners employ 70% of all Canadians, therefore it may be best not to attack them less they start to employ less

If you do not know of small businesses that are into innovation, then I do and I am aware of how much they are receiving in credits. Again it is enough to pay their employees. If you are mentioning hundreds of thousands of dollars, then they are not that small a business. Once again it is not going to affect numerous businesses that are not exploiting this loophole. There are some that have been going overboard with it. They will have to pay their fair share. If there are two businesses of approximately the same size and one is paying his fair share of the taxes, to you obviously he will be the dumb guy as he is not using the loophole of awarding salaries and dividends to family members who are NOT INVOLVED with the business.

Off course now you are going with the RRSP and if the lower paid cannot afford it then it should be abolished. Let me say this. In that case allow the middle class to award parts of their salaries to spouses and family members, and RRSPs instead of dividends to their family members, so that they are in the same playing fields as the ones earning hundreds of thousands of dollars. All you are agreeing is that the middle class along with the high earners who are not self employed, should continue to pay their high proportion of the taxes, while the ones owning businesses should pay a very low portion of their incomes in taxes while getting all sorts of other grants from the Government including contributing to RRSPs etc. If you are concerned with the lower paid employees, then why do you have a beef if their minimum wage is being raised sequentially. The cost of everything from food, to transport, rent etc. has skyrocketed. Contrary to beliefs, these minimum paid workers are not all students trying to supplement their incomes. They are working class Canadians trying to support their families. It is not I who has a blood lust for small businesses. It is you who does so for the present Government who are trying to make everyone pay their fair share, not just to exploit the system. By the way I took my car to get a service at the auto mechanic and we discussed this. He said it did not bother him one iota, as he thinks that all Canadian businesses should pay their fair share. He is doing so and he did not have to worry about this bit of legislation. He confirmed that he only business expenses the Government on certain duties and gets a big enough credit. Guess what, once it is implemented a new future Conservative Government will not bother to repel it as they will look like they are trying to just help the wealthy to get more wealthy.

 

[bver_hunter]

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


Not if it costs thousands of jobs it is not


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

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)


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


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

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

Once again you prove you really do not understand what you claim


according to bver_hunter Small business employ 70% of all Canadians so you very wrong once again
according to bver_hunter the tax changes will impact 1/3 of small business
That was way more than I expected


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)



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

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

You are using the 1/3 out of context. The one third will be affected if they are exploiting the loophole. That does not mean the business will be affected. It only means that the owner will have to pay his fair share of the taxes. A big proportion of that one third are self employed who do not have any employees. There are 2.8 million self employed Canadians. By 2020 around 45% of the workforce will be self employed.

 

[JohnLarue]

You are using the 1/3 out of context. The one third will be affected if they are exploiting the loophole.

You mean "if they are using legal tax planning"

That does not mean the business will be affected. It only means that the owner will have to pay his fair share of the taxes.
A big proportion of that one third are self employed who do not have any employees. There are 2.8 million self employed Canadians. By 2020 around 45% of the workforce will be self employed.

Your numbers do not jive with the data in this government website

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.ns....html#point1-1

As of December 2015, there were 1.17 million employer businesses in Canada, as shown in Table 1.1-1. Of these, 1.14 million (97.9 percent) businesses were small businesses, 21,415 (1.8 percent) were medium-sized businesses and 2,933 (0.3 percent) were large enterprises.

there are 1.14 million business classified as small business
You are saying a huge subset of this number are self employed but then you say "There are 2.8 million self employed Canadians."

2.8 million can not be a subset of 1.14 million

the 1.14 million are small business but also employer business (ie they have employees) (ie. Of these, 1.14 million (97.9 percent) businesses were small businesses,)
1/3 of that number is approx. 350,000

No my numbers are correct, your "There are 2.8 million self employed Canadians." is an entirely different set of people

Now you also stated 1/3 of small business will be impacted by these tax changes

The government have clearly come out and said that two thirds of the businesses will not be affected. That includes the majority of farmers.

What is your source for this 1/3 ?

I think you underestimate the size of the problem here


Let me ask this question
Exactly how many lost jobs would you consider acceptable in order to say That is fair"?
1
100
1,000
10,000
100,000 ?
As many lost jobs as it takes

BTW Wayne Easter the Liberal finance chair says the government needs to step back from these tax changes

says he is not impressed by how his own government is rolling out its proposed tax changes.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-easter-tax-changes-1.4289115
Easter is hearing from people both for and against the changes, and he thinks some parts of the proposal need a closer look.
"The government really needs to step back from this a bit. Let's go to the end of the consultation period, October 2nd. Let's ensure that these consultations are meaningful," he said.

Dissent within the party on this issue is growing
Ready shoot aim is not working so well
There are a lot of really angry people, so again I think you underestimate the size of the problem here

 

[bver_hunter]

You mean "if they are using legal tax planning"




Your numbers do not jive with the data in this government website

https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.ns....html#point1-1



there are 1.14 million business classified as small business
You are saying a huge subset of this number are self employed but then you say "There are 2.8 million self employed Canadians."

2.8 million can not be a subset of 1.14 million

the 1.14 million are small business but also employer business (ie they have employees) (ie. Of these, 1.14 million (97.9 percent) businesses were small businesses,)
1/3 of that number is approx. 350,000

No my numbers are correct, your "There are 2.8 million self employed Canadians." is an entirely different set of people

Now you also stated 1/3 of small business will be impacted by these tax changes

What is your source for this 1/3 ?

I think you underestimate the size of the problem here


Let me ask this question
Exactly how many lost jobs would you consider acceptable in order to say That is fair"?
1
100
1,000
10,000
100,000 ?
As many lost jobs as it takes

BTW Wayne Easter the Liberal finance chair says the government needs to step back from these tax changes

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-easter-tax-changes-1.4289115
Easter is hearing from people both for and against the changes, and he thinks some parts of the proposal need a closer look.
"The government really needs to step back from this a bit. Let's go to the end of the consultation period, October 2nd. Let's ensure that these consultations are meaningful," he said.

Dissent within the party on this issue is growing
Ready shoot aim is not working so well
There are a lot of really angry people, so again I think you underestimate the size of the problem here

Off course not all the 2.8 million self employed have registered businesses. The 1/3 that would maybe impacted has been quoted by the Finance Minister. There is a large percentage that are self employed from these registered small businesses. These are facts so I do not understand why you are giving yourself some of these brownie points.
Anyway, to get to the point, small businesses accounted for $4.8 billion in innovation. That is much more than what you give them credit. So they receive income from the Government. We should stop going in circles and get to the point. These small businesses that are playing according to the rules have absolutely nothing to worry about. Think about it, that the ones who provide just services and decide that ohh I cannot get that extra $20000 in my laundered account. So I will lay off one or two of my staff. But now I cannot provide a service any longer. What is going to happen to the client? Well there will be numerous other businesses ready to take over from that business that has decided to pull out. Those businesses that take over the clients will probably have to add to their workforce because of the increase in the workload. Simple solution, so no more scaremongering.

Off course there will be one or two from the ruling party that have their concerns rightly or wrongly. It is called democracy.

This is an interesting article:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...head-with-closing-the-tax-loopholes-1.3589819

 

[JohnLarue]

Off course not all the 2.8 million self employed have registered businesses.

The point you missed is that those 2.8 MM are not included in the 1.14 MM Employer Small Business.
As you point out it is only Employer Small Business which will be impacted by the changes. So 1 /3 impacted = 1/3 *1.14 MM = Approx. 350,000 Employer Small businesses

That is a lot of employers which will have a new and possibly very significant tax burdens
How anyone can not see how this could be a job killer is actually kind of baffling, unless of coarse they do not want to see

The 1/3 that would maybe impacted has been quoted by the Finance Minister.

Source please

There is a large percentage that are self employed from these registered small businesses.

As illustrated above these self employed are not part of the 1.14 MM EMPLOYER Small business (as per the website I provided)
So until we get new info it is 1/3 *1.14 MM = approx. 350,000

These are facts so I do not understand why you are giving yourself some of these brownie points.

Actually what you do not understand appears to the difference between self employed and EMPLOYER small business
So the number of small business impacted is a big number

Anyway, to get to the point, small businesses accounted for $4.8 billion in innovation.

Accounted for?
Does that mean they generated $4.8 B in sales of innovative products and services or
They received $4.8 B in grants ?
They spent $4.8 B in total ?
????
Just provide the link I will figure it out and tell you what you meant

That is much more than what you give them credit. So they receive income from the Government.

If you mean grants then I guess so

We should stop going in circles and get to the point.

The point is how many jobs will this tax policy cost?
That is all that matters
You want to say the govern gives with the left hand and therefor has justification to take back with the right hand and oh yes the take is getting bigger.
that is irrelevant to the only issue that matters How many jobs will this cost?

These small businesses that are playing according to the rules have absolutely nothing to worry about.

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 ?

Those are two different standards and despite the fact nobody has broken the law you are painting them as crooks and cheats
No bias from you
How can you claim to be objective here?

Think about it, that the ones who provide just services and decide that ohh I cannot get that extra $20000 in my laundered account.

Money laundering is currently illegal
Again you have likely never met a small employer business owner and yet you label them a crooks

So I will lay off one or two of my staff. But now I cannot provide a service any longer.

They just need their other employees , family and themselves to step up and make it happen.

Making it happen despite obstacles is exactly what good small business owners do.

What is going to happen to the client?

#1 rule for Small Business. Do what you have to make the client pleased

Well there will be numerous other businesses ready to take over from that business that has decided to pull out.

Who said anything about pulling out.
#2 Never ever walk away from a sale.
They will make it happen even with less staff

Those businesses that take over the clients will probably have to add to their workforce because of the increase in the workload. Simple solution, so no more scaremongering.

Yeah its simple alright
Too bad it is premised on a small business falling apart by shedding some employees
Nope they adapt ask more from remaining staff , family (after all they are getting the income sprinkled on them) and themselves

Off course there will be one or two from the ruling party that have their concerns rightly or wrongly. It is called democracy.

When it is the Liberal finance chair who is concerned it is a big deal

This is an interesting article:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...head-with-closing-the-tax-loopholes-1.3589819[/QUOTE]

That is the same old argument based upon his values. He is a liberal at heart
He does not even mention (consider ) the potential job losses and that is all that matters

 

[bver_hunter]

The point you missed is that those 2.8 MM are not included in the 1.14 MM Employer Small Business.

Only the self employed that have registered their businesses are included.

As you point out it is only Employer Small Business which will be impacted by the changes. So 1 /3 impacted = 1/3 *1.14 MM = Approx. 350,000 Employer Small businesses

Yes

That is a lot of employers which will have a new and possibly very significant tax burdens

Do you not think that it is a tax burden on the middle class? Should they be the only ones paying a huge proportion of their salaries on taxes?

How anyone can not see how this could be a job killer is actually kind of baffling, unless of coarse they do not want to see

You are assuming that it is a job killer. If they decide to get rid of employees, who is going to make the products, or perform the services? If the employer could do it himself, he would not have hired an employee in the first place.
An average of 130,000 new businesses are created every year, though only 35% survive for over 5 years. The reason is that there is so much competition that they go under. Well if these businesses reduce their work force, then as they will not be able to provide the service, these new businesses have a better opportunity to take on the void and survive. Yes or no?

As illustrated above these self employed are not part of the 1.14 MM EMPLOYER Small business (as per the website I provided)
So until we get new info it is 1/3 *1.14 MM = approx. 350,000

So you are saying that the self employed can get away with exploiting the loopholes?

Actually what you do not understand appears to the difference between self employed and EMPLOYER small business
So the number of small business impacted is a big number

I fully understand the difference. The small business micro segment is from 1 to 4 employees. If you are self employed you are 1 employee.

Accounted for?Does that mean they generated $4.8 B in sales of innovative products and services or
They received $4.8 B in grants ?
They spent $4.8 B in total ?
????
Just provide the link I will figure it out and tell you what you meant

They spent $4.8Billion in research

If you mean grants then I guess so

The point is how many jobs will this tax policy cost?
That is all that matters
You want to say the govern gives with the left hand and therefor has justification to take back with the right hand and oh yes the take is getting bigger.
that is irrelevant to the only issue that matters How many jobs will this cost?

As I mentioned earlier new businesses will take hold of the void created if small businesses decide to pull out. The service industry has to provide the work and there is a lot of competition. New businesses will take over the void.

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 ?

Those are two different standards and despite the fact nobody has broken the law you are painting them as crooks and cheats
No bias from you
How can you claim to be objective here?

I am not painting them as cheats only if they pay a salary or dividends to their family members who have nothing to do with the business. This is called a loophole as described in the link that I had provided, This needs to shut. But if the wife and child works for the business, what do they have to worry about? Who is not being objective now?

Money laundering is currently illegal
Again you have likely never met a small employer business owner and yet you label them a crooks

Do not be too condescending as I know many more than you do. They are not concerned as they are playing by the rules.

They just need their other employees , family and themselves to step up and make it happen.

Making it happen despite obstacles is exactly what good small business owners do.

#1 rule for Small Business. Do what you have to make the client pleased


Who said anything about pulling out.
#2 Never ever walk away from a sale.
They will make it happen even with less staff

Well then they are increasing the efficiency of their business from your rhetoric. Something they needed to do if they were not efficient in the first place. Most small businesses struggle to cope with the amount of work etc., if their business is successful. Reducing the work force will make it even more difficult.

Yeah its simple alright
Too bad it is premised on a small business falling apart by shedding some employees
Nope they adapt ask more from remaining staff , family (after all they are getting the income sprinkled on them) and themselves

They will have to pay them overtime if required to do so. That is the law.

When it is the Liberal finance chair who is concerned it is a big deal

Pardon??

This is an interesting article:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/don-...head-with-closing-the-tax-loopholes-1.3589819

Yes it is.

That is the same old argument based upon his values. He is a liberal at heart
He does not even mention (consider ) the potential job losses and that is all that matters

So if it was a conservative at heart, you off would have fully agreed with it.
Anyway, look at page 16 and 17 of this link.
https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/vwapj/KSBS-PSRPE_June-Juin_2016_eng.pdf/$FILE/KSBS-PSRPE_June-Juin_2016_eng.pdf


[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnLarue]

Originally Posted by bver_hunter
Only the self employed that have registered their businesses are included.

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?

Do you not think that it is a tax burden on the middle class? Should they be the only ones paying a huge proportion of their salaries on taxes?

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

So you are saying that the self employed can get away with exploiting the loopholes?

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

I am not painting them as cheats only if they pay a salary or dividends to their family members who have nothing to do with the business.

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

This is called a loophole as described in the link that I had provided,

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

This needs to shut.

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

But if the wife and child works for the business, what do they have to worry about?

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

Who is not being objective now?

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

I fully understand the difference. The small business micro segment is from 1 to 4 employees. If you are self employed you are 1 employee.

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

Do not be too condescending as I know many more than you do.

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

They are not concerned as they are playing by the rules.

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

Well then they are increasing the efficiency of their business from your rhetoric. Something they needed to do if they were not efficient in the first place. Most small businesses struggle to cope with the amount of work etc., if their business is successful. Reducing the work force will make it even more difficult.

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

They will have to pay them overtime if required to do so. That is the law.

??
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

Pardon??

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 ?????

 

[Frankfooter]

What about the ones where the wife and kids do work and work hard for the business. The changes will impact that legitimate arrangement

The changes would only effect those businesses where family members are paid yet do no work.
That is the point of the tax change.

Do you support paying kids and wives for no work as a tax dodge?

 

[JohnLarue]

The changes would only effect those businesses where family members are paid yet do no work.
That is the point of the tax change.

Do you support paying kids and wives for no work as a tax dodge?

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

you also need to drill down into these issues much deeper and ask some common sense questions instead of creating your opinion first and then looking hard at the facts

you are ignoring the only real relevant question here
How many jobs will these tax changes cost our economy ?
100, 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 +
Or is that not at all important to you, just so long as you get to see the rich pay more?