HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: durham@mpr.ca (Paul Durham)
Subject: Re: Canadian taxes and govt debt (was: Re: Income tax rate in Canada)
Summary: Just the facts, maam.
Organization: MPR Teltech Ltd., Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 19:03:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.172403.28207@socrates.umd.edu> mwh@socrates.umd.edu (Michael Hrybyk) writes:

>As a Maryland resident who is moving to BC in the next few weeks:

>1. The marginal rate for those earning < 60k US is 48% in MD, as cited
>   above and confirmed by my experience here (includes SS tax).
>2. The marginal rate for those earning < 70k CDN is 46% in BC, according
>   to Coopers and Lybrand. This includes provincial taxes, surtaxes, ...
>   One must add 2.1% Canada pension and ~1% for UIC, summing to 49%.

Wrong. You have already hit the maximum contribution level for CPP and UIC
long before you got to the 46% marginal rate.

>Note that various deductions and credits are not considered in the above.
>Also note, for you rich capitalists out there, that capital gains in
>Canada are taxed as ordinary income.

Wrong. There is a lifetime capital gains exemption of $100,000. After this
is used up, capital gains are multiplied by 2/3 and _then_ added to the
income.

>Probably close to the mark, but I'd like to see some hard facts
>regarding national and state/provincial debt comparisons. The Canadian
>GST was supposed to balance the budget, and erase the yearly deficit.
>Is this true?

No. It was supposed to be "revenue neutral", i.e. it replaced an archaic
manufacturers sales tax and was supposed to raise the same amount of money.
In fact it appears to be raising a bit more.

>It was also supposed to retire debt, but I don't think
>the govt is actually running a surplus.

The gov't is certainly not running a surplus. However as it is bringing in
more $ than (publicly) expected the GST is reducing the deficit.

>Given the same rate of taxation with no burdensome defense budget (but
>internationally responsible, nonetheless), Canada would seem to be better
>able to provide services and infrastructure support for its citizenry.
>This is conjecture on my part, but it seems like a reasonable proposition.

Agree.


>>	Please try injecting a little fact.

>On Usenet?


Why not?


Paul

-- 
Paul Durham                    |      durham@mprgate.mpr.ca
MPR Teltech Ltd                | durham%mprgate.mpr.ca@ubc-cs.uucp
8999 Nelson Way                | ...uunet!ubc-cs!mprgate.mpr.ca!durham
Burnaby, B.C., Canada. V5A 4B5 |      phone: (604) 293-6035
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Minority language rights in Man. and Que. (was Re: Radio ...)
Date: 15 Aug 92 19:48:21 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1382@newsserver.cs.uwindsor.ca> hlynka@server.uwindsor.ca (Myron Hlynka) writes:
>
>The result was that Manitoba's laws and legislation were declared
>illegal since they had not been written in French. It is curious
>that Manitoba does not have the power to make its own rules
>regarding language, but must get them approved by the Federal
>government, where one can be sure that Quebec will not allow Manitoba
>to remove any French provisions, regardless of the proportion of
>French Manitobans.
>
The restrictions on Manitoba's power to legislate on French-language
rights are quite limited, and deal only with the use of English and
French in the legislature and the courts.  Quebec is similarly
limited in this regard by Article 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867
(BNA Act).

I believe the Duplessis government passed a law stating that the
French version of laws should take precedence over the English version
in case of a dispute over the meaning.  This law was struck down by
the courts as being incompatible with the equal status of the two
languages guaranteed by Article 133.

Similarly, one of the first provisions of Bill 101 to be struck down
by the courts was an article which downgraded the official status of
English in the Quebec Legislature.

The biggest difference between Quebec and Manitoba in this regard
is that attempts by Quebec to violate Article 133 of the BNA Act
have been quickly overturned by the courts, while Manitoba violated
Article 23 (?) of the Manitoba Act, 1870, for over 90 years before
the courts did anything about it.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: God Save your Queen
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:14:41 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

stevew@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb) writes:

>A right is not bestowed by some superior individual.  If it's a right,
>we have it or some bully denies it to us.  If it can be bestowed,
>it's not a right but a privilege.  Of course, one may argue that
>most "rights" are privileges -- free speech, freedom of religious beliefs,
>even the privilege of equal treatment before the law.

Right = sacred privilege.

>I certainly don't need to swear blind obedience to the arbitrary 
>measures of some so-called superior individual who was simply born
>to that position in order to be allowed rights as a fellow human being.
>I don't care how often or how real the powers bestowed on this superior
>being are.

Incorrect.  In Canada, obedience to the Crown is mandatory.  You will
be prosecuted and imprisoned if you disobey.  Because every Canadian
is in the same boat, your rights are guaranteed.

>That puts us in semi-colonial status, and hindsight tells us that
>colonialism isn't really that good.

Canada has outgrown its colonial status, and this is properly reflected
by the fact that the British government no longer has any power here.
Canada is not a "semi-colony".

>[...] it does hurt people.  Maybe not physically, but I sure feel it
>every time I look at a Canadian coin or bill of certain denominations,
>and see this foreigner telling me to keep those apron strings tied.

I am sorry you feel that way.

>I support feelings of personal supremacy and classless individualism [...]
                       ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
When I wrote the article, I was groping for the word "egotism".

The monarchy will be with us for some time.  Please take comfort in its
marginality.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
From: yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Governors-General,  Now the will of the people.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:06:28 MDT
Organization: Edmonton Remote Systems #1, Edmonton, AB, Canada

marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm) writes:

-
- And where will this "trend" spread to?  Perhaps to England itself?  But that
- would mean that the monarchy would have to be elected.  And what would poor
- Lizzie do if she were turfed out of office?  Perhaps become a barmaid?
-
- Dave, it's ridiculous that you propose the election of the Governor General.
- In the first place, the position is purely ceremonial.  In the second, it
- leads to the absurdity of an elected monarch...
- --
- Marc Riehm      Amdahl Canada Ltd., Software Development Center
-                 2000 Argentia Road, Plaza 2, Suite 300
-                 Mississauga, Ont.   L5N 1V8
- marc@meadow.UUCP

  Marc,  I wonder what your opinions are on a Triple-E Senate.

  The reason I ask is that people though the idea was an outrage, until Stan
Waters, boo, hiss, hiss,  became the first elected Senator from Alberta.

  The only way to get Stan into the Senate was by compromise!!

  Now seing the idea of selecting the GG instead of appointment of GG is
receving the same ridicule, and this need no lead to the Poland scenario,
when they were electing a king!!

  I believe the days of Patronage is coming
to an end!!  It should up to the people, NOT the patronizing-appointing PM,
to decide who should be our Queen's Representative!



Dave Shariff Yadallee
yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
God Save the Queen, God Bless us All!
cowboy (n): A 20th Century extension of  the neanderthal caveman.
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Income tax rate in Canada?
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 07:48:19 GMT

hlin@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (hua.t.lin) writes:
>Someone just told me that for a Canadian making about $60,000 gross
>will pay about 54% on tax on the entire income. Is that true?

Time to supply some facts.  No, it's not true.  Here are the
combined federal/Ontario rates of income tax for 1992:

	1992 Taxable income		Tax

	$ 0	- $ 6,458	$0 (due to the basic personal credit)
	$ 6,458 - $29,590                 27.03% on excess over $ 6,458
	$29,590 - $53,281	$ 6,252 + 41.34% on excess over $29,590
	$53,281 - $59,180	$16,046 + 42.33% on excess over $53,281
	$59,180 - $62,193	$18,542 + 47.22% on excess over $59,180
	$62,193 - $82,361	$19,966 + 48.67% on excess over $62,193
	$82,361 and up		$29,781 + 49.77% on excess over $82,361

The rates are different for each province.  Also, for Ontario,
they're going up somewhat as of 1993 at the top end.  The top
brackets shown can vary somewhat depending on what additional credits
one has.

These figures don't include UIC premiums (which are, after all,
insurance); CPP contributions (which are, after all, contributions
to a pension plan from which you'll receive benefits); or Ontario's
Employer Health Tax, which despite its name is going to apply
to all self-employment income over $40K/year as of 1993.

David Sherman
Tax Lawyer
Editor, "Practitioner's Income Tax Act" (3rd edition out soon)
Xref: sparky can.politics:5856 soc.culture.canada:5650
From: robinc@bnr.ca (Robin Collins)
Subject: Re: Canadian Collectivism
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 19:29:25 GMT

In article <CLAMEN.92Aug11022850@BYRON.SP.CS.CMU.EDU> clamen+@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I don't believe the Steele's perspectives apply to the Native and
>Quebecois cases.  The Natives have ALWAYS been sovereign; Canada has
>just not treated them as such.  In the case of the Quebecois, they
>have had self-government since Confederation; there is no doubt that
>they have the right to self-determination, so long as they take the
>non-Quebecois in as equal citizens.

I think Steele's observations do apply. 
But they may not be visible to you as long as you see "them" as Natives
and "us" as non-Natives, as long as you see francophone Quebecois as
"distinct" and the rest of "us" as "not distinct" (although that of course
would be logically impossible...by definition).
Remember that while my ancestors may (or may not) have colonized the
ancestors of the Aboriginal peoples in this country, I do not colonize anyone
now, nor are the "Natives" now  living here the "original peoples." The
original peoples and the original colonizers are all dead.
We have left now those people who live here. The choice is whether or
not we should have different rules for people based on difference or not.
If we choose such (and many do) then we will be establishing an (initially)
voluntary apartheid regime, where rights are contingent on "race" or language.

In terms of self-determination, other than in rhetorical terms, WE ALL
HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION.  So what. Peoples may want to separate:
the question then is whether the new separate states will have equal laws
for all and if so, why separate in the first place?  If the laws are not
democratic or equal for all NOW, then surely we should change the laws, not
leave them to oppress those who are left behind. Separatism seems such
the cowardly course to me. But what I object to is the decision of 
some political leaders to define "self-determination" only for SOME people and
not for others. If the Quebecois and aboriginals decide NOT to separate
and thus not to seek sovereign status outside the Canadian unit, then
they should accept equal rights for all. I see no positive outcome from
federalism being maintained ONLY by way of emasculating the concept
of equal and democratic rights.

Nations are arbitrary and not real units. Let's not inflate
the concept of nation and separatism, sovereignty and division to the extent
of creating artificial barriers between people. We are all different.
Let's not create laws that create different rights based on difference. 
Democracy means we have the same rights and law, DESPITE diffferences.


Frank.

Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Income tax rate in Canada?
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 05:08:47 GMT

In article <gtayp-d@rpi.edu> wrf@ecse.rpi.edu (Wm Randolph Franklin) writes:
>
>Nevertheless, it seems that Ontario's budget is much higher per capita
>than NYS, about the highest state, although I could be wrong.
>
>My sister, who moved from the US to Canada certainly, feels so.

Provinces in Canada have greater responsibilities and powers than
States in the US do, thus the distribution of spending between
the federal and state or provincial governments in Canada or the
US is different...so per capita spending by a province compared
to a state is probably not a good comparison...nevertheless,
I would not argue that combined federal and provincial spending
is certainly higher per capita in Ontario, but then that includes
universal health care spending, which is partly privatized in
the US.  Whether the higher spending and taxation in Canada
is prudent or not is a political question...as a Canadian, having
gone to graduate school in the States, I would rather have 
Canada's problems than the US's problems.

Gerald
Xref: sparky can.politics:6108 soc.culture.canada:5972
From: dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman)
Subject: Re: Canadian taxes and govt debt (was: Re: Income tax rate in Canada)
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 15:14:15 GMT

In <1992Aug13.081027.11896@sq.sq.com> I wrote:
>	Also, the lifetime $100,000 exemption (which is
>$500,000 for certain small business corporation shares and farms) is not
>allowed for real estate after February 1992.  For real estate held
>since before March 1992, the exemption is reduced proportionate to the
>number of months in which the property was owned after February 1992.

Just to clarify: the lifetime $100,000/$500,000 is unrelated
to the exemption for sale of a principal residence, which is
a complete exemption that's always available, any number of
times.  (It's much more generous than the U.S. exemption for
sale of a principal residence, which generally only applies
when you're trading up to another home, and has other restrictions.)

The restrictions on the use of the $100,000 exemption with respect
to real estate don't have any effect on the principal residence
exemption.

David Sherman
Author, "Income Tax Research"
From: thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: That pathetic "includes Quebec" slogan.
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:02:35 GMT
Organization: Matrox Ltd.

FYI

The name of the fellow behind the campaign is Jim Taylor.

He hopes to have 100 billboards measuring 3m x 10m filled with
the names of Canadians, which he will display in rural Quebec.

--
Thomas Hood                                                    thood@matrox.com
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: god save your queen
Date: 21 Aug 92 12:16:48 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.


In article <92231.164101GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (Peter Gogolek) writes:
|In reply to a question of mine:
|In article <12608@grayt>, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) says:
|>
|>In article <92226.185304GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
|>(Peter Gogolek) writes:
|>>In article <12568@grayt>, grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) says:
|>>>
|>>>In article <1992Aug9.085048.7533@uunet.ca> smd@uunet.ca (Sean Doran) writes:
|>>>:
|>>>:  [all sorts of interesting precedents on the action or inaction
|>>>:   of the British monarch in Canada deleted]
|>>>
|>>>The monarch is bound by the advice of her Canadian ministers who
|>>>are responsible only to the Canadian electorate.
|>>>
|>The Queen is not the puppet of the government of the day, she is the
|>embodiment of the power of the Canadian people and her role represent
|>the subservience of the government to the people.
|>
|
|I can't make my way through the subtle phrasing and argumentation
|being put forward. I guess I have to ask a more concrete question:
|Can you imagine a case where the Canadian monarch acts contrary to
|the wishes of the government of the day or equivalently refuses to
|carry out the wishes of the government of the day?  If not then the
|monarch is a de facto puppet and superfluous.
|

Perhaps all that is needed is a more mundane example.
When Harry Truman was Presodent of the US, he carried a supply of 3 cent
stamps with him in his wallet. He used these stamps for his personal
mail. When asked for this apparently odd behaviour, he replied that 
the stamps allowed him to keep his humility. With the number of
aides and sycophants that cluster around a US president, it is easy for
that person to begin to think of himself less as a temporary office
holder and more as the Head of State and Commander in Chief. Such
delusions were well documented in David Halderstram's book
"The Imperial Presidency" which came out in the '60s.

The position of the monarch is a permanent mark of the sovereinity of the
Canadian people. The fact that the government must (if only formally)
ask for the consent of the monarch (and through her the consent of the
peopole) for action is a check on the imperial hubris of any Prime Minister.

Given the hubris (for him it should be spelled !!HUBRIS!!) of the current
Prime Minister, such conventions are entirely desirable.


Now if you wish to discuss a new method of selecting a head of state
say7 from distingushed apolitical Canadians, I would have no objections.
But to remove the office of monarch while leaving the imperial Prime
Ministership in place is a danger to Canadian democracy. We have all
seen the reports of "executive federalism" or "cabinet government" to
know that there is an appetite in Canadian politicians for unresponsible
secret decisions, secretly arrived at.
-- 
i.sinature
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94000)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Responsible government (was Re: Last week in Canadian History
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:10:53 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <12630@grayt> grayt@Software.Mitel.COM (Tom Gray) writes:

>The Reformers insisted on a government responsible to the legislature
>(and not to the UK government) and drawn from both cultural groups.
>A government could govern only with the confidence of members from
>both Canada East and Canada West. The UK was forced to acquiece to
>these demands since doing otherwise would make Canada ungovernable.
>
I don't disagree with most of your posting (which I've deleted),
but here and in several previous postings, you suggest that Canadian
Reformers (Lafontaine and Baldwin) won responsible government
against the determined opposition of British politicians.  I
think this underestimates the role of internal British politics
in the granting of responsible government in Canada.  The change
from a Conservative to a Liberal government in Britain in the late
1840s was a key factor in this event.  The British Liberals were
in favor of responsible government for the colonies, and didn't
have to be "forced to acquiece to these demands."

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: jmaheux@asterix.drev.dnd.ca (Jean Maheux)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: We are all foreigners, save the NATIVE Aboriginal Canadians!!
Date: 20 Aug 92 15:03:31 GMT
Organization: Defence Research Establishment, Valcartier

In <wL7qPB2w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:

>Peter Gogolek refers to the head of state of this country as "foreign".

>I would likle to ask and for net Canadians to consider the following:

>  Aren't you from a foreign ancestory?

>This is something the USers fail to see.  North America was inhabited by
>Aboriginals before the arrival of the Europeans!!

>Let's admit it,  we are ALL foreigners here, except the Aboriginals.

I don't see the point.  My French ancestors and my family have been living in
this country for at least 350 years.  I was born here.  Two of my 
great-grandmothers were pure aboriginals; one was a "huron" and the other one
waw a "abenakis".  Although I'm not considered to be an Aboriginal, I'm not
a foreigner.  If you have guilty feelings about being an European, I don't
mind.  But don't draw such a general conclusion from what you know.  It 
appears to me that you need to learn more things about the history of Canada.


>Dave Shariff Yadallee
>yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca, userLIBE@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
>God Save the Queen, God Bless us All!


Jean Maheux
jmaheux@asterix.drev.dnd.ca

-- 
|                           | DREV, Defence Research Establishment,Valcartier |
|      @asterix.drev.dnd.ca | POBox 8800, Courcelette,Quebec, CANADA, G0A 1R0 |
|            (131.132.48.2) | Office: (418) 844-           fax (418) 844-     |
+---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: can.politics
From: ematias@dgp.toronto.edu (Edgar Matias)
Subject: Re: "F/E" versus "Bienvenue/Welcome": Update
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Date: 17 Aug 92 21:44:37 GMT


Great!  So "F*CK THE LANGUAGE LAWS" signs are legal...  Hm.

Denis, I leave it to you to come up with a French language translation...

Edgar
:-)
Newsgroups: can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: labach@acs.ucalgary.ca (Terence Michael Labach)
Subject: Re: Mike Harcourt....
Originator: labach@acs5.acs.ucalgary.ca
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:48:01 GMT
Distribution: can
Organization: The Bobby Jurasin Fan Club

In article <1992Aug20.000310.6253@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes: 

> is as big an idiot as Don Getty...

Speaking as an Albertan, no one is as big an idiot as Don Getty...

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Terry Labach               "It may be that under the stress of war, or the
                              fear of war, or as a result of totalitarian
  Internet:                   conquest, the parts of the world where some
    labach@acs.ucalgary.ca    degree of individual liberty survives may grow
                              fewer, and even in them liberty may come to be
                              more and more restricted."  - Bertrand Russell
From: CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA (CZ94)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Elected monarch (was Re: Governors-General)
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:07:50 GMT
Organization: McGill University

In article <1992Aug16.142945.1248@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.uucp (Marc Riehm) writes:
>
>Dave, it's ridiculous that you propose the election of the Governor General.
>In the first place, the position is purely ceremonial.  In the second, it
>leads to the absurdity of an elected monarch...
>--
Why do you say an elected monarch is an absurdity?  The Holy Roman
Emperor was elected.  The King of Poland was elected.  I'm not
seriously advocating this idea for Canada, but I wouldn't call it
absurd.

Tom Box
CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA
Xref: sparky can.politics:5998 soc.culture.canada:5840