HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: GST Deferral
Keywords: GST, Money, economics
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:30:08 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa

In article <C1HsKv.257@frumious.uucp> uunet.ca!frumious!pat writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>|Money that never gets used is "useless."  If a "rich person" merely
>|saves/invests, and never purchases anything with those savings, then
>|he or she is NOT better off.
>
>But invested money need not be useless; it can earn income.

Money that is never "disinvested" is not useful, since it is not
actually used to purchase goods.

I'm not trying to obtuse - the point IS important.

Money that is invested may provide increased future benefits, but I
would note that when that increased amount of money is actually USED,
it would attract MORE taxes by virtue of having grown.

If it's NEVER used, but is MERELY re-invested, then it begs the
question: Does the money ACTUALLY provide any benefit?

Taking as an example the famous story "A Christmas Carol" by Charles
Dickens, Ebenezer Scrooge may have had great wealth, but if he never
spent any of it, he would sit in effective poverty, eating gruel, and
living in a dark, cold, unmaintained house.  He had the POTENTIAL to
live in luxury (and under GST, would pay a correspondingly high
price), but chose to live in poverty.

The point is that "savings" do not provide an unalloyed benefit.  GST
allows some people to defer paying the tax, but that deferment can, if
anything, INCREASE the net present value of the taxes paid.

I would propose that if it DOESN'T, then the individual would have
been better off by NOT deferring the taxes.

If someone feels that it is possible to as a NET result benefit from
deferrment of GST in the LONG run, without there being a corresponding
NET benefit to the government, then I suggest that they show
NUMERICALLY an example of this.

I'm not absolutely certain of it, but I don't think that it's possible
for an individual to benefit from deferring GST without the government
also benefiting in a corresponding way.
-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Xref: sparky can.general:6349 can.politics:11640 soc.culture.canada:10301
From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:29:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: alchemy.1993Jan24.162919.24275
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department

In article <61TVXB3w165w@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca> yadallee@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Dave Shariff Yadallee) writes:
>I was challenged by Melvin Klassen, Gerald Olchowy and Peter McCorquade(sp)
>about LPC tax policy.  Here it is!!
>
>1) Review the Single Tax alternative as porposed by Dennis Mills to  the
>   Liberal Platform Committee
>
>2) high priority given to th development of a simplified, more equitable
>   system
>
>3) review of the tax system with the purpose of abolishing the GST and
>redistributing the tax burden on the PRINCIPLE of fairness, equity ad ability
>to pay.
>

That is not a policy...the GST raises $20 billion dollars...specifically
tell us how the Liberal Party is going to raise $20 billion dollars.

The last national Liberal party policy convention in Toronto last year
suggested that the Liberals were going to replace the GST with
a hidden GST...a business transfer tax.   

Besides, 1) and 3) are incompatible...Dennis Mills is proposing a flat
tax...your #1, and your #3 argues for a progressive tax (i.e. ability
to pay).

Like Liberals, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth again...
advocating directly contradictory things, and avoiding the issue
of where precisely you intend to come up with $20 billion dollars.

Gerald
Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general
From: rnelson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Randy Nelson VE3WRN)
Subject: Charles J. Givens Seminar
Organization: University of Waterloo
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:01:16 GMT

	In a couple of days, an organization will present information on saving
money. It is by Charles J. Givens author of "Wealth Without Risk". I am 
interested in attending the "FREE" seminar.
	Not knowing anything about this organization, I would like to hear from
anyone who may have attended this seminar.  What can I expect?
	Please e-mail your responses.

Thanks
Randy

-- 
Randy Nelson VE3WRN  Ontario Representative      rnelson@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca
197A Cedarvale Cr.   Disability Information    ..uunet!watmath!watserv1!rnelson
WATERLOO, ON         Services of Canada.         rnelson@watserv1.waterloo.edu
N2L 4T3          (519)884-2989 (Voice and TDD)   VE3WRN @ VE3EUK.ON.CAN.NA
From: coneill@polarbear.rankin-inlet.nt.ca (Chris O'Neill)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Canada's beluga export ban
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 00:38:09 CST
Organization: Polar Bear Heaven BBS - Rankin Inlet, NWT

> I wonder if beluga tastes any good....

Personally, I didn't find it very appetizing, but the Inuits consider it a
delicacy.

Chris
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris O'Neill, System Operator           | "I typed it right...  It's the
Polar Bear Heaven BBS, Rankin Inlet, NWT | !@#$@^ computer that turned it
coneill@polarbear.rankin-inlet.nt.ca     | backwards!"       - Anonymous


Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 17:19:28 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.050146.20438@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu>
	acs@csri.toronto.edu (Alvin Chia-Hua Shih) writes:

>I certainly haven't seen any herds buffalo roaming in Toronto.

No, but on any given weekend, you will see quite a few Torontonians
roaming in Buffalo.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
What's with all this multimedia stuff? Most vendors can't get *one* done right.
Xref: sparky can.general:6468 talk.politics.animals:11856
From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne)
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Food chain (was Re: Killing animals (was Re: hunting dog wanted))
Date: 28 Jan 93 17:50:05 GMT
Followup-To: can.general,talk.politics.animals
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

Rosemary Waigh (g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In the states, for each acre of forest cleared for parking lots, roads,
: houses, shopping centres, etc., *seven* are cleared for meat production
: (land for grazing or growing feed).  I don't have the stats for Canada,
: but I see little reason to suspect it's much different.

I know for a fact that the situation is different in Ontario.
A large number of dairy/beef farms in Northern Ontario (about the
only undeveloped part of the province) are returning to their
natural state.   These farms cannot compete with farms with better
weather/soil.

Rob.
--
Robert A. Osborne   ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: dave@lsuc.on.ca (David Sherman)
Subject: Common-law spouses and income tax law
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 93 00:35:42 GMT

After one of my earlier postings, I had the following email discussion
with Ian! D Allen (idallen@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca) that may be of
general interest.  (Ian!'s text posted with his permission.)

> >The upshot was that in the February 1992 federal budget the Minister
> >of Finance announced that, effective January 1, 1993, common-law
> >spouses would be treated as spouses, if they had "cohabited in a
> >conjugal relationship" for 12 months or were parents of the same child.
> >Those rules are now in force, although the legislation to enact them
> >(new subsection 252(4) of the Income Tax Act) is still before Parliament.
> 
> Hey -- my girlfriend and I have been living together for over a year.
> Does this mean the Gov't will be sending us a joint tax return this year?
> Does this mean I'm breaking the law if I don't fill one out?
> To re-establish our independence, shall I move out for a day? a week? a month?
> 
> Didn't the rules used to be "more than 3 years" if no children were involved?
> 

There are no joint tax returns in Canada, but yes, when it comes
to your 1992 return you need to indicate that you're living common law,
and when it comes to your 1993 return (filed in April 1994) you will
be treated as spouses.  That has quite a number of side effects (I recently
wrote a 60-page paper on the subject).

To avoid that treatment you'd have to separate for 90 days because of
a breakdown in your relationship, but once you move back together you'd
instantly become spouses again.

The 3 year rule is for Ontario family law purposes.  This rule is
for federal income tax purposes.

David Sherman
Author, "Till Tax Do Us Part: The New Definition of 'Spouse'"
	(Proceedings of the 1992 Canadian Tax Foundation annual conference)
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada
From: klassen@sol.UVic.CA (Melvin Klassen)
Subject: Taxing Questions (was: Re: 1993 income tax rates 
Summary: (pun intended!)
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C. CANADA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 00:18:10 GMT

In article <iq0oXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> Questions about taxation of maintenance payments ...

On Vancouver Island, dial, toll-free, 1-800-561-6990,
to talk to the Revenue Canada Taxation office in Victoria.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: GST Deferral
Keywords: GST, Money, economics
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:31:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.210453.21985@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>Aside:
>If _as a rule_ individuals could earn a higher rate of interest than
>their own and the government's discount rate for NPV purposes,
>things would be rather odd.

That's what I get for putting in an aside:  now I have to clarify.
I'm doing my analysis around the margin where the interest the
individual can earn is around the individual's discount rate.
Were that not the case, they'd either be investing everything
or nothing (under simple utility formulae, ignoring Stone-Geary
et al).

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: histlib@erich.triumf.ca (MARY OLIN)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: Anti-Racist Rally in Vancouver
Date: 20 Jan 1993 11:22 PST
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: erich.triumf.ca
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <20JAN199311145881@erich.triumf.ca>, histlib@erich.triumf.ca (MARY OLIN) writes...
>This friday from 6 to 8 PM a rally will be held in front of the
>Vancouver Art Gallery, Georgia St. side.

I should have said friday, Jan. 22.

>Mary Olin

Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general,soc.culture.canada,alt.child-support
From: merce@xenitec.on.ca (Jim Mercer)
Subject: child support/alimony formulas (was: Re: 1993 income tax rates)
Organization: Reptilian Research, Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:47:08 GMT

In article robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>This is a bit of an aside, but I recall reading stories from/about
>non-custodial parents who either were supposedly making outrageously low or
>outrageously high child support payments. This has me wondering just how is
>the amount to be paid in child support determined? Is the formula (assuming
>there is one) uniform across the country, or is it a provincial matter?

[ reminder: the context here is Canada ]

there may be a formula, but as i see it, it usually goes this way:

the couple mutually agrees on an amount deemed reasonable by each party; or

the lawyers argue (at great expense) over what an approriate amount is; or

one of the parties bails out of the negotiations, fed up with the process and
basically accepts that they will pay whatever, just let the bickering end; or

it goes to court, where the amount is determined based on the non-custodial
parent's income, the real costs of raising the child, the perceived costs
of raising the child, or some random combination of the three.

i currently pay what i consider to be an excessive amount to house/clothe/feed
an 18 month old.  my ex gets free daycare, and either had heavily subsidized
rent or shared space with someone.

i accept that amount because as time goes on, those expenses will increase,
and the emotional turmoil of "negotiating" was turning me into a wreck.

i pay my support, i get visitation.  i am consulted on things regarding the
upbringing of our child.

the part that bothers me about the concept of support/alimony is that it is
supposed to bring the lifestyle of the "lesser" spouse in line with what
they had before the marriage broke up.  it doesn't seem to take into account
that this has substantial effects on the support/alimony payors lifestyle.
(this applies more to alimony than child support, but in a number of cases
it is difficult to tell if the child support is not being used as alimony)

[ i am a bit bitter, more at the system and society than with my ex. ]

-- 
[ Jim Mercer           merce@iguana.reptiles.org           +1 416-506-0654 ]
[          Reptilian Research -- longer life through colder blood          ]
[              true(1)    Now, /bin/true always returns zero.              ]
[                           -- from Ultrix Release Notes 4.3               ]
Xref: sparky can.general:6441 ont.general:2457 soc.culture.canada:10487
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: 1993 income tax rates (combined federal/Ontario)
Date: 27 Jan 93 07:44:56 GMT
Organization: Lebenty-Screech's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA

robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:

> This is a bit of an aside, but I recall reading stories from/about
> non-custodial parents who either were supposedly making outrageously low or
> outrageously high child support payments. This has me wondering just how is
> the amount to be paid in child support determined? Is the formula (assuming
> there is one) uniform across the country, or is it a provincial matter?
> -- 

Jim,

I will post the legislated guidelines relevant to your question, just as
soon as I have the time! :-)  For now, let's just say that you'll find those
guidelines very open to interpretation.  A lot also seems to depend upon the
Judge or Master making the order, as well as the circumstances that must be
considered in each individual case.  Naturally, any number of things can have
a direct bearing on whatever formula the Judge is basing his Order(s) on.

Lisa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter)
Subject: Re: Access denied?
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:54:04 GMT
Organization: Securiplex Technologies Inc., Montreal, Canada
X-Bytes: 2359

From article <1993Jan21.185109.19103@IRO.UMontreal.CA>, by laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute):
> In article <1993Jan20.153913.4802@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan18.140817.28475@spxtech.qc.ca> steven@spxtech.qc.ca (Steve Potter) writes:
>>>Posted: 18th January, 1993
>>>
> 
> [lotsa good stuff coming from the american hat deleted]
> 
>        It's all a question of proportions... Ottawa, for example, which
> has always had a very big franco population, has never had a public franco
> school before 1979. When Francojeunesse school was founded, I went there for
> one year in 1980. The quality of French being taught was pitiful: the
> teachers even made serious grammar mistake in our report cards. 
> I still don't know if there are any more public franco schools in 
> Ottawa, a part from that one.
> 
> My point is: Ontario (and I assume the other anglo provinces) has always 
> been behind Quebec in it's treatement of lingual minorities.
> 

"He did it first!" or "He did it too!" are not justification. :-(

> One BIG "BUT":
> The problem, is that I would like to send my kids (when I get some :) )
> to engligh kindergarden here in Quebec, as a franco (under 101), I'm not
> intitled to a choice.

That is the issue. It isn't the language of instruction that is the
problem it is the denial of choice.

> 101 and 178 should not prevent a choice of language, but should ensure
> the PRESENCE on french in quebec.
> 

A compromise: Don't restrict choice of access but require French proficiency.
Require ALL immigrants to be registered in French school _OR_ in a French
immersion program. There is still an argument that some degree of choice 
would be denied but it addresses the concerns of French proficiency in
Quebec without forcing English children (and others) into French schools
against the will of the parents.

I haven't met anyone who would have a problem with that except close-minded,
intolerant 'nationalists' (who would prefer that English totally dissappear
in Quebec anyway?)

-- 
  ///==================================================================\\\
  ||| Steve Potter:         steven@spxtech.qc.ca                       |||
  ||| Expertise/Experience: Computer Systems Engineering / Real Ale /  |||
  |||                       Politics in Education in Quebec            |||
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: charters@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca (Jim Charters)
Subject: Re: Communist Progressive Tax System (was Re: Liberal Party Tax Policy)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 18:02:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.215240.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>In article <C1F6qD.DBI@ecf.toronto.edu>, pelton@ecf.toronto.edu (PELTON MATTHEW ALAN) writes:
>

[interesting ramblings deleted....]

>
>A country that cannot abide progressive communistic pinko leftist
>NsDaP-Socialist tax policies like those that the good people of 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 NSDAP - Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, a.k.a. Nazi

 An intereseting juxtapostion of fascists and social democrats.....

 Maybe you'd better get your political jargon straight.

 (BTW, I can't stand the National Disaster Party either)

-- 
#include <standard_disclaimer>
Jim Charters
Geophysicist & Chief Computer Flunkey / University of Toronto Geology
Toronto / Ont. / CANADA / M5S 3B1 / charters@quartz.geology.utoronto.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
From: rwj@dogtag.uucp (Rob Janes)
Subject: Re: Looking for info on Connect Tech Inc.
Organization: BSOH Enterprises
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 05:16:46 GMT

I'll second that.
We had two connect tech 8 port cards.  We got excellent service from them.

On the other hand, after about four years with connect tech hardware,
we bought a 16 port digiboard, and put the cti cards on the shelf.
We had problems connecting a v.32bis modem to them.  The cti cards were
very sensitive to floating lines, well, at least the old one was (we had a
rev B and a rev C board), and the system would just go away.  We had a bunch
of computers connected by rs232 null modem lines to the computer with the
connect tech cards.  One of those computers had a bad ground, and every day
at 5 when it was turned off, the main computer would crash.  Took me a 
month to figure that one out.  It was wierd how regular it was.

It's been over a year.  Connect Tech may have fixed the driver problems.
The drivers went through a lot of changes, and got continually better.

The digiboard was a lot more expensive.  The board itself looks pretty good.
The rs232 breakout box is very spiffy.
I remember having a lot of problems getting everything configured though.

Well, you get what you pay for.

I do kind of miss the connect tech octopus.

-- 
Rob Janes
rwj@bsoh.web.apc.org
Xref: sparky can.general:6399 ont.general:2452 soc.culture.canada:10406
Newsgroups: can.general,ont.general,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: 1993 income tax rates (combined federal/Ontario)
Followup-To: can.general,ont.general,soc.culture.canada
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:25:18 GMT

This is a bit of an aside, but I recall reading stories from/about
non-custodial parents who either were supposedly making outrageously low or
outrageously high child support payments. This has me wondering just how is
the amount to be paid in child support determined? Is the formula (assuming
there is one) uniform across the country, or is it a provincial matter?
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,mtl.general
From: laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute)
Subject: Re: Access denied?
Organization: Universite de Montreal, Canada
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:17:20 GMT

In article <21JAN93.16685491.0071@VM1.MCGILL.CA> CZ94 <CZ94@MUSICA.MCGILL.CA> writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.185109.19103@IRO.UMontreal.CA> laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan20.153913.4802@seachg.uucp> chrisb@seachg.UUCP (Chris Blask) writes:
>>
>>[lotsa good stuff coming from the american hat deleted]
>>
>>       It's all a question of proportions... Ottawa, for example, which
>>has always had a very big franco population, has never had a public franco
>                                                              ^^^^^^
>>school before 1979. When Francojeunesse school was founded, I went there for
>>one year in 1980. The quality of French being taught was pitiful: the
>>teachers even made serious grammar mistake in our report cards.
>>I still don't know if there are any more public franco schools in
>                                          ^^^^^^
>>Ottawa, a part from that one.
>
>What do you mean by "public" in this context?  In Ontario there are
>_two_ publicly-funded school systems, usually called "public" (i.e.
>non-denominational) and "separate" (i.e. Roman Catholic).  Since
>most Franco-Ontarians are (nominally) Catholic, and this was even
>more true in the past, I would expect that most French schools would be
>in the separate school system, not the public system.
>
Yes, you are right. I meant non-denominational. I didn't know that
the Catholic franco schools were also funded. Ontario wins 
a point in my book.


Seb


-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Sebastien Lavier [Calimero]    | Centre de recherche, Hopital du Sacre-Coeur  
|laviers@iro.umontreal.ca       | "The opinions expressed here are mine and  
|Universite de Montreal, Canada |   should also be yours!"               
Xref: sparky can.general:6427 talk.politics.animals:11748