HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: UI Benfits Cut
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 12:02:20 GMT

In article <derry.725061307@sfu.ca> derry@beaufort.sfu.ca (Andrew Derry) writes:
>dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>
>
>I'll be the first to admit that I don't know a whole lot about the
>hows and whys of things like UIC, but it seems to me that if UIC was
>meant for those who were having to support a family during a crisis,
>then shouldn't one of the criterion for eligibility for UIC be that
>you are supporting a family?
>
Try to do that! It would be politically unacceptable now. Yet, original
intentions can sometimes instruct us as to what the problems are. Do
families really NEED two or three incomes - particularly if that leads to
abuse of the system? I suspect without knowing the figures (it would make a
really great thesis topic) that 90 percent of the recipients of UIC are
either single or second income earners in a family.

>Are you advocating the stopping of the UIC program in general, then?

No, I am not advocating the elimination of UIC - just cleaning it up to make
it a) experience rated, and b) to stop the welfare aspects of it in the
greater benefits in certain areas. If it were run according to the economics
of insurance, it would not be abused.

>As long as we are forced to pay into UIC while we work, it doesn't
>seem unreasonable to expect something in return.  (ie: the assurance
>that I will still get money, even if I lose my job - no matter how I
>lose it, as the name suggests)

Yes, use proper insurance methods, including increasing premiums if it has
been improperly used previously or if the usage becomes greater than
expected for your line of work (just like car insurance goes up if you have
more than one accident to claim on).

>Not being an economist, I can't say much, but it seems to me that
>higher taxes for higher income individuals (and companies) would be
>better that the GST which causes everybody to pay equally when clearly
>they cannot equally afford to pay.

Problem here is what if you drive the well-educated (higher income people)
or their capital out of the country? Who will pay for the jobs to be
created? I do not consider myself rich - indeed, I can barely pay my monthly
bills as it is but my taxes are now much higher than they would be if I
moved and there are many others like me. I could consider moving if taxes
rise much more. While I do not supply much in the way of capital, I do teach
University students and I provide the government with many thousands of
dollars - where would they get the money if I moved? Think before you talk!




Newsgroups: can.general
From: rsingh@goliath.stanford.edu (raj)
Subject: Getting Canada Pension and UI money back ...
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:28:36 -0800
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA28478; Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:30:09 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA07815; Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:30:06 -0800
X-Received: by goliath.Stanford.EDU (5.57/1.34)
	id AA09621; Tue, 29 Dec 92 17:28:36 -0800
X-To: can.general.usenet


From: rsingh@goliath.Stanford.EDU (   raj)
Subject: Getting Canada Pension and UI money back ...
Followup-To: misc.consumers
Summary: money taken out of my pay!
Keywords: Canada, tax, pension, UI, unemployment insurance
Organization: Makalu Mountain Hermitage, Mt Makalu, Nepal
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 00:16:18 GMT


SITUATION:
==========

I worked in Canada during the fall 89 and spring 90 and as per my coy
of T4 (equivalent to US W-2), the following taxes were deducted.  All
this time, my status was a student visa + a valid employment
authorization, something similar to being on F-1 with an EAD in US.

 Fall 1989
     1. Income tax:                              2353.38
     2. Canada Pension plan, employee's portion:  218.22
     3. Unemployment insurance:                   215.34

  amount in (1) DOES NOT include amounts in (2) and (3).

 Spring 1990

     4. Income tax:                              5522.61
     5. Canada Pension plan, employee's portion:  507.11
     6. Unemployment insurance:                   534.08

  amount in (4) DOES NOT include amounts in (5) and (6).

Upon filing tax returns, I was refunded miniscule portions of (1)+(4).


I am NOT ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR ANY BENEFITS that are funded by the
contributions (2), (3), (5) and (6) above, and I was told at the time
that I *DID NOT* have to pay these taxes.  However, my company was
small (<20) and we only had a part time accountant so they just kept
on deducting.

QUESTIONS:
==========

 1. Which government authority in Canada administers the pension and
    UI?  Is it the ministry of Welfare?  Who do I write to?

 2. Am I entitled to get all the monies ( 2+3+5+6 + employer's
    contributions) back?  With interest?  Now?  At 60? Ever?

Thank you very much for any and all info and tips ... I would
like to get my monies back and before I start talking to civil
servants, I want to be ared with facts and tips.

--raj
Newsgroups: can.general,can.taxes
From: raj@goliath.stanford.edu (raj)
Subject: Getting Canada Pension and UI money back ...
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 17:10:13 -0800
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA23118; Thu, 24 Dec 92 17:10:20 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA05697; Thu, 24 Dec 92 17:10:18 -0800
X-Received: by goliath.Stanford.EDU (5.57/1.34)
	id AA02010; Thu, 24 Dec 92 17:10:13 -0800
X-To: can.general.usenet, can.taxes.usenet


Followup-To: misc.consumers
Summary: money taken out of my pay!
Keywords: Canada, tax, pension, UI, unemployment insurance

SITUATION:
==========

I worked in Canada during the fall 89 and spring 90 and as per my coy
of T4 (equivalent to US W-2), the following taxes were deducted.  All
this time, my status was a student visa + a valid employment
authorization, something similar to being on F-1 with an EAD in US.

 Fall 1989
     1. Income tax:                              2353.38
     2. Canada Pension plan, employee's portion:  218.22
     3. Unemployment insurance:                   215.34

  amount in (1) DOES NOT include amounts in (2) and (3).

 Spring 1990

     4. Income tax:                              5522.61
     5. Canada Pension plan, employee's portion:  507.11
     6. Unemployment insurance:                   534.08

  amount in (4) DOES NOT include amounts in (5) and (6).

Upon filing tax returns, I was refunded miniscule portions of (1)+(4).


I am NOT ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR ANY BENEFITS that are funded by the
contributions (2), (3), (5) and (6) above, and I was told at the time
that I *DID NOT* have to pay these taxes.  However, my company was
small (<20) and we only had a part time accountant so they just kept
on deducting.

QUESTIONS:
==========

 1. Which government authority in Canada administers the pension and
    UI?  Is it the ministry of Welfare?  Who do I write to?

 2. Am I entitled to get all the monies ( 2+3+5+6 + employer's
    contributions) back?  With interest?  Now?  At 60? Ever?

Thank you very much for any and all info and tips ... I would
like to get my monies back and before I start talking to civil
servants, I want to be ared with facts and tips.

--raj (raj@goliath.stanford.edu)
Xref: sparky can.general:6160 bc.general:584
From: ewong@ucs.ubc.ca (Eldon Wong)
Newsgroups: can.general,bc.general
Subject: Re: deadbeat condo builders
Date: 23 Dec 1992 17:33:47 GMT
Organization: University Computing Services, UBC, Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: swiss.ucs.ubc.ca

In article <1992Dec23.011001.7997@mdivax1.uucp> robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson) writes:
>
>My mother purchased a condo in BC (Burnaby, to be precise) in February.
>The condo has a number of deficiencies which she has been attempting to get
>the builder to rectify. The builder did rectify a few of them, but has
>apparently decided to not move on the rest; phone calls are not returned
>and letters are not replied to. The builder is supposedly in some financial
>difficulty although I have been told the parent company is quite large. My
>mother is now at the stage where she will have to inform the builder that
>if they do not fix the deficiencies she will proceed with the repairs
>herself and take the builder & parent company to small claims court in
>order to recover the costs. Since this is new to both her and me I am
>asking for *any* advice on what additional steps may be taken in order to
>persuade the builder to settle out of court.

Unfortunately, the following information may not help you that much, but
thought you might want to know about it.  The NewsHour on BCTV covered this on
one of their telecasts a few months back.  According to the show, if the
builder wasn't part of the New Home Warranty program, there wasn't a lot
the tenants could do.  I think the end result was that in some buildings,
tenants were fixing things themselves and then suing the builder.  In
other cases, enough tenants got together to pressure the builder into
doing something.  The bad news was that there were a lot of people in this
situation because of the large number of condos being constructed during
the so called "good times."  A lot of builders were hoping to cash in on
the market and were building them very quickly and with very minimal
concern about using high quality control.  This isn't to say all builders
were bad, but just that there were (are?) a lot that were (are).

>If it makes any difference the builder is "Strong Bases Development
>(Canada) Ltd" and the parent company is "Scanastra Holdings Company Ltd".
>
>Thanks
>-- 
>Jim Robinson
>robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
>{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
>


-- 
 Eldon Wong - Site-license Coordinator  |  email:ewong@ucs.ubc.ca      o o  
     University of British Columbia     |  phone: (604) 822-9272        >   
           Computing Services           |  fax: (604) 822-5116         `-'  
Xref: sparky can.general:6150 bc.general:582
Newsgroups: can.general,bc.general
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: deadbeat condo builders
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: 23 Dec 92 01:11:00 GMT


My mother purchased a condo in BC (Burnaby, to be precise) in February.
The condo has a number of deficiencies which she has been attempting to get
the builder to rectify. The builder did rectify a few of them, but has
apparently decided to not move on the rest; phone calls are not returned
and letters are not replied to. The builder is supposedly in some financial
difficulty although I have been told the parent company is quite large. My
mother is now at the stage where she will have to inform the builder that
if they do not fix the deficiencies she will proceed with the repairs
herself and take the builder & parent company to small claims court in
order to recover the costs. Since this is new to both her and me I am
asking for *any* advice on what additional steps may be taken in order to
persuade the builder to settle out of court.

If it makes any difference the builder is "Strong Bases Development
(Canada) Ltd" and the parent company is "Scanastra Holdings Company Ltd".

Thanks
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 12:13:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.071207.20954@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <BzE17K.K8o@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> tjdoran@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (DORAN TJ - BIOLOGY) writes:
>>
>
>But the fact remains that the international money markets probably
>have significantly greater trust in the Tories, than they would
>in the Liberals...(and forget about the NDP).  As an election 
>nears and the international markets begin noticing the poll numbers
>and the utter nonsense that spews from Jean Chretien and his leading
>finance critic Herb Gray...we should be prepared for another roller
>coaster ride like we had during the referendum.
>
>Gerald

Gerald:
	You are right - even the possibility of a hung parliament with the
Reform and Bloc Quebecois having deciding votes might give the C$ a real
ride down. Any sensible Canadian will be transferring bank accounts and
mutual funds right now into US$ in order to avoid the ride unless you think
that Wilson, Maz. and Clark can take charge after the election - the hope is
that the PM will step aside and those three who have international
credibility can take charge or else we really are in for trouble.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam)
Subject: Re: Monetary "theory"
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 18:16:29 GMT

cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>The only entity that can "create" money in the context of M0
>(currency) is the Bank of Canada, in its issuance of bills and coins.
>

Just a minor, but significant point, the Bank of Canada issues bills
(paper money).  It is the Government of Canada that issues coins.


Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE          | "...My brain IBM"
Ryerson Polytechnical Institute    | "So if you see me, acting stangely..."
Toronto, Ontario, Canada           |                  STYX, Mr. Roboto
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Attachment of Wages of Military Personnel
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 15:20:52 PST
Organization: The Old Coot's (Spare) Almanac

I am seeking information wrt Attachment of wages of someone in
the Canadian military (for child support/spousal support arrears).
A friend has been told that an Attachment Order cannot be made on
her ex-husband's wages, because he is a federal employee.

This makes no sense to me when Federal Intervention Attachments,
"FINT Orders", are made regularly against non-custodial parents
(NCPs) who are in default of support orders.  FINT Orders are attach-
ments to any monies owed the debtor by the Federal government, so
that all, or part of, the debtor's federal incomes (ie. UIC, tax
refunds, etc.) can be garnisheed for the specified debt.

Soooo...why should the rules be different for federal/military
employees?  Are they different, or was my friend given incorrect
information?  Apparently, her ex's C.O. is "not cooperating" with
the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program's request for the
Attachment Order, so "there's nothing (they) can do, because he's
(the debtor) military personnel".

If anyone reading this knows anything about the subject, your
shared information would be much appreciated.

Lisa

               lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca (Lisa Lambeth)
                      The Old Coot's Almanac
               Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada
                    Courtesy the old coot hisse'f!
Xref: sparky can.general:6195 can.politics:11123 talk.politics.animals:10638
From: wayne@tse.uucp (Wayne Hines)
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Eating killed animals (was Re: Gun Control Petition)
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:59:05 GMT
Organization: Toronto Stock Exchange

In article <schuck.725650169@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>>A while back I posted excerpts of an article from _Cattleman_ magazine,
>>a Canadian beef industry journal, in talk.politics.animals.  The article
>>indicated that both the surgical and elastrator methods of castration caused
>>some pain.  
>      ^^^^^
>
>>To me what you have described is abusive, and is comparable to what is
>>documented in _Diet_for_a_new_America_.
>
>Are you *really* implying that any medical procedure that has an
>element of pain is *abusive*??????
>
>Does that mean dentists are *abusive* ?
>
>How about nurses when they poke your arm several times trying to find
>a vein when they need blood?
>
>How about any surgical or medical procedure on animals or humans that
>causes pain? I could list hundreds.
>
>According to you and your *book* -- *pain* of any kind is now
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>considered abusive. 
>
Brother !

Let's be reasonable. Comparing cattle castration to human medical treatment
is inaccurate and distorts Rosemary's argument. Cattle are castrated purely
for human gain - obviously they have no choice, and it is really not to their
benefit.  People choose voluntarily to submit to medical procedures, and the
resulting pain is endured for longer-term benefits.

So *I think* that Rosemary's point still stands unrefuted (by your arguments
at least).
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
		Wayne Hines 
		wayne@tse.uucp 
Newsgroups: can.general,talk.politics.animals
From: dmanke@sanjuan (Dennis Manke)
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: Meat Vegans vegetarian food
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. CANADA
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 06:59:10 GMT

In article <schuck.724868089@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>
>Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>Did you know that protein deficiency lowers the IQ?
>

Protein deficiency is **not** a problem in a balanced vegetarian diet.


Dennis, dmanke@sanjuan.uvic.ca
Newsgroups: can.general
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Legalized Discrimination in Quebec
Followup-To: can.politics,can.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: 21 Dec 92 16:52:07 GMT

Michael Hui (myhui@bnr.ca) wrote:
>In article <1992Dec20.182447.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> 4224_5201@uwovax.uwo.ca (John LaRocque) writes:
>>And then as a kid
>>in Ontario he got hassled for his French accent. Even now racist
>>assholes where he works hand him Reform/APEC pamphlets and hassle
>>him and the other factory workers for speaking French.

>Mon Dieu.

>I guess I was right after all when I fought so hard against the
>Reform party. Their policies may be passable on paper. Too bad
>a few of their member aren't even toilet trained.

My, my, but don't we like to make sweeping generalizations based on partial
information concerning a few private citizens. Tell me, is it true that all
NDPers hide AK-47s? under their beds and sleep below a picture of Stalin? I
though not.
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith)
Subject: Re: The Canadian Problem - How can it be fixed?
Organization: The John P. Robarts Research Institute, London, Ontario
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:02:16 GMT

In article <Bzv7K4.3Io@mach1.wlu.ca> dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F) writes:
>
>blocks of MPs who vote against their own party. Trudeau and Mulroney have
>taken party discipline too far - because CAnada is a country of
>hero-worshippers (we look for the leader we want, not the team we want). I

Look what happened in what, Alberta?  A new party leader was selected by
some means (I don't know how), and he replaced the old party leader, who was
the Premier of the province at the time.  The point is that the team stayed in
power while the captain was changed.

>agree that removing party from parliament to such a great extent is
>desirable but cannot be done completely because there are some benefits to
>party too. Free votes, regular leadership reviews, etc. ought to be
>permitted

That's the biggest crock.  "Free votes OUGHT to be permitted ..."
If we want to be seriously committed to democracy, that should read
"Free votes MUST be permitted".  What's the point of having an elected
representative of a constituency if that elected person can't, or doesn't,
or won't represent that constituency? 

Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics
From: dmccrea6@mach1.wlu.ca (doug mccready F)
Subject: Re: UI Benfits Cut
Organization: Wilfrid Laurier University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 12:35:16 GMT

Like Jim, I agree with the idea of making it less easy to get UIC. I have
watched one family go from one spouse working while the other spouse
collected UIC to the reverse and then repeat the cycle - thatis not what UIC
was for folks! It is to help the single-earner family that suffers a
calamatous period of unemployment so they will have food and shelter. What
it has become is a tool for people to get a living without working.
Newsgroups: can.general
From: paul@sco.COM (Paul Jackson)
Subject: Re: meat eaters (was: Re: Gun Control Petition)
Organization: SCO Canada, Inc.
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 16:16:42 GMT

In article <schuck.724456188@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>Is the SPCA cruel to animals when it 'puts to sleep' thousands of
>animals each year? No.

Yes it is. The cruelty of killing them is less than the cruelty of allowing
them to live, but it IS cruel to deprive healthy animals of their lives.
I'm using cruelty in a broader sense than the dictionary definition of
"causing pain and distress" here. I'd consider it cruel for somebody to kill
me.

>Eating meat is normal.
>Killing an animal to eat it is normal.

Normal, yes. Cruel, yes.

>
>Stop promoting vegetarianism as an ethical choice by ethical people as
>if vegetarians are more *moral*.
>
>A truly *ethical* person who wanted to cause no cruelty -- by your
>definition- would kill themselves and stop competing with animals for
>food, air and living space.

My, aren't we an absolutist who sees the world in black and white. It is not
a matter of being ethical or nor being ethical, it is a spectrum along which
individuals fall.

Somebody who refuses to kill and eat animals when there is a reasonable
alternative because they believe that animals also have significant rights
IS being more ethical in this area than one who doesn't. This does NOT mean
that somebody who eats meats is an evil scum.

Disclaimer - although I believe the above I personally am NOT a vegetarian,
I just like the taste of meat too much and dislike the effort needed to be a
vegetarian.  I don't feel that this makes me an unethical or evil person,
but I freely admit that I would be MORE ethical if I refused to eat meat.
Unfortunately, like everybody else, I am human and therefore fail to meet my
own ideal standards in many ways.
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics,soc.culture.canada
From: sl@wimsey.bc.ca (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Latest evil Canada Post plot
Organization: Wimsey Information Services
Distribution: can
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 00:18:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.055359.16202@xenitec.on.ca> eah@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) writes:
>In article <charles.724433448@menaik> charles@cs.UAlberta.CA (Charles Jobagy) writes:
>>And they will perform accordingly.
>
>Wouldn't the postal Unions have a problem with a combination of
>lower pay and coincidental increased performance expectations?

On the other hand, given McDonalds success at increasing productivity with
employee motivation and careful design of the workplace, maybe we should 
contract with McDonalds for mail movement ;-)

A free Big Mac with every priority post letter you send ...

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com> ......................... UNIX Facsimile Software
Wimsey Information Technologies ................... moderator biz.sco.binaries
uucp login:nuucp passwd:nuucp .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/ls-lR.Z
PD Software for SCO UNIX .................... ftp.wimsey.com:~ftp/pub/wimseypd
Newsgroups: can.general,misc.misc,or.general,pnw.general,psi.general,uw.general,alt.newbie,alt.newbies
From: muhamk@microsoft.com (Muhammad Karim)
Subject: TV Shows Exporting
Date: 26 Dec 92 17:35:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corp.
Keywords: Shows

I am interested in starting an exporting business of TV or
Video Production (TV & Comedy Shows, Movies & Mini TV series
or any other shows which can be televised in TV, half an hour
or longer).

If you are interested in exporting your video or TV production
or know someone who can help me out in this matter please forward
me his/her name.

Thanks for all the help and you can email me
at muhamk@microsoft.com

~
Newsgroups: can.general,can.politics