Canadian Politics

[Eriol]

For some reason, our national government thinks it's a GOOD idea to tax employee discounts as taxable benefits: Revenue Canada to tax employee discounts but Ottawa says it's not 'targeting' retail workers

WTF? Taxing somebody at McDonalds for getting an employee discount on their lunch? Or 1000s of other things. This isn't even a tax on the "questionably" (IMO) wealthy small business owners, this is going to impact the working poor the MOST.

Just yikes.

 

[blotsfan]

That is one of the dumber things I've ever heard.

 

[strawman]

For some reason, our national government thinks it's a GOOD idea to tax employee discounts as taxable benefits: Revenue Canada to tax employee discounts but Ottawa says it's not 'targeting' retail workers

WTF? Taxing somebody at McDonalds for getting an employee discount on their lunch? Or 1000s of other things. This isn't even a tax on the "questionably" (IMO) wealthy small business owners, this is going to impact the working poor the MOST.

Just yikes.

So here's how this works, presented as a hypothetical:

I take a $1/year salary at my job. My business happens to provide office and residential space in a downtown building. As part of my benefits I receive a 100% discount on a penthouse suite as my employee discount. So I'm not only not paying thousands of dollars a month in rental fees, but I'm also not paying taxes on that money. Now it may happen that the business only rents one unit, that it essentially subleases from another company, and the business isn't generally in the rental market but has the majority of its revenue from completely unrelated lines of business, but legally that's just one line of business it can do, and providing free housing to the CEO just happens to be a benefit that neither the company nor the CEO have to pay taxes on.

Even small discounts add up, though. If an employee works 3 days a week, gets a free $10 meal each day, then that's $1,500 of income a year, untaxed. Multiply that times the 422,000 workers in the fast food industry in canada and the government is potentially not taxing 600 million dollars of income a year.

So the question is, are employee benefits income, or not? Are they bartered goods/services for work? The guidelines are using the litmus test of whether they are offered to non employees as well - for instance veterans, homeless, etc. I suspect this is the real issue behind your unhappiness - the idea that discounts are income traded for work. Either that or income tax itself is bothersome?

That said, I guess the canadian government needs more money? Oddly enough, they've already beaten their budget forecast by over 5 billion dollars:

http://business.financialpost.com/n...ederal-deficit-for-2016-17-was-17-8-billion-2

So now they're faced with having to decide whether to fund programs or save money.

The taxes collect from the rich using discount loopholes probably pales in comparison to the taxes collected from the millions of people working day jobs who only get small discounts individually, but as a group they add up.

 

[Adam]

Canada already requires businesses to treat housing allowances, car allowances and other benefits as taxable. As an example, I receive my house loan at 2% (often referred to as a prescribed rate), anything lower than that, the interest I saved would be considered taxable income.

 

[Gruebeard]

The guidelines are using the litmus test of whether they are offered to non employees as well - for instance veterans, homeless, etc.

I get a discount at some restaurants in town because I work for one of the larger employees.

Now, my discount isn't as large as the employee discount - but they've got gat covered by offering the big discount to police officers and firefighters.

I really should've been a cop.

 

[GasBandit]

I get a discount at some restaurants in town because I work for one of the larger employees.

Now, my discount isn't as large as the employee discount - but they've got gat covered by offering the big discount to police officers and firefighters.

I really should've been a cop.

A guy I went to high school with ended up a policeman in Dallas. Of course, lots of businesses like to give discounts to cops, but the department frowns on cops using their jobs to ask for discounts (or at least they did 15 years ago or so). Some of them would not-so-subtly leave their wallet open on the table, showing their badge, when they were ready to pay, but this guy had a slightly more clever way to get it.

He wore a Dallas Fire Department t-shirt.

Almost always, the waiter would ask, "oh, are you a firefighter?" and he could say "No, I'm Dallas PD." "Really?" and then he'd show his badge to prove it. Then they'd gush and give him a discount. That way, he could get the discount without asking for it or even volunteering the info that he was a police officer unsolicited.

 

[Eriol]

For some reason, our national government thinks it's a GOOD idea to tax employee discounts as taxable benefits: Revenue Canada to tax employee discounts but Ottawa says it's not 'targeting' retail workers

WTF? Taxing somebody at McDonalds for getting an employee discount on their lunch? Or 1000s of other things. This isn't even a tax on the "questionably" (IMO) wealthy small business owners, this is going to impact the working poor the MOST.

Just yikes.

Keeps getting about as clear as mud: Fact check: Are employee discounts taxed, or not?

And realizing this is political suicide, from the Minister's office: Employee Discounts Won't Be Taxed, Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier's Office Says

Amid a growing controversy, a spokesman for the National Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier says the government will pull the new wording at the heart of the debate from the Canada Revenue Agency website.

John Power says the government is planning to hold an internal review on the wording change, which will be followed by a consultation on the issue with industry groups.

The law hasn't changed at any point, here, just how CRA is interpreting it, presumably with some type of guidance from higher-ups?

Your guess is as good as mine on this one as to how it'll ultimately play out, and what legislation is/may be necessary or not.

 

[Eriol]

Our Federal Finance Minister is in hot water recently: The sad part is Morneau was supposed to be the adult at the table

The Conservatives are hammering Morneau over not putting his considerable wealth into a blind trust 120 days after being appointed to cabinet, as per section 27 of the Conflict of Interest Act.

...

But he’s yet to be completely forthcoming with the public and opposition. On Monday, Prime Minister Trudeau ran interference for his key minister at a Stouffville, Ontario, press conference, insisting on answering questions put directly to Morneau, who stood beside the PM, about his undisclosed villa in France.

...
Now the NDP is jumping into the fray, asking Dawson to investigative Morneau over his sponsorship last October of Bill C-27, which allows for the creation of new types of benefit plans from which Morneau Shepell, of which he owns millions of shares, would most surely benefit.

So that's a thing recently. There's probably interesting Trump parallels with what's necessary for arms-length for businesses and such, though the laws are assuredly different.

 

[Eriol]

Quebec face-covering ban:
CBC: 'I should see your face, and you should see mine,' Quebec premier says of new religious neutrality law

A new law that would effectively force Muslim women who wear a niqab or burka to uncover their faces to use public services is based on a principle "the vast majority of Canadians, and not just Quebecers" can agree on, Premier Philippe Couillard said.

The Liberal government's Bill 62 on religious neutrality was passed Wednesday in Quebec's National Assembly.

"We are just saying that for reasons linked to communication, identification and safety, public services should be given and received with an open face," Couillard told reporters.

"We are in a free and democratic society. You speak to me, I should see your face, and you should see mine. It's as simple as that."

Toronto Star: Quebec and its niqab legislation should have stayed out of women’s closets

A bill that legislates clothing ends up linking emancipation of women to how little or how much they wear. In doing so, it works against choice.
...
If you, like me, don’t wear any kind of face covering, this battle isn’t about us. It is, however, about defending the rights of the tiny number of women in Quebec who cover their faces even if you can’t defend their practice.

To be clear, I have no patience for the imposition of modesty on women, especially if those standards of modesty differ significantly from those imposed on men. This applies to expectations that women cover their faces but men needn’t.
...
Just as there are many reasons women might choose to wear a little black dress, there are many reasons women might choose a voluminous one that includes a face covering. For some it’s a political stance — a statement of defiance against Islamophobia; for some it’s about personal comfort and modesty; for some it is a mark of devoutness; for some it’s unthinking conformity.

Certainly, there are those who wear it because they don’t have a choice.

Toronto Sun: Men making women hide

Bill 62 — adopted by the Quebec National Assembly — is a call to arms.

This is an invitation to progressive liberal women in Canada to champion the bill and ensure that it is adopted by all the provinces of Canada. It is also time to discredit the Globe and Mail front page column which states that this bill is “raising worries among Muslims."

Who is Ihsaan Gardee, the only person quoted in the article, a self-appointed director of an obscure Muslim council. Why does he think he can speak for Canadian women and insist that they continue to hide their faces.

As a Canadian author of South Asian origin and exposed to liberal Sunni Muslim ideals, it is my responsibility to actively denounce the invasion of orthodox misogyny into my country, Canada. This two-decade-old creeping rot which is threatening to alter the social fabric of a nation is now being encouraged by Canadian media to duck for cover under the diversity debates umbrella.
...
The majority of women who are affiliated with the Muslim faith continue to enjoy lives of contentment in Canada. They are seen minus the hijab and niqab in all Canadian cities. They are a vital part of the Canadian workforce. Their children attend schools and universities without being bundled into black robes and face masks.

Yet they are now beginning to articulate their concerns about the voices of immigrants from primitive societies where men rule and systematically suppress their women, garnering the sole attention of media outlets. Hence the attention paid to Mr.Garde who at best remains a propogandist with a sinister agenda — the enslavement of women to be exercised in Canada.

Her final line is worth quoting on its own:

There is no mention of any dress code for women anywhere in the revered text of the Qur’an. So it is time to denounce the fakers and say: “welcome to a Canada where women can never be hidden.”

I included the first two articles to be fair that I've read more than just one source (read, not just linked to). Some of the other commentary about how the niqab is linked to political Islam (read: advancement of Sharia law) is also worth looking around for IMO.

 

[MindDetective]

We are in a free and democratic society, so we need to restrict this freedom.

 

[PatrThom]

We are in a free and democratic society, so we need to restrict this freedom.

In a truly free society, we should be able to restrict whatever we want.

--Patrick

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Them: "We won't be like those countries that dictate what women can wear!"

Also them: "Also, women can't wear this."

 

[Eriol]

Our Federal Finance Minister is in hot water recently: The sad part is Morneau was supposed to be the adult at the table

So that's a thing recently. There's probably interesting Trump parallels with what's necessary for arms-length for businesses and such, though the laws are assuredly different.

More from the "OMG he's even worse than I thought" file: Morneau Shepell, Sears and more — they’ve all forgotten about the little guy

Eddie Lampert used the Wall Street hedge fund he ran to buy up Sears stock. For many years Sears Canada had usually paid a share dividend of 60 cents. But just six months later, even as Sears Canada was bleeding quarterly losses of $49 million, dividends were boosted to $5 a share.

This experience “sucked all the value out of the company,” says Duvall. In fact, $453 million of company money — badly needed for a turn-around — was paid to shareholders including Lampert and companies controlled by him.

Surprising that isn't a crime to do that... but then we get into our Finance Minister:

Today, Lampert is freely enjoying his lavish 288-foot, $130-million yacht , according to news reports. But 18,000 Sears Canada workers, like Duvall’s old friends and workmates, are up the creek with no paddle. The Sears Canada pension plan is $270 million underfunded.

In upcoming weeks, those workers will receive letters from Morneau-Shepell, the actuarial and pension management company that provides services to the Sears Canada plan. Those letters will update retirees on what is left after Lampert and others got their money.

...

Under Canadian law, workers and retirees are last in line for their own money. It clearly irritates Duvall.
But it benefits Finance Minister Bill Morneau who controls about one million shares of Morneau-Shepell, although announced on Thursday his intention to sell them. That holding paid a $64,000 dividend cheque — monthly.

So the Finance Minister allows one of the larger retailers in Canada to crater, its employees without a funded pension plan... and then benefits from it DIRECTLY?

This is some serious WTF-level stuff.

 

[Eriol]

We are in a free and democratic society, so we need to restrict this freedom.

Them: "We won't be like those countries that dictate what women can wear!"

Also them: "Also, women can't wear this."

Uh huh. Read this: Two Quebec Muslim women accuse Kathleen Wynne of burka betrayal

Haider told me that on Wednesday when she heard the news of the passing of Quebec Bill 62, she was thrilled with joy. “I felt all of Canada had finally recognized the tyranny that is the niqab and burka and would follow Quebec’s courage in standing up to oppression of women.”

“But listening to Anglophone men and women attack Quebec’s new law shocked me,” she added. “Are Kathleen Wynne and NDP women like Nikki Ashton and Andrea Howarth plain anti-Francophone or guilt-ridden white feminists?” she asked.

@ThatNickGuy in particular, he asked her this question

Seeking other voices, I got in touch with Montreal resident Professor Roksana Nazneen, a Muslim Quebecker of Bangladeshi origin

“No, not at all. As a Muslim woman, I applaud Quebec’s Bill 62.”

“Niqab or Burka should have no place in a civil society. It is neither religious nor cultural. It is an anti-west political statement introduced by radical Islamists all over the globe,” she added.

But what about the right to choose, I argued.

“Nonsense. burka is not a choice. If a person chooses to be a cocaine addict, will our society sit still and do nothing to stop him or her from the addiction?” she asked. “What next? Will we allow suicide jumpers to jump to their death just because they made the ‘choice’ to take their lives?”

Emphasis mine.

 

[Gruebeard]

But what about the right to choose, I argued.

“Nonsense. burka is not a choice. If a person chooses to be a cocaine addict, will our society sit still and do nothing to stop him or her from the addiction?” she asked. “What next? Will we allow suicide jumpers to jump to their death just because they made the ‘choice’ to take their lives?”

Emphasis mine.

I'm pretty sure we have support systems in place to help women escape from abusive relationships. I'm pretty sure if a burka wearing woman reaches out for help to escape her "addiction" she will find there are just as many agencies, social workers, and various other supports for her as the cocaine addict will find.

And that suicide jumper comment is weird. It can't be what's coming next since we've already decriminalized suicide.

 

[Eriol]

I'm pretty sure we have support systems in place to help women escape from abusive relationships. I'm pretty sure if a burka wearing woman reaches out for help to escape her "addiction" she will find there are just as many agencies, social workers, and various other supports for her as the cocaine addict will find.

And I'm pretty sure most of them won't seek help in the first place: 8 days in prison for beating wife with hockey stick

Following the attack, Rafia’s wife was taken to a local hospital and initially lied to protect her husband. She later revealed that he beat her with a hockey stick – for half an hour – pulled her hair, hit her in the face and threatened to kill her.

My post above quoting Muslim women pointing out the niqab and burka for what they are - tools of oppression - (and the article itself was written by a Muslim man) means that for once I agree with what Quebec is doing (which is itself very unusual for me). Anybody saying those head garments are fine are aiding in oppression since women who are "oh totally not forced" to wear them are sooo free to lead their lives without them. I completely believe they aren't coerced to do so by their culture and men around them. *sarcasm off*

It's hard enough for battered women raised in our "western" culture to go seek help. You think very many who are raised in a culture where they defend those who beat them for half an hour are going to be able to cast it off themselves?

 

[Bubble181]

Also, people really seem to lose sight that there's a huge difference between a standard head scarf, hijab, niqab and burqa. I certainly believe in a woman's right to wear a piece of tissue on her head and cover her hair - my grandmother did, too, you know. I have a hard time believing in the voluntary wearing of a burqa, unless backed by plenty of brainwashing/propaganda. It often depends on the exact wording of this sort of ban, but the burqa really has no decent defense.

 

[Gruebeard]

It often depends on the exact wording of this sort of ban, but the burqa really has no decent defense.

No. I actually agree. My problem here is that this ban's justification seems to be something along the lines of "we're protecting these women from barbaric religious practices" But the ban's not doing that. It's restricting their freedom.

If Quebec actually wanted to protect these women, it should target the people making the women wear the burka, not punish the woman

 

[blotsfan]

If a woman is in an abusive relationship where the husband won't let her leave the house without a Burqua, all banning one does is mean that she isn't allowed to leave the house.

 

[Eriol]

If a woman is in an abusive relationship where the husband won't let her leave the house without a Burqua, all banning one does is mean that she isn't allowed to leave the house.

I'm open to being convinced on this type of grounds that the current legislation is a bad idea. I won't be convinced that it's actually her choice to go about and wear such a garment, and it's reflecting the growth of a misogynistic ideology that we seem to choose to be importing... for some reason. I put this kind of allowance as somewhat like freedom of speech. Yes it enables fuckwads, but the consequences of restricting it are much worse.

But you're not going to convince me that women wearing those things "voluntarily" (bullshit) is a good thing, nor the spread of the ideologies behind it that say women should always wear such things when in public.

 

[blotsfan]

But you're not going to convince me that women wearing those things "voluntarily" (bullshit) is a good thing, nor the spread of the ideologies behind it that say women should always wear such things when in public.

As long as you're willing to go after Orthodox Jews and Religious Christians who feel the same.

 

[Bubble181]

As long as you're willing to go after Orthodox Jews and Religious Christians who feel the same.

I'm firmly against any religion enforcing dress codes, but there's a big difference between something covering your head and a full burqa.

 

[Eriol]

As long as you're willing to go after Orthodox Jews and Religious Christians who feel the same.

Yes that is also problematic. The difference there though is that both Orthodox Jews and most of the Christians doing those things are NOT proselytizing religions. Thus they don't really "spread" much. Inside their insular communities, it's still bad, but they aren't trying to convince people down the street that they should do it too, or that it's actually a matter of women's choice. So at least they're honest about it.

But I would apply the same standard and I don't think it's right either, or a non-coerced choice.

 

[PatrThom]

What would probably hasten the demise of the practice would be for it to become an "in" fashion among teens, where teens compete to see who can wear the most outrageously flagrant anonymizing garment.

--Patrick

 

[Gruebeard]

What would probably hasten the demise of the practice would be for it to become an "in" fashion among teens, where teens compete to see who can wear the most outrageously flagrant anonymizing garment.

--Patrick

High school girls wearing burkas? We can't allow that!



. . . said the dirty old man.

 

[GasBandit]

I personally don't think there's any defense for face-concealing headgear, but I also want to point out all too often that what is really going on is this:

Spoiler: Slightly NSFW - nipple

 

[Gruebeard]

I personally don't think there's any defense for face-concealing headgear.

I thought you were a Libertarian, that the only defense necessary for you would be "Fuck off, government, with mandating what I can wear."

 

[GasBandit]

I thought you were a Libertarian, that the only defense necessary for you would be "Fuck off, government, with mandating what I can wear."

Libertarians are not anarchists. We don't want everybody running around in basically what amounts to bank robber masks either. But that's the only part of the get-up that anybody of sound mind should be able to object to.. the face covering Veil.

 

[Gruebeard]

Libertarians are not anarchists. We don't want everybody running around in basically what amounts to bank robber masks either.

But you're okay with everyone running around with bank robber weapons?

It's a weird line you seem to be drawing is all I'm saying.

 

[GasBandit]

But you're okay with everyone running around with bank robber weapons?

It's a weird line you seem to be drawing is all I'm saying.

Congratulations, that has to be the most egregious case of apples and oranges I have ever seen. You should display it at the county fair. I'm sure you will win a prize.

 

[Gruebeard]

Congratulations, that has to be the most egregious case of apples and oranges I have ever seen. You should display it at the county fair. I'm sure you will win a prize.

Look, I really truly don't understand why you'd be apparently okay with the government mandating what you wear, and why you'd justify that by saying "because criminals wear masks."

You're using essentially the same justification that riles you up when gun control advocates use it.

and it's weird.

 

[GasBandit]

Look, I really truly don't understand why you'd be apparently okay with the government mandating what you wear, and why you'd justify that by saying "because criminals wear masks."

You're using essentially the same justification that riles you up when gun control advocates use it.

and it's weird.

Alright, I'm going to play along in case you really don't see the difference, but if you're just trolling me, I will punish you for making me waste my time.

First of all, it is not the government mandating what you wear, it would be mandating what you can't hide - IE, your face, that which is most needed for identification. You can wear a long-sleeved, high-necked muumuu and say it is for religious reasons all you want, IDGAF.

Second of all (and yes I know this is the Canadian politics thread), there is no constitutional protection for what you wear. Government institutions already tell people what they can and can't wear all the time. Government schools even have dress codes. I'll get arrested if I go out jogging with no pants and underwear. Masks are not a protected right. Firearms are. If the government bans masks and it turns out we have a revolution that needs masks, I dare say we can make our own masks in mere minutes. Not exactly the same for guns and ammunition. That's why the latter is specifically protected by the second amendment to the constitution, and nobody worries about the former - because it'd be stupid.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not anarchists. It's really tiresome how every time I talk about a lawful, constitutional, REASONABLE restriction, someone has to say "but, but, I thought you were a Libertarian!" Libertarians want laws and police officers and firefighters, too.

 

[Gruebeard]

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians are not anarchists. It's really tiresome how every time I talk about a lawful, constitutional, REASONABLE restriction, someone has to say "but, but, I thought you were a Libertarian!" Libertarians want laws and police officers and firefighters, too.

Oh, there's the hangup. I don't think banning masks is reasonable. I've had legitimate occasions to wear masks. Winter colds and wind being right at the top of the list.

And just so you know for next time. I don't think Libertarian means anarchist. Never did. Always thought it was about minimal government intervention, and it was on that thought that it confused me that you would be okay with banning face coverings because it seems to me an overstepping of government control for little reason.

And it just seems to me that it's only in situations where there are legitimate reasons to identify me that I shouldn't be allowed to obscure my identity if I choose. Banning masks is too broad - banning masks in all but those situations is reasonable.

And it's somewhere around there that I expected you'd draw the line. That is I expected you to be closer to me on this issue than you are.

. . . or maybe I'm an anarchist

 

[Dei]

I'm really confused right now because Gruebeard is saying coherent things that I agree with, and not just nonsense.

 

[GasBandit]

Oh, there's the hangup. I don't think banning masks is reasonable. I've had legitimate occasions to wear masks. Winter colds and wind being right at the top of the list.

Well obviously "common sense" needs to be a thing here. Wearing a balaclava in a driving snowstorm is one thing. Wearing it in the mall food court might be a teensy bit more suspicious.

And just so you know for next time. I don't think Libertarian means anarchist. Never did. Always thought it was about minimal government intervention, and it was on that thought that it confused me that you would be okay with banning face coverings because it seems to me an overstepping of government control for little reason.

And it just seems to me that it's only in situations where there are legitimate reasons to identify me that I shouldn't be allowed to obscure my identity if I choose. Banning masks is too broad - banning masks in all but those situations is reasonable.

Well, we could go the "you need a driver's license" route and say it only covers areas of public use. You can do whatever you want on your own private property