|
Albino Squirrel posted:- Nurse practitioners can do pretty much everything a family doctor can, for about a third of the cost. Excellent effortpost. One of my pet peeves is the inability to go into a doctors office and just see a nurse for quick recurring minor health issues. There are lots of little things that don't require a doctor. Seems like a huge waste of time for everyone involved.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:Winnipeg just finished building a new stadium a couple years ago. And did such a lovely job that it's been literally falling apart and cracking at the foundation since. Don't worry the $35 million will be reimbursed by ***INSURANCE*** claims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Unfortunately doctors have historical privilege in being a protected class of elites. Doctors were children of the upper class exclusively. They still have a lot of entitlement issues and don't think of themselves as middle class trades workers who independently contract (aside from salaried positions). They will join us soon on the bottom. I look forward to their bullshit tax privileges being removed. Bullshit corporations of one where they pay their family members with shareholder dividends to avoid taxes. My favorite poo poo is when they whine about needing their massive salaries because of their long training and student loans. Well guess what poo poo-lords, the rest of us have long training and student loans as well and it entitles you to nothing. What's concerning is that nobody fails out of med school once they get in despite their admission being evaluated based on academics while their new training is as a clinician. You can't tell me that the intake exams and interviews have 100% success rates; the lovely ones just end up being family doctors that horribly mismanage people in a remote community. A large majority of Canadians work double jobs or harder for longer than doctors for a small fraction of the pay with none of the hushed tax advantages that allow them to make mid six figures and only pay 0-20% tax. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:They will join us soon on the bottom. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Unfortunately doctors have historical privilege in being a protected class of elites. Doctors were children of the upper class exclusively. They still have a lot of entitlement issues and don't think of themselves as middle class trades workers who independently contract (aside from salaried positions). It's not often that you see an entire post that is wrong but here we are. The dividends don't make a huge difference, here's an example. Yeah, they can dividend out to family members but so can any small corporation and you still need to pay corp tax on that at a minimum. I don't think it's the huge tax loophole you're making it out to be. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:It's not often that you see an entire post that is wrong but here we are. The dividends don't make a huge difference, here's an example. Yeah, they can dividend out to family members but so can any small corporation and you still need to pay corp tax on that at a minimum. I don't think it's the huge tax loophole you're making it out to be. gently caress me, it's so close that it's almost like someone planned it to work out that way! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:It's not often that you see an entire post that is wrong but here we are. The dividends don't make a huge difference, here's an example. Yeah, they can dividend out to family members but so can any small corporation and you still need to pay corp tax on that at a minimum. I don't think it's the huge tax loophole you're making it out to be. If you split that with your spouse it's effectively income splitting and saves a lot of money. That's not the scenario shown in that graphic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
lol I found the source you used for that and you purposely used the only graphic that potentially proves your point while intentionally leaving out the one that doesn't:
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:It's not often that you see an entire post that is wrong but here we are. The dividends don't make a huge difference, here's an example. Yeah, they can dividend out to family members but so can any small corporation and you still need to pay corp tax on that at a minimum. I don't think it's the huge tax loophole you're making it out to be. No. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/income-splitting-used-by-high-income-professionals-for-decades-study/article24583084/ Also here are the rest of the figures from the site you pulled that shows huge tax savings through incorporation and income splitting. http://professional-edge.ca/2013/03/06/income-splitting-with-a-professional-corporation-can-save-you-thousands/
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
"Professional corporations paying dividends to doctors and their family are a huge tax dodge and all doctors should go against the wall!" "Actually, the tax rate on dividends for corporations of that size is such that you save only minor amounts of money over the same amount as salary, here is a chart that specifically highlights this" "Yes, but when you add INCOME SPLITTING* to that they become a huge tax dodge!" Never change, CanPol. *that program that nobody mentioned today until someone got called on their shitpost and that the incoming government has specifically promised to kill
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:"Professional corporations paying dividends to doctors and their family are a huge tax dodge and all doctors should go against the wall!" A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. Taxes in Canada are levied on an individual basis and there shouldn't be different rules for different people. Most Canadians cannot income split but professionals who have incorporated can income split. Why is this? Is this fair? I benefit from this shenanigans, however just like how I use my TFSA because it is in my best interest, I do not support it because it is not in the best interest of the country. Same thing with preferential tax policy for professionals. When we have kids my wife can income split with me while I take time off, but if she wanted to do the same I wouldn't be able to income split with her. That doesn't make any sense. And so because I did not support the CPC's income splitting policy for everyone because it allows tax avoidance I therefore do not support income splitting for professionals for the same reason. All Canadians should be subject to the same rules; giving privileged rich people preferential treatment is not in the best interest of the country. cowofwar fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Jan 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Brannock posted:Unironically by far the best thing you can do for the future of the planet is to adopt instead of spawn. Plus doesn't it seem vaguely selfish to create an entirely new child when there are so many children out there that need families? As someone currently trying to adopt a kid, seriously gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Tax dodging for doctors is inclusive of both dividends to shareholders and income splitting. That being said, I'm not altruistic enough to *avoid* this form of income-splitting while it's available. Hooray for hypocrisy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:"Professional corporations paying dividends to doctors and their family are a huge tax dodge and all doctors should go against the wall!" Actually cowofwar and others have been very consistent in their criticism on this issue. For example, the post you're talking about had this line: quote:Bullshit corporations of one where they pay their family members with shareholder dividends to avoid taxes. which is exactly the problem. Income splitting here is not done via the Cons' tax scheme but by creating a corporation for your doctoring practice, giving equal shares to all your family members, then paying 100% of your income as dividends equally to everyone. That means a family of six can each claim $50,000 (well, technically around $43,300 after small business corporate tax) as their net taxable income rather than one person claiming $300,000, which saves them a shitload of money in personal income taxes, as illustrated in RBC's chart.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Calgary "bans" it too, but it's still here. Apparently the drivers risk being fined by Bylaw Services. Edmonton regulates it and allows Uber somewhat, and the cabbies threw an absolute shitfit over it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No one except Saskatchewan gives the faintest gently caress about CFL, just so you know. The calgary stampeders games seem pretty full. I live in Saskatchewan and I hate the riders. I am loving the schadenfreude of seeing people's reaction to the Riders ridiculously lovely season.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:"Professional corporations paying dividends to doctors and their family are a huge tax dodge and all doctors should go against the wall!" jesus christ you are a very confused individual
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Income splitting here is not done via the Cons' tax scheme but by creating a corporation for your doctoring practice, giving equal shares to all your family members, then paying 100% of your income as dividends equally to everyone. That means a family of six can each claim $50,000 (well, technically around $43,300 after small business corporate tax) as their net taxable income rather than one person claiming $300,000, which saves them a shitload of money in personal income taxes, as illustrated in RBC's chart. I did miss that angle to his post, unfortunately, so thanks to you both for setting me straight. One thing the chart doesn't appear to account for (though the website mentions it on another page) is that income split to minor children is automatically taxed at the top marginal rate so your average family will top out at row 2 on that chart - particularly since professional corporations usually only let you issue shares to immediate family (though I suppose Dr. Doe could decide to fund their feckless adult children and ensure they don't work or earn any other income for the tax savings, if they are bound and determined to gently caress with the CRA) But: Albino Squirrel posted:It probably shouldn't be allowed; if you got rid of the ability of professional corporations to income split you'd remove most of the 'unfair' tax advantages, as the corporate tax + personal income tax is set up to be roughly equivalent to plain income tax. The ability of professional corporations to income split mostly comes from a) the ability of professional corporations to exist at all (since the point of a corporation, liability shield aside, is to issue dividends to shareholders) and b), the ability of professional corporations to issue shares to non-professionals (which varies from profession to profession and province to province but has predictably been on a liberalizing trend in the past decade or so). Rolling that back means you then run into "every OTHER independent contractor/small business owner is still able to incorporate, issue shares to family members in a much less restricted way, and income split", which then bounces back to a) (and you probably can't fix a) without some much broader tax code reforms or restrictions on the use of the corporate form at all, which I am sure very few ITT will mind but does mean it is not really strictly about Those drat Doctors anymore but rather about Those drat Small* Business Owners in general). (*by which I mean "employing only a handful of people") Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
edit: double post, bleh.
Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Just heard in the pub: "didn't they discover insulin to help fight polio." To be fair, if I had a few pints in me and no medical training, my memory of Canada heritage minutes might start to get blurry at the edges. Nine of Eight fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:It's not often that you see an entire post that is wrong but here we are. The dividends don't make a huge difference, here's an example. Yeah, they can dividend out to family members but so can any small corporation and you still need to pay corp tax on that at a minimum. I don't think it's the huge tax loophole you're making it out to be. You neglect all the benefits of having a corporation, you can deduct pretty much everything. Other posters have pointed out that you can income split between family members, consider some families have more than 2 shareholders  Paying family members 40-50k means they pay basically nothing in tax, which you then funnel into a 'family' account afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
.
James Baud fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Aug 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
 TRUDEAUUU
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Some analysis from CBC on electoral reform:Justin Trudeau's electoral reform plan needs to 'get going' posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-electoral-reform-first-past-the-post-1.3292694 That last part is really interesting, although I'm not sure what "proportional representation" means in this context (I'm guessing MMP?) Trudeau unlikely to change voting system, say political scientists posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trudeau-proportional-representation-voting-system-1.3280995 It will be interesting to see what kind of commitment is made. I imagine if they're serious about this, they'll have something to announce on or near November 4 when Trudeau announces his picks for cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
a primate posted:That last part is really interesting, although I'm not sure what "proportional representation" means in this context (I'm guessing MMP?) Sounds like it. The Greens would gain a lot of seats especially from MMP I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
If a plebiscite on electoral reforms fails, isn't that democracy in action? I find the logic of "we must reform the system to be more representative/democratic, but we mustn't ask the people what they think of this plan" to be a little peculiar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If a plebiscite on electoral reforms fails, isn't that democracy in action? I find the logic of "we must reform the system to be more representative/democratic, but we mustn't ask the people what they think of this plan" to be a little peculiar. A referendum is just a backdoor to having to do anything. The Conservatives will funnel gobs of money into the no campaign, the Liberals will halfheartedly throw a bone to the yes side, and the FUD campaign from right-leaning groups will shut it down. Then Trudeau is free to say "the people have spoken" and drop it. I'd love to be wrong, but the status quo has been pretty good to the Liberals over the decades. With the Conservatives in disarray looking for a leader to replace Harper and the NDP crushed in the last election they're learning to love FPTP all over again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If a plebiscite on electoral reforms fails, isn't that democracy in action? I find the logic of "we must reform the system to be more representative/democratic, but we mustn't ask the people what they think of this plan" to be a little peculiar. It's easy to game a referendum. Set a threshold above 50%, word the question misleadingly, load the ballot with too many similar options to dilute the voice of one kind of voter, etc. Then, when the status quo wins, shout that democracy has prevailed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If a plebiscite on electoral reforms fails, isn't that democracy in action? I find the logic of "we must reform the system to be more representative/democratic, but we mustn't ask the people what they think of this plan" to be a little peculiar. Sometimes in a democracy, for the good of the nation, you need the politicians do what a majority of the people do not want. For example, a 2013 poll suggests 63% of Canadians support reinstating the death penalty. Should the government therefore do it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:If a plebiscite on electoral reforms fails, isn't that democracy in action? I find the logic of "we must reform the system to be more representative/democratic, but we mustn't ask the people what they think of this plan" to be a little peculiar. There is a reason why we do not generally practice direct democracy in Canada: people are fickle idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:Sometimes in a democracy, for the good of the nation, you need the politicians do what a majority of the people do not want. For example, a 2013 poll suggests 63% of Canadians support reinstating the death penalty. Should the government therefore do it? Tsyni posted:There is a reason why we do not generally practice direct democracy in Canada: people are fickle idiots. These sentiments don't easily square with the idea (expressed by political scientists in the article) that electoral reform would be good because it made the system more democratic. FPTP actually seems like a decent system for people who are basically distrusting of democracy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:These sentiments don't easily square with the idea (expressed by political scientists in the article) that electoral reform would be good because it made the system more democratic. FPTP actually seems like a decent system for people who are basically distrusting of democracy. Electoral reform would be good because, depending on the proposed system, you are not throwing your vote away potentially. This is more democratic and I support that. Allowing for a more proportional representation doesn't necessarily mean that you'd be dealing with the same problems as direct democracy, because people will have to work together more and compromise and hopefully crazy-town views get weeded out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
a primate posted:That last part is really interesting, although I'm not sure what "proportional representation" means in this context (I'm guessing MMP?) Proportional simply means any system where the seat count is tailored to match the popular vote shares. There's different ways to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:00
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Electoral reform is going to be Trudeau's Guantanamo Bay. Still waiting for obama to close gitmo lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:These sentiments don't easily square with the idea (expressed by political scientists in the article) that electoral reform would be good because it made the system more democratic. FPTP actually seems like a decent system for people who are basically distrusting of democracy. Well, it's more democratic in that the views of the people are more generally represented. So the Greens getting 7% of the vote and yet only having 1 representative wouldn't be the case anymore with MMP or whatever. Which is more democratic. But I don't think those political scientists would go so far as to say that the ultimate in democracy, which is just having referendums on everything and going with the majority vote, would be good. People are stupid pieces of poo poo, and sometimes they need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the correct course of action. Electoral reform won't change that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Referendums on taxes are democratic too, but it is a good way to ensure you never increase taxes as well. Not everything needs to have a vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
It would be trivially easy to dead-cat the conversation around electoral reform and make a great many people vote against their own best interests because of fear or prejudices or ignorance or whatever. He said he'd do it, he has the mandate, there's no reason for him to gently caress around with a "Mother May I" referendum unless he actually wants the plan to fail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Putting a new voting system up to a referendum allows for a tremendous amount of water-muddying. When the UK tried it, there was a deluge of ads inaccurately claiming "Under AV+, the loser can win!!". Imagine trying to explain to your confused uncle that no, transferable/preferential votes never move the last-place candidate into first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:03 |
|
|
Why does everyone think that a referendum would fail? Wouldn't people who vote care enough about voting and elections to want to change the system? I think I am being naive here
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2015 23:29
|
|
