Jump to content

New luxury yacht tax in Canada


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, 12 metre said:

The 5% GST only applies to the sale of new homes.  If the PP<$450k you get a GST rebate of up to 36% of the GST paid.  Although I doubt you could buy a new home in Kelowna for <$450k.

If you want to avoid paying GST on home purchases, just do what you would have done with the boat purchase - buy a used one.

Or if you have to buy new make the offer GST included.  Now you're still paying it, just not directly.

Note this is in BC.  In the HST provinces (i.e. Ontario) it is done differently but the net result is essentially the same.

Yep. It was new. It was not sub $450. The market is hot and there was no negotiation on the price or tax. There were multiple offers on the house, so we paid it. But, SWMBO and I need a house, we don’t need a boat. 
Hey, I’m still learning about the way it works in Canada and I’m happy to pay my fair share. It just kinda seemed like the developers paid GST  on everything needed to build a house, then we paid GST again. I guess he could have got those materials tax free, but I kinda doubt it. 
Either way, taxes are very high in Canada and if this 20% excise tax was imposed, and it applied to the purchase of our toy, I would not have paid it on principle and would have purchased a used boat. If no one buys new boats, there won’t be new used boats coming into the market. That means less new boats sold, higher prices for used boats. 
Glad I got in under the wire because it’s been a heavy tax year. That being said, I love it there and can’t wait to return, do my three days in the quarantine hotel, and 11 more at home. I was hoping there would be an exception for the fully vaccinated but that seems unlikely. 
As far as minimum wage goes, if that works, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour? Solve everything. Easy. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 677
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You do not have a clue WTF you are talking about. I was in the business back then and it resulted in the layoff of 3/4s of the blue collar working people at our shop and many others. The rich people g

But no one will pay it. No one did last time. This would just be the "hide your boat in Annapolis or Miami" law. Every rich(ish) person I know would be more than happy to pay someone $149,999.99

Cross border personality disorder. Damned contagious, I tell you.

Posted Images

3 hours ago, bgytr said:

Maybe, maybe not.  If there were no min wage, there'd likely still be 5 to 10 more high school kids with a part time jobs there picking up some extra cash after school and in the summer like there used to be.  Costs money to develop those automation capabilities, and I'm sure McDs would do the math to figure future value in the investment vs. hiring kids at a certain wage.

Again, money in itself has no inherent value, it is an arbitrary number.  Assigning another number to baseline jobs in the long run only devalues the currency.  In the short run, it incentivizes not hiring and firing low skill or no skill employees.  

High school jobs have utterly disappeared. Even the NYTimes writes about this from time to time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Laker said:

Family farms, such as they are, are still the most effective and efficient economic units.  I don't think you have grasped that economics is a mirror of cultural process, not the other way around.  Structure does influence culture, but that is more a sociological process.

Family or cooperative farms are efficient only in so far as the labor is at a reduced marginal rate of zero: Total capitalism, no profits, no payout. Once you have mandated wages and benefits and no linkage to performance the economy suffers, as has been proven in Eastern Europe for the duration of the Soviet Union and has been a failure every where else.  

Having the state absorb some costs may be more efficient, in healthcare, when you can't sue the hospital or doctor because they are your government, their costs will be less. Of course the lack of a market allocation of their services means there will be a political one. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

High school jobs have utterly disappeared. Even the NYTimes writes about this from time to time.

And not only the marginal wages, but more importantly the value of the training and life skills to allow them to hold better position. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Obviously not the only reason. The German companies were successful long before that. 

Back when, my Dad used to let me take his Mercedes 190SL on weekend dates. 

The good old days !!  

Green Mercedes Benz #190SL. Pic via instagram / #190SLRestorations  #bruceadams190SL | Dream cars, Palm beach, Mercedes benz

We forgot to add a luxury tax on that machine. Lucky Dad..

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, no shoes said:

Yep. It was new. It was not sub $450. The market is hot and there was no negotiation on the price or tax. There were multiple offers on the house, so we paid it. But, SWMBO and I need a house, we don’t need a boat. 
Hey, I’m still learning about the way it works in Canada and I’m happy to pay my fair share. It just kinda seemed like the developers paid GST  on everything needed to build a house, then we paid GST again. I guess he could have got those materials tax free, but I kinda doubt it. 
Either way, taxes are very high in Canada and if this 20% excise tax was imposed, and it applied to the purchase of our toy, I would not have paid it on principle and would have purchased a used boat. If no one buys new boats, there won’t be new used boats coming into the market. That means less new boats sold, higher prices for used boats. 
Glad I got in under the wire because it’s been a heavy tax year. That being said, I love it there and can’t wait to return, do my three days in the quarantine hotel, and 11 more at home. I was hoping there would be an exception for the fully vaccinated but that seems unlikely. 
As far as minimum wage goes, if that works, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour? Solve everything. Easy. 

When the builder pays the GST, it is a tax credit - so he gets all the GST paid back.  It is only the end user who actually ends up paying the GST.   It is similar to VAT but is a whole lot simpler and more elegant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sail4beer said:

We forgot to add a luxury tax on that machine. Lucky Dad..

In 1962, that car cost about Five Grand new. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, no shoes said:

As far as minimum wage goes, if that works, why not make minimum wage $50 an hour? Solve everything. Easy

Sloppy logic designed to avoid the issue. 

Why should we taxpayers subsidize with food stamps, Medicare, housing assistance giant corps that are too cheap and cruel to pay a living wage? 

And my conservative friends above never did answer my question - if you don't want to tax the wealth, who DO you want to tax? 

The US has got to be one of the few places on earth where average people stick up for billionaires. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

In 1962, that car cost about Five Grand new. 

Sloppy logic. A new house in 1962 would be about $12,000. So I guess he was rich and deserved to just pay taxes on his income, PST/GST or VAT or whatever but he shouldn’t have to pay luxury tax. Is that it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 12 metre said:

When the builder pays the GST, it is a tax credit - so he gets all the GST paid back.  It is only the end user who actually ends up paying the GST.   It is similar to VAT but is a whole lot simpler and more elegant.

Thanks for explaining that. Now take some of my hard earned money and buy some vaccine!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Sloppy logic designed to avoid the issue. 

Why should we taxpayers subsidize with food stamps, Medicare, housing assistance giant corps that are too cheap and cruel to pay a living wage? 

And my conservative friends above never did answer my question - if you don't want to tax the wealth, who DO you want to tax? 

The US has got to be one of the few places on earth where average people stick up for billionaires. 

Unless you have blinders on, should you and I be taxed to death to provide for those that won't conform and work for a living?

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, jonag said:

Unless you have blinders on, should you and I be taxed to death to provide for those that won't conform and work for a living?

Would you like to be one of those who "won't conform and work for a living?"  At the moment, it is a pretty depressing existence from what I have seen, even here in Canada with universal health care.  

I know one such person, struggling with health issues that prevent her from working.  Outwardly, one might look at her and not understand why she can't work, but there really are good reasons.  She works when she can, if she can find an employer that will tolerate her absenteeism.

We'd better get used to the idea that in the future there will be a lot fewer employed people.  We have a structural problem at the moment because we rely on the employed to pay for those not.  That needs to change.   We need to move to a 3 or 4-day work week, job sharing, and a range of other strategies to cope with the problem.  Getting our growing billionaire cadre and multinational companies to cough up some of the taxes they are so adept at avoiding would be a good start.  A small tax on all investment transactions would help too.

There is a reason why politicians are now discussing universal basic income, and it isn't because they have all become socialists.  It is because they have become realists.

$15 minimum wage is just the beginning.   I know these ideas make conservative heads explode, particularly in the bastion of individual freedom to the south of us, but there is a sea change coming, and the sooner conservatives wrap their heads around it the better.  There is no going back to "the good old days".

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn’t go to college or study economics, but I’ve run a business for 32 years. 
If someone’s dad could afford a $5000 car in 1962, according to the rule of 72, that persons son should not have to work a day in his life. 
But, when Dad dies, his chips cash in and he pays huge estate tax. This is meant to motivate the son to make his own way and avoid the accumulation of wealth to a small number of families. So it was AJ who got hosed. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, no shoes said:

I didn’t go to college or study economics, but I’ve run a business for 32 years. 
If someone’s dad could afford a $5000 car in 1962, according to the rule of 72, that persons son should not have to work a day in his life. 
But, when Dad dies, his chips cash in and he pays huge estate tax. This is meant to motivate the son to make his own way and avoid the accumulation of wealth to a small number of families. So it was AJ who got hosed. 

Good idea.  I have been the executor for two estates now, and Canada's inheritance taxes (probate fees) are ridiculously low.  If they doubled or tripled them it would still not make much difference to the beneficiaries.

 I think inheritance tax is much higher in other places.  My guess, though, is that billionaires have found ways to avoid them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

In 1962, that car cost about Five Grand new. 

And that was a good salary for a professional. Inflation has kept the ratio pretty constant, due to government twiddling with the minimum wage and monetary markets. Progressives are not astute enough to realize that any attempt to mandate higher wages/transfer payments/public pensions will simply Take away the excess above market with inflation. It's as dumb as believing in perpetual motion, or the benevolence of government. The only indisputable effect is the destruction of financial deposits due to inflation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jonag said:

Unless you have blinders on, should you and I be taxed to death to provide for those that won't conform and work for a living?

Sir, from my perspective you are estranged from reality. 

A goodly part of the taxes we pay go to make up for the TRILLION BUCKAROOS that our conporate overlords cheat on their taxes yearly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Progressives are not astute enough to realize that any attempt to mandate higher wages/transfer payments/public pensions will simply Take away the excess above market with inflation.

This is a constant refrain on the Right, but there is increasing evidence that it is not true. 

As has been shown by studies of the SeaTac min wage, there has been little impact on employment or inflation. 

Why are you righties so loathe to look at research and decent sources ?? 

Therefore, in accordance with SeaTac Municipal Code (SMC) Section 7.45. 050, the living wage rate in effect for hospitality and transportation employees within the City will increase to $16.57, effective January 1, 2021. SMC 7.45.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, no shoes said:

But, when Dad dies, his chips cash in and he pays huge estate tax. This is meant to motivate the son to make his own way and avoid the accumulation of wealth to a small number of families. So it was AJ who got hosed. 

Well actually, my dad followed the precept of Andrew Carnegie who thought that one of the worst things you can do to your kids was to will them a pile of money. Maybe he was right, who knows? But the kids got almost nothing. 

And the estate tax has never been "huge" in the US, especially on relatively small estates. 

You are correct that inheritance taxes are intended to prevent the formation of an oligarchy of money. 

The Right opposes inheritance taxes because they like oligarchies. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Well actually, my dad followed the precept of Andrew Carnegie who thought that one of the worst things you can do to your kids was to will them a pile of money. Maybe he was right, who knows? 

The Right opposes inheritance taxes because they like oligarchies. 

Look, you know Dad already paid his taxes on that money  right?

That’s why people, not just rights or lefties, don’t like it. It’s punitive for success. 
 

I wish Tax Man in Toronto would come back. I’d be interested in his take. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

Family or cooperative farms are efficient only in so far as the labor is at a reduced marginal rate of zero: Total capitalism, no profits, no payout. Once you have mandated wages and benefits and no linkage to performance the economy suffers, as has been proven in Eastern Europe for the duration of the Soviet Union and has been a failure every where else.  

Having the state absorb some costs may be more efficient, in healthcare, when you can't sue the hospital or doctor because they are your government, their costs will be less. Of course the lack of a market allocation of their services means there will be a political one. 

 

I believe that if you research, family farms that operate at the present level of technology do not require labour at a reduced marginal rate.  If you have a farm run at the same technological level and scale as agri-business, agri-business gets left in the dust due to the attachment to the process given cooperative and family farms.  The US is a good example of the failure of agri-business, being too attached to large unagile organizations producing too few varieties of crops. Its reaction to the reduction in market of soy is testament.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, no shoes said:

Look, you know Dad already paid his taxes on that money  right?

That is another pretty senseless right wing trope. 

Every time you buy a bottle of wine, or a six-pack, or a car . . 

you do it with money upon which you have already paid taxes. 

Inheritance taxes are no different. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Laker said:

I believe that if you research,

Good luck with that. 

I have yet to see Lioness provide a single source on any topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

As has been shown by studies of the SeaTac min wage, there has been little impact on employment or inflation. 

Why are you righties so loathe to look at research and decent sources ?? 

Therefore, in accordance with SeaTac Municipal Code (SMC) Section 7.45. 050, the living wage rate in effect for hospitality and transportation employees within the City will increase to $16.57, effective January 1, 2021. SMC 7.45.

You can find any result you want in the "studies of Seattle's Min wage laws"

Reduced hours, closed businesses, some folks who saw their wages double, it's all there. 

There are no "decent sources" that I am aware of, that have all of the confounding variables accounted for. The published results seemt to curiously map to the proclivities of the publisher. Given the protests, rioting, looting, and occupations, the flight of businesses can be attributed to many factors, that all amount to a toxic environment. Toss in the bungled COVID response and you have a trifecta of poor policies: Domestic unrest, lockdowns and mandated higher labor costs. 

https://www.q13fox.com/news/local-business-owners-speak-out-after-destruction-from-protest

Let just say that the citizens of Charleston SC are very happy that the citizens of SEATAC have persuaded BOEING to move diagonally cross country due to their antics. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AJ Oliver said:

Good luck with that. 

I have yet to see Lioness provide a single source on any topic. 

Dude, I affirmed Hitchen's Razor a day back. Your opinions are not worthy of the research to refute your silliness. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Dude, I affirmed Hitchen's Razor a day back. Your opinions are not worthy of the research to refute your silliness. 

But, um, I provide sources and cites regularly. 

You, on the other hand, do not. 

So who does this apply to  ?? 

the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded,

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

You can find any result you want in the "studies of Seattle's Min wage laws"

Reduced hours, closed businesses, some folks who saw their wages double, it's all there. 

There are no "decent sources" that I am aware of, that have all of the confounding variables accounted for. The published results seemt to curiously map to the proclivities of the publisher. Given the protests, rioting, looting, and occupations, the flight of businesses can be attributed to many factors, that all amount to a toxic environment. Toss in the bungled COVID response and you have a trifecta of poor policies: Domestic unrest, lockdowns and mandated higher labor costs. 

https://www.q13fox.com/news/local-business-owners-speak-out-after-destruction-from-protest

Let just say that the citizens of Charleston SC are very happy that the citizens of SEATAC have persuaded BOEING to move diagonally cross country due to their antics. 

 

The studies I have seen on the SeaTac experiment have been generally positive, but one of the real issues for verification has been its relative integration into a larger area economy.  More relevant is the Beausejour project in a fairly isolated area of Eastern Manitoba.  Positive outcomes ended by change to a doctrinaire government.  I think it fair to characterize LionessRacing's comments to this point as doctrinaire also.  Truth in economics has a lot to do with the culture in which it operates.  He may have a bit to explain the success of the Louis Vuitton company in terms of his criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 5:19 PM, Tom O&#x27;Keefe said:

We are already entering a period of Hyper inflation. Raising the minimum wage, increasing petroleum prices are two core reasons. People who own assets just watch their valuations rise. People who don't (renters or interest only adjustable mortgage holders) won't be able to afford to maintain their current standard of living. Progressives are just hamstringing those that they are supposed to be representing.

 

as usual...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

That is another pretty senseless right wing trope. 

Every time you buy a bottle of wine, or a six-pack, or a car . . 

you do it with money upon which you have already paid taxes. 

Inheritance taxes are no different. 

Dude, I’m not a right winger. I’m okay with paying my taxes both here in the US and in Canada. It’s good for everyone. But, professor, sincerely, your dad paid his taxes on that money and then paid again when he died (hypothetically) instead of giving it all to you (or the humane society) if that was his wish). 

You gotta admit, it would have been nice to get some of that 1962 wealth and apply it to the rule of 72. That post tax hard earned money might have you seeing differently. 
 

Please take a look at the link I posted on the first page. Our tax code explained in beer. I can’t repost it from this phone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, no shoes said:

Dude, I’m not a right winger. I’m okay with paying my taxes both here in the US and in Canada. It’s good for everyone. But, professor, sincerely, your dad paid his taxes on that money and then paid again when he died (hypothetically) instead of giving it all to you (or the humane society) if that was his wish). 

You gotta admit, it would have been nice to get some of that 1962 wealth and apply it to the rule of 72. That post tax hard earned money might have you seeing differently. 
 

Please take a look at the link I posted on the first page. Our tax code explained in beer. I can’t repost it from this phone. 

Even Malloy recognized the problem of most of the tax revenue already comes from the few rich guys. I listened to him talking about it on the radio some years back. Unfortunstely he also supported policies tgat ran biz outta the state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, fastyacht said:

High school jobs have utterly disappeared. Even the NYTimes writes about this from time to time.

There’s a front page spread about it every six months or so when some kid is dumb enough to engage in an employed position. Once in a while there is a page 3 article about some deranged teen shoveling snow in the winter or mowing down some senior’s lawn with a gas powered mower because they saw it on a Tick Tock video.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

There’s a front page spread about it every six months or so when some kid is dumb enough to engage in an employed position. Once in a while there is a page 3 article about some deranged teen shoveling snow in the winter or mowing down some senior’s lawn with a gas powered mower because they saw it on a Tick Tock video.

I used to make good money as a kid. Babysitting, repairing stuff--even varnishing; painting houses in college, mowing lawns, shoveling, cleaning gutters...all made more than minimum wage. The only min wage job I ever had was in a bike shop--but I got all my parts wholesale--and I bought a LOT of parts!

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Rain Man said:

 I think inheritance tax is much higher in other places.  My guess, though, is that billionaires have found ways to avoid them.

There is no inheritance tax in Australia.

While in theory I can see the point in such a thing, in practice the really rich structure things so that they're at no risk and the burden falls on those with some assets but not a lot, because Governments NEVER use proper inflation calculations.

Such a tax existed back when I was young and it caused a lot of angst when the male partner died because if the house was in his name, it counted for inheritance tax that the widow had to pay. Even shared, the half counted.

So be careful what you wish for and be doubly careful how you structure it.

FKT

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

There is no inheritance tax in Australia.

While in theory I can see the point in such a thing, in practice the really rich structure things so that they're at no risk and the burden falls on those with some assets but not a lot, because Governments NEVER use proper inflation calculations.

Such a tax existed back when I was young and it caused a lot of angst when the male partner died because if the house was in his name, it counted for inheritance tax that the widow had to pay. Even shared, the half counted.

So be careful what you wish for and be doubly careful how you structure it.

FKT

U.S. Inhereintance tax reorm was sold on the problem of small family biz being liquiated to pay

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

I used to make good money as a kid. Babysitting, repairing stuff--even varnishing; painting houses in college, mowing lawns, shoveling, cleaning gutters...all made more than minimum wage. The only min wage job I ever had was in a bike shop--but I got all my parts wholesale--and I bought a LOT of parts!

I never babysat or worked in a  bike shop, but everything g you did and more from 11 years old. At mid 50’s this winter, I went out and shoveled snow for beer money in a senior development. Made a lot of spare change for 20 minutes of shoveling a driveway and walkway. The people appreciated it as well. They ask “where are all the kids?” I tell them, “I was the kids.”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, fastyacht said:

U.S. Inhereintance tax reorm was sold on the problem of small family biz being liquiated to pay

And of course, that was a lie of the Reich. 

Here is a very good summary of the two major economic approaches that we are debating here. 

It's a mere 15 minutes long, and presented by a billionaire. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2021 at 10:22 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Sloppy logic designed to avoid the issue. 

Why should we taxpayers subsidize with food stamps, Medicare, housing assistance giant corps that are too cheap and cruel to pay a living wage? 

And my conservative friends above never did answer my question - if you don't want to tax the wealth, who DO you want to tax? 

The US has got to be one of the few places on earth where average people stick up for billionaires. 

Penalize the successful and reward poor and middling performance.  Absolute genius!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2021 at 5:43 PM, Expat Canuck said:

In BC we have

Coastal Craft

Eagle Craft / Daigle

Lifetimer

Hurricane / Zodiac

Adrenaline

... all make boats over 250K.  Any new boat over 30 ft long will easily be over that threshold.

 

Add www.jaspermarine.ca

Heard about them somewhere here on SA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bgytr said:

Penalize the successful and reward poor and middling performance.  Absolute genius!

 

On 4/22/2021 at 10:22 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Sloppy logic designed to avoid the issue. 

Why should we taxpayers subsidize with food stamps, Medicare, housing assistance giant corps that are too cheap and cruel to pay a living wage? 

And my conservative friends above never did answer my question - if you don't want to tax the wealth, who DO you want to tax? 

The US has got to be one of the few places on earth where average people stick up for billionaires. 

The sloppy logic is we pay public assistance to this group of wage earners in the first place.
In turn it allows these wage earners to accept a lower wage subsidized by the tax payer.
Couple that with flooding the lower end of the wage spectrum with unchecked, undocumented workers, and you have a recipe for depressed wages.
We all want those less skilled to make decent money so we do not need to raise government revenues to subsidize their pay. Yet everything we do erodes that lower end wage.
That, Mr. Oliver, is where the sloppy logic comes into play. Now ask yourself why the government elite would wish such a thing?

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

That, Mr. Oliver, is where the sloppy logic comes into play. Now ask yourself why the government elite would wish such a thing?

You are partly correct, which is more than I can say about @bgytr who, in true neo-lib fashion, wants ever more welfare for billionaires. 

Did either of you watch the vid ?? If you do, I will in turn read a source/cite of your choosing. 

You do read, don't you ?? 

And Mr. @quod umbra, there are a number of factors that have led to crushingly low wages for the working poor. As you sort of suggest, our corporate overlords have for many decades flouted immigration laws and hired the undoced at poverty level wages - check out the chicken industry in the south. Bidness people who hire the undoced should be locked up. 

This multi-millionaire offended was a US Senator until recently - what you call a "government elite". 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-xpm-2011-03-22-bs-bz-perdue-rico-20110322-story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

You are partly correct, which is more than I can say about @bgytr who, in true neo-lib fashion, wants ever more welfare for billionaires. 

Did either of you watch the vid ?? If you do, I will in turn read a source/cite of your choosing. 

You do read, don't you ?? 

And Mr. @quod umbra, there are a number of factors that have led to crushingly low wages for the working poor. As you sort of suggest, our corporate overlords have for many decades flouted immigration laws and hired the undoced at poverty level wages - check out the chicken industry in the south. Bidness people who hire the undoced should be locked up. 

This multi-millionaire offended was a US Senator until recently - what you call a "government elite". 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-xpm-2011-03-22-bs-bz-perdue-rico-20110322-story.html

Yes, yes I do read, quite a good bit and mostly non-US sources.
You blame the corporate overlords....which if you didn't spend your working life in academia you would understand that is where capital generation comes from. However, while I do not think companies should hire the undocumented, the reality is that border security is a federal government responsibility. Further, "illegals" have a whole network that aids them in forged documentation to pass I-9/W-9 requirements. When the IRS becomes aware of a "faulty" social security number, what they do is send a letter of clarification to the employer. The undocumented worker simply buys a new bogus social security card and submits the new number to their employer. The IRS does not question this practice...... appalling really. 
Sir, it is government which is the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

The roofing biz in greater Boston is ALL foreign undoc.  And uou wonder why Marty Walsh makes it a sanctuary city...?!!

What? No one else will do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, quod umbra said:

Yes, yes I do read, quite a good bit and mostly non-US sources.
You blame the corporate overlords....which if you didn't spend your working life in academia you would understand that is where capital generation comes from. However, while I do not think companies should hire the undocumented, the reality is that border security is a federal government responsibility. Further, "illegals" have a whole network that aids them in forged documentation to pass I-9/W-9 requirements. When the IRS becomes aware of a "faulty" social security number, what they do is send a letter of clarification to the employer. The undocumented worker simply buys a new bogus social security card and submits the new number to their employer. The IRS does not question this practice...... appalling really. 
Sir, it is government which is the problem.

What do you do when there is more than enough capital and not enough wages?  Heck, people are paying $1M for a stupid baseball card.  It is not to the good of society that they can pay $1M for a baseball card.  That is true dead capital.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Laker said:

What? No one else will do it?

God. That is not the problem. It makes more money. Layers of subterfuge so that the main contractors can claim it is all according to Hoyle. If you live in certain towns (which I did for 5 years until recently) you learn this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Laker said:

What do you do when there is more than enough capital and not enough wages?  Heck, people are paying $1M for a stupid baseball card.  It is not to the good of society that they can pay $1M for a baseball card.  That is true dead capital.

Why do you view it as dead capital? Card gets bought, it isn't like the money goes under a mattress. It is still in circulation. It has velocity, no?
The problem Laker, if I may, is that we artificially depress low end wages by flooding or subsidizing that end of the wage pool. Less number of workers and companies need to pay more to fill low skilled or semi-skilled positions. Frankly I have never understood why the low end of the wage scale doesn't outright revolt against "open border" policies.
And the argument that 'people won't take those jobs so we have to import labor' is crap. Sure folks might not wish to harvest lettuce for 7 bucks an hour, but pay them 15 bucks and they will come out to work.
Market forces are the solution, not artificial wages or wage subsidies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, we have so many slackers to support that we have little resources available to assist all the new labor looking for a new home country and all kinds of free benefits so the government decides that it’s time to tax the rich? How about improve education and bring back factories and manufacturing to rebuild a place of employment for the large lower/middle classes that have a deficit of opportunities available to them presently. Don’t just pay them more money to perform a job that is realistically not overtly necessary

I don’t need to pay more money for a burger, fries and Coke because the kid behind the register got a government mandated federal wage increase that I am taxed to provide. I’m just going to make it at home or skip it altogether when I do the return on investment analysis. 
 

That’s exactly the way the some of us feel about it and I’m sure, at the “rich” level. Corporations will shed full time workers for part time to avoid paying benefits like health insurance to help offset their costs. The small business will realize that they can’t pay $15 before taxes and minimum $800/ month health coverage per employee and make any money. $3 x 40hours x 52 weeks adds up to about $6,400 per employee at the low end when you have numerous unskilled laborers that you are already paying to keep from having to go on welfare, you are going to lose employees before raising prices and driving away customers. That’s America.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2021 at 7:22 AM, AJ Oliver said:

Sloppy logic designed to avoid the issue. 

Why should we taxpayers subsidize with food stamps, Medicare, housing assistance giant corps that are too cheap and cruel to pay a living wage? 

And my conservative friends above never did answer my question - if you don't want to tax the wealth, who DO you want to tax? 

The US has got to be one of the few places on earth where average people stick up for billionaires. 

I think you got that wrong. Employees of big corporations are more than likely compensated better and have health care insurance, 401Ks, employer matching contributions, tuition refunds, employer funded day care, family leave and the like. It's actually the small businesses who pay the scut wages to employees who, in turn, have to use the emergency room as their primary care facility. Guess who picks up the tab for that? The employees with health insurance. It also seems to me same small business employee, who is paid below subsistence level, is far more likely to need food assistance, school lunch programs, publicly funded daycare and section 8 housing vouchers, all of which represent subsidies to the small business ultimately paid for by corporations and/or their employees collectively making up the 53%. For that reason, I think the living wage requirement makes sense, as long as the public assistance programs are curtailed. I'm still a right wing conservative, after all.

Maybe then we could get rid of the unnecessary sales/use tax on boat purchases here in California----right!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

You are partly correct, which is more than I can say about @bgytr who, in true neo-lib fashion, wants ever more welfare for billionaires. 

Did either of you watch the vid ?? If you do, I will in turn read a source/cite of your choosing. 

You do read, don't you ?? 

And Mr. @quod umbra, there are a number of factors that have led to crushingly low wages for the working poor. As you sort of suggest, our corporate overlords have for many decades flouted immigration laws and hired the undoced at poverty level wages - check out the chicken industry in the south. Bidness people who hire the undoced should be locked up. 

This multi-millionaire offended was a US Senator until recently - what you call a "government elite". 

https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-xpm-2011-03-22-bs-bz-perdue-rico-20110322-story.html

Again, why not make the min wage $1000 / hr?  Then everyone would be rich!  If you can apply the math with one number, then it should work for all numbers.  Otherwise your method is wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bgytr said:

Again, why not make the min wage $1000 / hr?  Then everyone would be rich!  If you can apply the math with one number, then it should work for all numbers.  Otherwise your method is wrong.

Politics and policy are not science. You cannot model it with grade school maths.

"If Trumpism can cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations by X, why not cut them to zero?"

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Borracho said:

Politics and policy are not science. You cannot model it with grade school maths.

"If Trumpism can cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations by X, why not cut them to zero?"

Geebus... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple beliefs of the lefties are not open to persuasion, the science is beyond them, much though they claim to support it, while having a plethora of genders to choose from day by day. Hypocrisy is the sin of the lazy, no need to prove anything, just chalk it up to the "evil corporations" or "greedy landlords" or whom ever the devil is today. I lost my program card, so I'm not sure.

A salient question for those who are clamoring for higher taxes and income redistribution is "How about you go first?  "

as second one that follows their cant is "How can you justify owning a boat, and participating in an elitist white dominated sport such as sailing"

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, quod umbra said:

Why do you view it as dead capital? Card gets bought, it isn't like the money goes under a mattress. It is still in circulation. It has velocity, no?
The problem Laker, if I may, is that we artificially depress low end wages by flooding or subsidizing that end of the wage pool. Less number of workers and companies need to pay more to fill low skilled or semi-skilled positions. Frankly I have never understood why the low end of the wage scale doesn't outright revolt against "open border" policies.
And the argument that 'people won't take those jobs so we have to import labor' is crap. Sure folks might not wish to harvest lettuce for 7 bucks an hour, but pay them 15 bucks and they will come out to work.
Market forces are the solution, not artificial wages or wage subsidies.

This is why for many years I have felt that corporations who have fully emplyed employess who qualify and receive welfare--those companies shoule experience a claw-back on theirt tax bills. Simple really.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

How can you justify owning a boat, and participating in an elitist white dominated sport such as sailing

Its easy. Have a dream, work hard to achieve it and don’t look back. It’s called the American Dream. That’s what we were told to do, not sacrifice our hard work and pay and apologize to and for all the lazy people I watched slither their way through public education and fill every low paying position that they forced themselves to take through their life plan of underachievement from day one. 

Not on my watch

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sail4beer said:

ts easy. Have a dream, work hard to achieve it and don’t look back. It’s called the American Dream. That’s what we were told to do, not sacrifice our hard work and pay and apologize to and for all the lazy people I watched slither their way through public education and fill every low paying position that they forced themselves to take through their life plan of underachievement from day one. 

Not on my watch

Note the context of who the questions are addressed to... exactly those who slither through the public troughs

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, LionessRacing said:

Note the context of who the questions are addressed to... exactly those who slither through the public troughs

 

Yup. Exactly. The theory of Marxism, according to Thomas Sowell is that in the end..

‘Carl Marx: “The rich steal from the poor.” ‘

“No other explanation was available at the time when he started to study economics and no other explanation has been given for economic inequality by any universities even today.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, quod umbra said:

Why do you view it as dead capital? Card gets bought, it isn't like the money goes under a mattress. It is still in circulation. It has velocity, no?
The problem Laker, if I may, is that we artificially depress low end wages by flooding or subsidizing that end of the wage pool. Less number of workers and companies need to pay more to fill low skilled or semi-skilled positions. Frankly I have never understood why the low end of the wage scale doesn't outright revolt against "open border" policies.
And the argument that 'people won't take those jobs so we have to import labor' is crap. Sure folks might not wish to harvest lettuce for 7 bucks an hour, but pay them 15 bucks and they will come out to work.
Market forces are the solution, not artificial wages or wage subsidies.

It is exactly like it goes under a mattress.  What does it do but sit there.  Someone might pay more for it later, but that is a reflection of the capital that is doing the actual work.  It is dead in that the value it represents is not available for use by someone financing a robot for instance.

Your assertion the "market forces are the solution" applies only to two of the four catagories of market.  A pure free market in frozen peas is a different market from mining uranium.  The value of true free market items is generally less than that of other markets.  Soy beans for instance, although a price taker, do not exist in a free market.  Supply and demand are not the straight lines loved of Economics 101 and are very different for the different types of market.

You seem to be hung up on an economic sector of the low wage people that certainly does not have the same impact as the middle class.  As far as I am concerned, your approach is not analytical, but based on the 1950s Max Weber Protestant values approach to the markets.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Laker said:

What do you do when there is more than enough capital and not enough wages?  Heck, people are paying $1M for a stupid baseball card.  It is not to the good of society that they can pay $1M for a baseball card.  That is true dead capital.

You mean like Art? If I buy a baseball card, or something else I think will increase in value it’s dead capital? Are you sure? I think art returns are off the chart. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

The simple beliefs of the lefties are not open to persuasion, the science is beyond them, much though they claim to support it, while having a plethora of genders to choose from day by day. Hypocrisy is the sin of the lazy, no need to prove anything, just chalk it up to the "evil corporations" or "greedy landlords" or whom ever the devil is today. I lost my program card, so I'm not sure.

A salient question for those who are clamoring for higher taxes and income redistribution is "How about you go first?  "

as second one that follows their cant is "How can you justify owning a boat, and participating in an elitist white dominated sport such as sailing"

 

A better question:  what kind of loser can't afford to both own a boat AND pay high taxes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, no shoes said:

You mean like Art? If I buy a baseball card, or something else I think will increase in value it’s dead capital? Are you sure? I think art returns are off the chart. 

Does it add to the GDP or any form of the GDP?  Is it a requirement for the ability for what you bought to add to the GDP?  If not, it is dead capital.  It may increase in value, but it is a store for wealth.  It is pretty high up on either of the Hygienes so there is some esoteric addition to a person's life, but on the whole, since you have no other use for your money and a savings account only pays 2%, it is a place to park money with the hope that someone else needs more storage than you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bgytr said:

Again, why not make the min wage $1000 / hr?

The Reich would make it zero if they could . .  Straw Man alert. 

And not a single one of ya classical econs have offered a source/cite (Except Sowell), 

or watched the video. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

A better question:  what kind of loser can't afford to both own a boat AND pay high taxes?

Wait, what? I’ll tell you. I’ll just take my money elsewhere. Rain man, come on. Are you for real? Is this a real discussion about a 20% on top of like 17% tax on a new boat purchase? Like 37% tax. Guys. Come on. That’s a lot. And you think new boat sales will be unaffected?  Okay sure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, no shoes said:

Wait, what? I’ll tell you. I’ll just take my money elsewhere. Rain man, come on. Are you for real? Is this a real discussion about a 20% on top of like 17% tax on a new boat purchase? Like 37% tax. Guys. Come on. That’s a lot. And you think new boat sales will be unaffected?  Okay sure. 

Do I have to use purple font with you? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rain Man said:

Do I have to use purple font with you? 

I never said I studied economics or sarcasm. Sorry, glad I’m not crazy. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Laker said:

Does it add to the GDP or any form of the GDP?  Is it a requirement for the ability for what you bought to add to the GDP?  If not, it is dead capital.  It may increase in value, but it is a store for wealth.  It is pretty high up on either of the Hygienes so there is some esoteric addition to a person's life, but on the whole, since you have no other use for your money and a savings account only pays 2%, it is a place to park money with the hope that someone else needs more storage than you.

So I don’t care about the GDP in Canada. Better get on the stick or there will be an invoice to pay for your policies. Start pumping some oil and tell the east to eat a bag of dicks. 

Keep letting the “foreigners” park money in Coal Harbor high rise condos in Vancouver. Yeah. Parking money. I know, there is a new tax on that too. There is no free lunch. Enjoy your empty high rises. 
I bet my baseball card out paces your RISP or whatever you call it. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is pretty cut and dried in Canada. If you, as an individual, put money in your bank account so you can spend it on anything from food to yachts, you pay income tax on it on a sliding scale from zero to about 50% at higher levels. You can defer the tax by using some tools worked into the code by policy makers, or you can leave it in your corporation and pay the lower corporate tax rate, but when you get it in your own bank account you pay the tax. Are there cheats out there, undoubtedly. Is that going to be fixed by raising tax rates, absolutely not in fact it will make it worse. 

Raising the minimum wage is a fine idea, but ultimately it is the customers of these businesses that will pay higher prices to compensate. The exception to this is the customers who choose less expensive products made elsewhere in places without minimum wages, environmental rules, and support for the disadvantaged in society. 

Finally, I get so sick of people yelling about obscene corporate profits as if it were a blanket thing. There are lots and lots and lots of corporations making little or no money and a few highly public ones making scads of money due to a variety of factors none of which are just some rights to profit because you are a corporation. If you really understand the situation, a corporation is just a vessel for the money until it gets distributed to the shareholders who then get taxed at the same rates as everyone else in their tax bracket.  

Post  finally, if you are a retired person with a pension, you had better hope corporations continue to make profits or you won't have an income to support your pension. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The Reich would make it zero if they could . .  Straw Man alert. 

And not a single one of ya classical econs have offered a source/cite (Except Sowell), 

or watched the video. 

 

How many decades has there been a min wage?  What difference has it made? Zero.

As far as a source, look it up yourself.  It is the most basic of supply demand econ principles.  You want a source for addition and subtraction? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2021 at 10:35 PM, Navig8tor said:

...

Shortsighted pollies that do this shit really need to learn from others before repeating the clusterfuck this will become.

 

On 4/19/2021 at 11:06 PM, fastyacht said:

The problem is the politicos don't actually give a fucking goddam about the bad consequences. It is all about the "base". The "base" loves them for it.

 

On 4/20/2021 at 8:39 AM, fastyacht said:

All politicians r or b are pieces of mouldering dogshit.

...

The solution is obvious. You folks run for office and show us how it is done right. I mean that. You could probably make a contribution.

Speaking from the Canadian context (although I got a law passed in a US state), of the politicians I’ve dealt with some were the type of narcissist that put winning a popularity contest and achieving or maintaining power above all other considerations. The vast majority wanted to do good...some lacked the policy depth and wit to determine good...some got too insulated from reality to understand the needs...but generally they wanted to do good (and as a bonus have that intheir obit and in history books).

Speaking for myself as a young man involved in politics and public policy I really wanted to save the world. As an older – maybe wiser – man I’m embarrassed by my contributions. As a legislative assistant I spent years getting a few dozen laws from order paper to royal assent – including what I now think one of the worst laws ever in Canadian history (but I believed in it then). As a political aide I helped find the replacement for my retiring minister. We got him elected and I personally staffed his parliament hill office. He became one of the most corrupt Cabinet members ever in Canada. As a business lobbyist I aggressively popularized and leveraged academic research on the source of job creation, successfully influencing policy and legislation. A decade later it turned out the research was flawed and the opposite seemed true. Oops. I still think I did some good but on balance maybe more bad. I’ve sure learned a lot of humility.

So since you guys seem to have all the answers please show us how it’s done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KC375 said:

 

 

The solution is obvious. You folks run for office and show us how it is done right. I mean that. You could probably make a contribution.

Speaking from the Canadian context (although I got a law passed in a US state), of the politicians I’ve dealt with some were the type of narcissist that put winning a popularity contest and achieving or maintaining power above all other considerations. The vast majority wanted to do good...some lacked the policy depth and wit to determine good...some got too insulated from reality to understand the needs...but generally they wanted to do good (and as a bonus have that intheir obit and in history books).

Speaking for myself as a young man involved in politics and public policy I really wanted to save the world. As an older – maybe wiser – man I’m embarrassed by my contributions. As a legislative assistant I spent years getting a few dozen laws from order paper to royal assent – including what I now think one of the worst laws ever in Canadian history (but I believed in it then). As a political aide I helped find the replacement for my retiring minister. We got him elected and I personally staffed his parliament hill office. He became one of the most corrupt Cabinet members ever in Canada. As a business lobbyist I aggressively popularized and leveraged academic research on the source of job creation, successfully influencing policy and legislation. A decade later it turned out the research was flawed and the opposite seemed true. Oops. I still think I did some good but on balance maybe more bad. I’ve sure learned a lot of humility.

So since you guys seem to have all the answers please show us how it’s done.

Simply don't enact an idiotic luxury tax on boats.  We did it and it almost completely destroyed the boatbuilding industry in the US, and it is still a small fraction of what it once was.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, no shoes said:

So I don’t care about the GDP in Canada. Better get on the stick or there will be an invoice to pay for your policies. Start pumping some oil and tell the east to eat a bag of dicks. 

Keep letting the “foreigners” park money in Coal Harbor high rise condos in Vancouver. Yeah. Parking money. I know, there is a new tax on that too. There is no free lunch. Enjoy your empty high rises. 
I bet my baseball card out paces your RISP or whatever you call it. 
 

You may not "care" about GDP in the same way you may not "care" about gravity as the brick hovers about your toe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bgytr said:

Simply don't enact an idiotic ...

For legislators that is a really good starting point...

Maybe the politicians' equivalent of the Hippocratic oath should be Obama’s “don’t do stupid shit”

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KC375 said:

For legislators that is a really good starting point...

Maybe the politicians' equivalent of the Hippocratic oath should be Obama’s “don’t do stupid shit”

Perhaps the tax was enacted to control wake boats.  That and superyachts are really the only part of the upper end of the boat building industry making money.  Have you seen the price tags on those things? In that case, I fully support the tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KC375 said:

So since you guys seem to have all the answers please show us how it’s done.

Appreciate your candor and honesty. 

And yes, for sure, the US Right is totally convinced that they have all the answers; so much so that they have no need to do a lick of reading or research. 

As with their relationship to the Drumph, they bask in their ignorance, and revel in being conned. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Laker said:

Perhaps the tax was enacted to control wake boats.  That and superyachts are really the only part of the upper end of the boat building industry making money.  Have you seen the price tags on those things? In that case, I fully support the tax.

That is your right to support the tax. Just beware the law of unintended consequences. There will be fewer new boat sales because of your support. There will be fewer used boats in the coming years and those will bring a premium price. Builders, dealers, salesmen, technicians, will be hurt. Even things like new boat registration fees, new graphics, all the stuff you need for a boat like new fenders, docklines, canvas, new electronics, will go way down. 

Why would I buy a new boat and pay 37% tax on it, when I could take that money and restore a classic? 

I understand, you want the rich to pay. I'm just saying, that they already are. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, danstanford said:

It is pretty cut and dried in Canada. If you, as an individual, put money in your bank account so you can spend it on anything from food to yachts, you pay income tax on it on a sliding scale from zero to about 50% at higher levels. You can defer the tax by using some tools worked into the code by policy makers, or you can leave it in your corporation and pay the lower corporate tax rate, but when you get it in your own bank account you pay the tax. Are there cheats out there, undoubtedly. Is that going to be fixed by raising tax rates, absolutely not in fact it will make it worse. 

Raising the minimum wage is a fine idea, but ultimately it is the customers of these businesses that will pay higher prices to compensate. The exception to this is the customers who choose less expensive products made elsewhere in places without minimum wages, environmental rules, and support for the disadvantaged in society. 

Finally, I get so sick of people yelling about obscene corporate profits as if it were a blanket thing. There are lots and lots and lots of corporations making little or no money and a few highly public ones making scads of money due to a variety of factors none of which are just some rights to profit because you are a corporation. If you really understand the situation, a corporation is just a vessel for the money until it gets distributed to the shareholders who then get taxed at the same rates as everyone else in their tax bracket.  

Post  finally, if you are a retired person with a pension, you had better hope corporations continue to make profits or you won't have an income to support your pension. 

This.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Laker said:

Does it add to the GDP or any form of the GDP?  Is it a requirement for the ability for what you bought to add to the GDP?  If not, it is dead capital.  It may increase in value, but it is a store for wealth.  It is pretty high up on either of the Hygienes so there is some esoteric addition to a person's life, but on the whole, since you have no other use for your money and a savings account only pays 2%, it is a place to park money with the hope that someone else needs more storage than you.

Also, cite your savings account that pays 2%.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, BC quietly raised its minimum wage to $15.20/hour.  More importantly, and just as quietly, the minimum wage will now be tied to inflation through the CPI.  

At least, it will stay that way while progressives are still in office.  The government here has pissed off so many of their supporters lately it isn't clear what will happen next election.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, no shoes said:

That is your right to support the tax. Just beware the law of unintended consequences. There will be fewer new boat sales because of your support. There will be fewer used boats in the coming years and those will bring a premium price. Builders, dealers, salesmen, technicians, will be hurt. Even things like new boat registration fees, new graphics, all the stuff you need for a boat like new fenders, docklines, canvas, new electronics, will go way down. 

Why would I buy a new boat and pay 37% tax on it, when I could take that money and restore a classic? 

I understand, you want the rich to pay. I'm just saying, that they already are. 

As I try to get wake boats off our lake, I am quite aware of the consequences.  I look to what they have done in Windermere in England.  Just changed who got the money.  Good riddance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, no shoes said:

Also, cite your savings account that pays 2%.

RBC and Scotiabank  both have high yield savings accounts. There is some restriction on liquidity, but not much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Laker said:

As I try to get wake boats off our lake, I am quite aware of the consequences.  I look to what they have done in Windermere in England.  Just changed who got the money.  Good riddance.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. The Canadian and American governments get the money. I have no say in Canada what they do with it since I can't vote. But I can pay tax.

Just this month, Property Tax on the San Diego boat and GST/PST on the new lake boat 2022 Boston Whaler 170 Montauk. Show me yours. 

IMG_0291.jpg

IMG_0295.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, no shoes said:

I'm not sure what you are arguing. The Canadian and American governments get the money. I have no say in Canada what they do with it since I can't vote. But I can pay tax.

Just this month, Property Tax on the San Diego boat and GST/PST on the new lake boat 2022 Boston Whaler 170 Montauk. Show me yours. 

IMG_0291.jpg

IMG_0295.jpg

I never pay those "administration" fees.  If they show up on a purchase (usually cars) I threaten to walk.  They always go away.   

It looks like your discount over the MSRP covered the tax.   Funny how that works.

Link to post
Share on other sites