E90Post
 


N54Tuning.com
 
BMW 3-Series (E90 E92) Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion > Prime Minister Trudeau's war on incorporated small business owners



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-22-2017, 12:49 PM   #89
Canuckles
Second Lieutenant
Canuckles's Avatar
Canada
56
Rep
292
Posts

Drives: MW 2016 F82 M4
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joekerr View Post
Infuriating, but I'm sure this will not get the media attention it deserves.
Unfortunately you're so right on this.

Joekerr, as an accountant and in your eyes, can you speak to the validity of rumours regarding Morneau Shepell (one of Canada's largest providers of pension plans) reaping a windfall for basically forcing people to look into other pension plan options, if the proposed tax legislation does in fact pass.

Last edited by Canuckles; 09-22-2017 at 06:10 PM.
Appreciate 1
      09-22-2017, 01:14 PM   #90
Joekerr
Joe King
Joekerr's Avatar
1165
Rep
428
Posts

Drives: 2012 300C SRT8
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckles View Post
Unfortunately you're so right on this.

Joekerr, as an accountant and in your eyes, can you speak to the validity of rumours regarding Morneau Shepell (one of Canada's largest provider of pension plans) reaping a windfall for basically forcing people to look into other pension plan options, if the proposed tax legislation does in fact pass.
Well, in a nutshell, Morneau Shepell provides HR consulting and pension design (as well as administering retirement / pension plans). So if these changes come into effect, AND IF, whatever changes made do not encompass growth within a pension plan (ie. a small business corp could create a pension for their employees and investment growth here is sheltered from the changes), then yes, they could stand to make a lot of money. As could any other plan administrator.

Can't really speak to the validity of the rumours though, first I've heard that to be honest. I suspect people are creating a link, which while plausible, doesn't only benefit Morneau Shepell. As much as I'd personally like to see Bill face the fire on that, I'm trying not to be biased.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lups View Post
he's Canadian. By international law we all must worship him and all other products of the country.
Appreciate 1
      09-22-2017, 01:51 PM   #91
RABAUKE
Rear Admiral
RABAUKE's Avatar
Canada
1111
Rep
713
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M coupe, 2014 MB GLK
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: The Golden Horseshoe, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 Z4M Coupe  [4.75]
Quote:
Originally Posted by RABAUKE View Post
So our illustrious PM and his Finance Minister refuse to disclose personal wealth and have their "family fortunes" (Trudeau's own words) held in a family trust set up, which is a "tax loophole" (Trudeau's own words) like other loopholes he's attacking the one percent on.....oh, he is in the one percent but his money is protected......

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/kell...ook-so-nervous
Even the left leaning Toronto Star is running this story, although somewhat more forgiving than other outlets....

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...im-harper.html
Appreciate 0
      09-22-2017, 01:55 PM   #92
Canuckles
Second Lieutenant
Canuckles's Avatar
Canada
56
Rep
292
Posts

Drives: MW 2016 F82 M4
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia

iTrader: (0)

Hard to be unbiased these days. Especially if Bill's 2.2 Million shares in Morneau Shepell is worth $46,090,000 as of writing this.

Justin and Bill's slogan should be "You pay our fair share".

Thnx for the reply.
Appreciate 0
      09-22-2017, 01:57 PM   #93
RABAUKE
Rear Admiral
RABAUKE's Avatar
Canada
1111
Rep
713
Posts

Drives: 2006 Z4M coupe, 2014 MB GLK
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: The Golden Horseshoe, Ontario

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2006 Z4M Coupe  [4.75]
Trust Fund Snowboarding PM

Toronto Star Editorial cartoon.
Attached Images
 
Appreciate 0
      09-22-2017, 04:10 PM   #94
JohnnyCanuck
Captain
Canada
464
Rep
785
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235i xDrive
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirdaft1 View Post
Spoken like a true cog in the wheel employee. Your comments make it painfully obvious that you clearly don't get it. And that's ok. Most people like yourself cannot fathom, let alone stomach the risk and responsibility required of an entrepreneurial endeavor.

Lest we forget that the entrepreneur is the lifeblood of a thriving economy. They are the job creators and the innovators you have to THANK for your job and many of the fantastic technological advancements and conveniences that you benefit from on a daily basis. Hardly seems prudent to disincentivize those individuals/entities whom you personally benefit from greatly each and every day. Then again, as they say about having your cake and something something eating it too...
How would you know anything about my employment or employment history? Yes, I am employed in a large organization. I have also run my own consulting business at two different times and also own multiple investment properties. I am intimately familiar with the range of legal tax avoidance mechanisms available to me.

You make all sorts of assumptions about how I am and how i go about my business. In every one of them, you're just wrong. I vehemently object to the tax system being used to reward entrepreneurship because it is fundamentally unfair and open to unmanageable abuse. That hardly means "I don't get it" ... it just means that all the whining from the "woe is me" crowd has had zero effect on me. More whining won't change that.
Appreciate 1
      09-22-2017, 04:26 PM   #95
Canuckles
Second Lieutenant
Canuckles's Avatar
Canada
56
Rep
292
Posts

Drives: MW 2016 F82 M4
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
How would you know anything about my employment or employment history? Yes, I am employed in a large organization. I have also run my own consulting business at two different times and also own multiple investment properties. I am intimately familiar with the range of legal tax avoidance mechanisms available to me.

You make all sorts of assumptions about how I am and how i go about my business. In every one of them, you're just wrong. I vehemently object to the tax system being used to reward entrepreneurship because it is fundamentally unfair and open to unmanageable abuse. That hardly means "I don't get it" ... it just means that all the whining from the "woe is me" crowd has had zero effect on me. More whining won't change that.
Small businesses and entrepreneurship created 87.7% of the new jobs in Canada from 2005-2015 (not counting the self-employed). You state these tax rules, which have encouraged job creation and thus revenue generation for successive federal governments (both Liberal and Conservative) for 40 years, amount to fundamental unfairness and unmanageable abuse.

I'm curious to know what your opinion of the effects of these rule changes will be, will Canada be better off or worse?

Last edited by Canuckles; 09-22-2017 at 04:42 PM.
Appreciate 0
      09-22-2017, 09:41 PM   #96
JohnnyCanuck
Captain
Canada
464
Rep
785
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235i xDrive
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckles View Post
Small businesses and entrepreneurship created 87.7% of the new jobs in Canada from 2005-2015 (not counting the self-employed). You state these tax rules, which have encouraged job creation and thus revenue generation for successive federal governments (both Liberal and Conservative) for 40 years, amount to fundamental unfairness and unmanageable abuse.

I'm curious to know what your opinion of the effects of these rule changes will be, will Canada be better off or worse?
That's a reasonable question ... I think it's important to clarify my issue with the current tax rules: it facilitates the storing and/or distribution of money in business enterprises for the purposes of tax avoidance. There's no question that all the true costs of the business should be written off against income and that includes longer term investment (eg. undepreciated capital cost). I don't even object to a reasonable level of retained income to level out fluctuations in revenue. However, the ability to put family members on payroll who provide limited productive value to the enterprise (usually at lower marginal tax rates), the ability to leave large amounts of money in the enterprise to avoid the tax on withdrawal/dividend, to sub-incorporate partnership income, to writing off "entertainment expenses" that have no real business value ... is all tax unfairness and what I object to.

Therefore, if the proposed tax changes meet their goals of eliminating activities such as those described in the latter part of the above, then yes ... Canada will be better off because our tax system will be fairer and the funding obligations we all have to government activity will be shared more equitably.
Appreciate 1
      09-23-2017, 01:53 AM   #97
Canuckles
Second Lieutenant
Canuckles's Avatar
Canada
56
Rep
292
Posts

Drives: MW 2016 F82 M4
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
That's a reasonable question ... I think it's important to clarify my issue with the current tax rules: it facilitates the storing and/or distribution of money in business enterprises for the purposes of tax avoidance. There's no question that all the true costs of the business should be written off against income and that includes longer term investment (eg. undepreciated capital cost). I don't even object to a reasonable level of retained income to level out fluctuations in revenue. However, the ability to put family members on payroll who provide limited productive value to the enterprise (usually at lower marginal tax rates), the ability to leave large amounts of money in the enterprise to avoid the tax on withdrawal/dividend, to sub-incorporate partnership income, to writing off "entertainment expenses" that have no real business value ... is all tax unfairness and what I object to.

Therefore, if the proposed tax changes meet their goals of eliminating activities such as those described in the latter part of the above, then yes ... Canada will be better off because our tax system will be fairer and the funding obligations we all have to government activity will be shared more equitably.
By stopping the facilitation of monies into and out of small business enterprises you are literally killing small business. While trying to avoid paying more taxes than you have to within the letter of the law is just common sense.

Personally, I don't disagree with some revision to income sprinkling but the practice isn't as rampant as Trudeau would have you believe. Fewer than 5% of small businesses utilize this in fact. Though these may the the ultra high net-worth individuals their proposed changes only plan to recoup $250MM. So his unclear and muddled statements, in my view, are misleading the public which mean one of two things. He just doesn't understand the numbers or this is nothing but a tax grab designed to cover his shortfalls due to spending, and he's sowing seeds of discontent to sell it.

In terms of incorporation, I take little issue with doctors doing it. I'd like to think it's prudent and try to retain all those who are considering retirement, for a few more years anyways to soften the coming shortage. While not dissuading future doctors from incurring massive amounts of debt to work 80-90 hour weeks to get paid just the same as everyone else who didn't make those life choices. To me the net benefit of keeping the rules outweigh the negative repercussions of changing them.

Lastly on equitability, the tax rules aren't different for everyone they are just used differently by everyone and the current ones took 5 years of tweaking to be put in place. Think of the law of unintended consequences, why are they in such a hurry to rush this through?

Last edited by Canuckles; 09-23-2017 at 02:18 AM.
Appreciate 1
      09-24-2017, 10:15 PM   #98
JohnnyCanuck
Captain
Canada
464
Rep
785
Posts

Drives: 2016 M235i xDrive
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckles View Post
By stopping the facilitation of monies into and out of small business enterprises you are literally killing small business. While trying to avoid paying more taxes than you have to within the letter of the law is just common sense.

Personally, I don't disagree with some revision to income sprinkling but the practice isn't as rampant as Trudeau would have you believe. Fewer than 5% of small businesses utilize this in fact. Though these may the the ultra high net-worth individuals their proposed changes only plan to recoup $250MM. So his unclear and muddled statements, in my view, are misleading the public which mean one of two things. He just doesn't understand the numbers or this is nothing but a tax grab designed to cover his shortfalls due to spending, and he's sowing seeds of discontent to sell it.

In terms of incorporation, I take little issue with doctors doing it. I'd like to think it's prudent and try to retain all those who are considering retirement, for a few more years anyways to soften the coming shortage. While not dissuading future doctors from incurring massive amounts of debt to work 80-90 hour weeks to get paid just the same as everyone else who didn't make those life choices. To me the net benefit of keeping the rules outweigh the negative repercussions of changing them.

Lastly on equitability, the tax rules aren't different for everyone they are just used differently by everyone and the current ones took 5 years of tweaking to be put in place. Think of the law of unintended consequences, why are they in such a hurry to rush this through?
Here you go: http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed...rill-hyperbole

Just for you, the Trudeaue/Morneau hating Postmedia printing a really good analysis.
Appreciate 1
      09-25-2017, 12:25 PM   #99
Rik84
Full Potato
Canada
214
Rep
350
Posts

Drives: 2015 F80 M3
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Vancouver BC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
Here you go: http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed...rill-hyperbole

Just for you, the Trudeaue/Morneau hating Postmedia printing a really good analysis.
The issue with opinion pieces is that spin occurs on both ends.

Rather than dissect the entire article, I'll focus on some of the very first passages.

The author is making the argument that the proposed tax changes do not adversely affect a majority of people making average wages but that it is targeted at the top income earners in Canada.

Half of the top 1% of our population use CCPC's to help manage their wealth. They also most likely take every option they can when tax planing. Fair, I understand how that can upset many of the people in our country.

10% of the bottom 90% of our population use the same corporation structure for tax planing. Although most likely not to the same level of effect. That said, that relates to 9% of our population.

So, you are affecting roughly 18x the amount of people than those who should in reality be targeted? That is not how fair taxation works. Those making wages in the bottom 90% and paying themselves through a ccpc are most likely taking advantage of the dividend tax rules, which most likely allows them to make a fair wage and employ people. This is where my issue lies. To bring reform on the top 1/2 of a percent of our population they are going to hurt many more people.

I really don't have an issue with much of anything in this bill aside from taxing dividends. Abbusive income sprinkling, rolling equity tax free from generation to generation, those are big major issues. But taxing dividends at a much higher rate will negatively impact people on a far greater scale than I am comfortable with.

The point is, this article is just as biased as anything else from the far side of aisle.
Appreciate 1
      09-25-2017, 08:03 PM   #100
Canuckles
Second Lieutenant
Canuckles's Avatar
Canada
56
Rep
292
Posts

Drives: MW 2016 F82 M4
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: British Columbia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck View Post
Here you go: http://theprovince.com/opinion/op-ed...rill-hyperbole

Just for you, the Trudeaue/Morneau hating Postmedia printing a really good analysis.
This is for everyone who would vote Liberal 2019:

Not surprising to see a former statistician and current academic obfuscate the stats, while citing literature he himself took part in writing using data from 2011 or earlier.

From the Province article:

"Now letís look at the top earners ó people the coalition and other critics would rather we forgot. Almost half of those in the top one per cent, with incomes above $163,300, owned a CCPC, while more than 70 per cent of those in the top 0.01 per cent, with incomes over $2.3 million, owned one."

Statistics Canada from 2014: the top 1% comprised 268,505 Canadians.

Data from the "Key Small Business Statistics (2016) states that there were 1.14 million small businesses as of December 2015 out of a total of 1.17 million employer businesses"

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/061.nsf/eng/h_03018.html

So less than half of the top 1% owned a CCPC, let's say about 125,000-134,000 Canadians out of a total of 1.14 million small businesses in Canada. That's approximately somewhere between 11% to 12%.

How is that anywhere near close to statements Trudeau utters still to this day, like this gem from an interview on national TV with Peter Mansbridge. He said and I quote:

"... a large percentage of small businesses are just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cana...ript-1.3219779

Furthermore, if you want to talk about hyperbole, how about the conflation of the term tax avoidance and tax cheats. In doing so it not only threw shade towards the doctors and farmers of Canada, but also let us know that Trudeau is full of the same stuff.
Appreciate 2
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:06 AM.




e90post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST