543 replies to this topic

[tjv]

Obviously some things like buying a house using company funds would qualify as suspect but, how much you spend on meals, hotels, clothing, etc needs to be defined. 

 

To many people spending $400 on a hotel, $3,000+ on a suit or $200 a day for meals isn't unusual.

It isn't how much he spent on hotels, etc, it would appear that the London trip in its entirety was unnecessary.  To me its a full taxable benefit as a holiday

 

I would even say all these back and forth trips to Vancouver on the float planes for other government bureaucrats.  This is the 21st century with webcams, etc you can basically have a meeting from all over the world without leaving your office.  My brother is a senior executive for a company with offices all around the world and pretty much everything is done via phone and teleconferencing

 

Maybe our Pariamentary system needs changing. Maybe we shouldn't pull a speaker from the political ranks, how about choosing it like we do the Governor General. Someone not necessarily an elected official but someone universally respected in the mold of Ted Hughes for example.

Yes agreed, and I would start with eliminating the Governor General and Lieutenant Governors.  Then sell the Lieutenant Governors mansion.  Way too much waste in government.  Up next are James and Lenz's positions because I think if they have all this time to travel around the world for pointless meetings then their positions can be eliminated or at min cut back to part time.

[Mike K.]

It will be a cold day in hell when I spend that much on a Moore's suit. When you get in that starting price range the label name starts to matter

Moores is just a store. They sell a huge swath of brands from low to high end.

[LeoVictoria]

It isn't how much he spent on hotels, etc, it would appear that the London trip in its entirety was unnecessary.  To me its a full taxable benefit as a holiday

 

I would even say all these back and forth trips to Vancouver on the float planes for other government bureaucrats.  

 

You're probably right about the necessity or lack thereof of these trips, but that is going to be almost impossible to prove if they did have some work-related meetings.

 

Travel seems to be already be quite curtailed for normal government employees.  My wife is a manager with the government and they almost never travel for meetings.  Willingness to approve travel in general is way down from where it used to be several years ago.

Edited by LeoVictoria, 24 January 2019 - 08:14 PM.

[VIResident]

 Doubtful or highly likely some MLA's might be concerned about this in relation to previously buried information about them and their activities on spending, current & past employee treatment seeing the light of day?

 

British Columbia’s House Speaker Darryl Plecas is offering to rip up non-disclosure agreements that prevent former legislature staff from speaking out about the House’s spending scandal.

*boom*

 

".....also noted allegations made to him by several unidentified whistleblowers, many of whom say they were forced out of their jobs when they tried to challenge what they believed to be misuse of public funds.

 

“The Speaker has heard from a number of former employees who said they were terminated without cause,” he wrote. “It appears that this practice of sudden without-cause terminations has fostered a culture of insecurity among staff in at least some of the departments at the Legislative Assembly that if employees spoke up about concerns, or fell out of favour, they could lose their jobs without warning. As a result, staff have stayed quiet about what they have observed.”

 

https://www.theglobe...nts-imposed-on/

Edited by VIResident, 28 January 2019 - 05:53 AM.

[tjv]

You're probably right about the necessity or lack thereof of these trips, but that is going to be almost impossible to prove if they did have some work-related meetings.

 

Travel seems to be already be quite curtailed for normal government employees.  My wife is a manager with the government and they almost never travel for meetings.  Willingness to approve travel in general is way down from where it used to be several years ago.

I would agree with you...I guess I will have to schedule one meeting on my next trip to Europe next time, perhaps a factory tour to one of my tool suppliers and then I will deduct the entire cost of the trip to my corporation say $25,000.

 

Already looking at a new tropical corporate condo for corporate wellness retreats too.  Should be around 500-600k

 

Seems fair right and there won't be one dime of taxable benefits to me!

[LeoVictoria]

I would agree with you...I guess I will have to schedule one meeting on my next trip to Europe next time, perhaps a factory tour to one of my tool suppliers and then I will deduct the entire cost of the trip to my corporation say $25,000.

 

Already looking at a new tropical corporate condo for corporate wellness retreats too.  Should be around 500-600k

 

Seems fair right and there won't be one dime of taxable benefits to me!

 

What this has to do with my comment is beyond me.    Go for it though, your spending is only of concern to the CRA and your shareholders

[LeoVictoria]

So you guys heard the song yet?  https://soundcloud.c...-of-the-uniform

[Sparky]

^ Pure gold.

[Mike K.]

Chorus

Nice watches, and cufflinks, and biking magazines
Subscriptions galore, for when they’re thinkin’ of Palm Springs
All this graft might make us very bitter
But the queerest of all, is the legislative wood splitter

 

 

[tjv]

What this has to do with my comment is beyond me.    Go for it though, your spending is only of concern to the CRA and your shareholders

My point is if they can take stupid redundant trips to Europe and the only purpose is to pick up a speakers hat then I should be able to enjoy the same perks with my corporation.  There is a precedent being set here and if they can enjoy it without a stitch of taxable benefits then I am going to enjoy it too.  Next time I have to buy a new construction tool I am going to go on an all expense paid trip to China to get it

 

Added bonus is I will reduce my income tax bill so the morons don't waste my money.  And you wonder why people get pissed off paying income tax when these idiots ARE STILL EMPLOYED!!!!

[sdwright.vic]

While I appreciate your frustration, and agree. A lot of wasted money is not from waste but from unpaid taxes..

There is $45 BILLION in unpaid taxes out there, and no matter what this amount keeps going up. The government, like any business, budgets based on last year revenue plus anticipated growth. When source deductions, GST/HST, personal and corporate taxes are not paid like they are supposed to be that great a shortfall and creates SOME of the deficits that you see.

Some governments are overzealous in their budgeting, others are not.

On any given day I have 175 accounts that I am working. I get rid of one, there is always an eager replacement the very next day to take its place. There are about 200 people doing my job, just in Victoria! That's 35,0000 minimum accounts in JUST the Victoria office being worked in just Revenue Collections.

Not implying its a perfect system, but their is already a large share not doing their fair share.

However, CRA can only do so much when balancing societies desire for smaller government and spending and the need to go after these people.

Eventually someone's number is up and it ends being worked.

[Mike K.]

I'm fairly certain the government budgets unpaid taxes into its budget.

 

Businesses also have unpaid accounts receivable. People don't like to part with their money, and the government is well aware of that, as is the rest of society.

[sdwright.vic]

No, because unfortunately some if it get written off.

Edited by sdwright.vic, 31 January 2019 - 08:03 AM.

[rjag]

No, because unfortunately some if it get written off.

 

Yup, just like in business, any agings over 180 days is usually written off and sent to collections.

 

It sux that we spend so much effort trying to collect whats due whether we are in business or in govt. the difference is Govt can pad the cost of collections, while business gets to eat it or charge their good customers higher rates 

[Mike K.]

Or go out of business. Plenty of small business owners have been forced to shut down their operations due to a large client simply refusing to pay their bills, or themselves going under.

 

It's vicious in the small business world.

[sdwright.vic]

Didn't say it was unlike any other business though did I. I point out an issue with our system, and like on cue, you guys switch sides and claim that the government attempting to collect taxes is well, a waste (yet again).

I can tell you I make my salary and benefits back for the government (and then some) in the very first month of the year.

Not certain how the Government is padding the expense of "collections", as the budget clearly states how much money is going into the CRA for for each of its divisions. That shows as a clear budget item and "expense". There is no padding. But you guys are hilarious thinking there is.

As for businesses that "gets to eat it or charge their good customers higher rates", the government gets to eat the bad debt of these "client simply refusing to pay their bills, or themselves going under".

A balance sheets works just the same for a corporation as it does the government.

[Mike K.]

I think the point was that government is not the only entity getting stiffed, and that more Canadians understand intimately what it's like to not get what you are owed or entitled to.

 

The sort of nonsense as alleged to have occurred at the Legislature and the various federal slush funds for pet projects are what raise the hackles of taxpayers, though, as there never seems to be a solution or a will to take offenders to task and stop the bad apples from being able to be bad apples.

[sdwright.vic]

And that is why I said:

"Not implying its a perfect system, but their is already a large share not doing their fair share."

Above

[rjag]

The ‘padding’ is the person hired to collect it. It’s a cost of business that is passed on to the taxpayer. I wasn’t being negative to you, I was pointing out the difference

[sdwright.vic]

It is a cost for businesses as well for those that have in house collections departments. If not in house, then the sell the debt pennies on the dollar to an outside agency, or just write it off as a lose.

Government, corporations, or sole proprietorships, we all lose by people not paying.

Edited by sdwright.vic, 31 January 2019 - 11:11 AM.