| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:50 am Post subject: Critics urge special tax for overseas Canadians |
 |
|
Well, soon all of S.K. will be devoid of Canadians if this passes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070101.CITIZENSHIP01/TPStory/National
| Quote: |
Some call the Canadian passport an $87 get-out-of-jail-free card. Others see it as emergency evacuation insurance.
As Ottawa finally begins to review Canada's citizenship policy -- one of the most generous in the world -- critics are calling for a special tax for overseas Canadians.
"People want all the benefits of being Canadian, but none of the burden," said Richard Kurland, a lawyer and immigration policy analyst. "Non-resident citizens should not have a free ride -- business class -- at taxpayers' expense, by flashing a Canadian passport."
Added Don DeVoretz, an economist at Vancouver's Simon Fraser University: "The time has come to look at the citizenship policy and ask, does it serve Canada's interests?" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doesn't look like a big deal to most people here.
| Quote: |
| Mr. Kurland advocates the introduction of a special new tax for non-resident citizens. Canadians who have been living overseas for more than five years should pay $500 for a passport, he said. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazylemongirl
Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Location: almost there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ha! I'm a classic example of one of those evil non-resident Canadians that still travels on a Canadian passport. I left Canada when I was two and still travel on a Canadian passport! Bite me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dysupes
Joined: 24 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is absolutely outrageous... For people to say that Canadians have to basically pay ransom to be considered Canadian is unbelievable. Only in a Conservative government could this even be considered a possibility. And I absolutely love how they use the REMOTE chance of something like the Lebanese evacuation as grounds for these measures. If Canada wants to do these kinds of things I think they'll wind up losing MANY more citizens who don't want to deal with the excessively high taxes. While it may be beneficial to the country to consider a re-evaluation of its citizenship policies (ie babies born in Canada are automatically Canadians) it is also interesting to note how the author of this article only highlighted countries who do what these people are proposing. You'll notice they didn't highlight the majority of countries whose policies do NOT coincide with this kind of crap...
I would just love to hear how I, a non-resident Canadian, am costing the tax-payers so much money living abroad when the ONLY thing I am asking is that my own country doesn't leave me high and dry in case of war. Wow, yeah, I can see how that's a big burden what with the 95% (or more) chance that I'll never need any kind of tax-payer money while I'm outside of Canada. Fc'king unbelievable... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dysupes
Joined: 24 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forgot to point out of course that if you are a Canadian registered with the embassy and have received your embassy evacuation plan then you should have noted that if an evacuation were to take place that you are legally required to reimburse the Canadian government for the cost of evacuating you out of Korea. I'd like to know how paying $500 solves that problem? And hey, if I pay $500 does that mean that for the length of my passport I get evacuated for free?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ilsanman
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Bucheon, Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: yes |
|
|
You can thank the Lebanese/Canadians for that one, after the conflict this summer.
They say 'Once you are a Canadian, you are a Canadian for life'. They are exactly what the article says, people who want the protection and none of the costs.
Though I would hate the pay the money, I support the law. I will only have to pay it once, or I can default to my Euri passport. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dysupes
Joined: 24 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
But that's exactly the point: you will pay once and then default to another passport. Should you as a Canadian citizen have to do that? Why should you have to do that? As for your assertion that it's the law, I agree. But you know, the laws are made by and for the people (in theory of course). Let's tell them that we won't stand for this kind of malarkey. Especially given their own clauses in the evacuation plans of their own embassies.  If the cause for this law is the cost to tax-payers, what do we say to justify when it is shown that tax-payers shoulder no burden? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poet13
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
Location: Just over there....throwing lemons.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I haven't read the article, but I think it's crap. I haven't cost the Cdn government a penny in the last 18 years. They want me to pay some outrageous amount of money for my passport? F that. I can live in an airport....others have dammit!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
hey for us americans they keep floating the idea of killing our foreign income exclusion. we would be the only western country (and I think only country) that would tax its citizens no matter where they live. no declaration of nonresidency no nothing. we would have the pay the tax.
feel the same way, the only services of the us or local governments i use living overseas is the evac plan in case of war and like you canucks we too would have to reimburse the us govt
in our case this decision about the exclusion is based on political reasons, the deficit is through the roof and they wont raise taxes in the us so they look for "safe" ways to raise revenue and from people who wont complain. thats us  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| How do they plan to get the money from everyone who already has one not living within the borders? Not like they're going to send Officer Dave to Taiwan. All the $500 will do is limit the applicants abusing the system to rich folks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GentleSusan
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is just some Stephen Harper Fraser Institute bullocks designed to rally support around silly patriotism in advance of a federal election.
Hopefully Dion will send this dork back to Drumheller and we can go back to being Canada once again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dysupes wrote: |
| Forgot to point out of course that if you are a Canadian registered with the embassy and have received your embassy evacuation plan then you should have noted that if an evacuation were to take place that you are legally required to reimburse the Canadian government for the cost of evacuating you out of Korea. |
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060919/evacuation_tab_060919?s_name=&no_ads=
| Quote: |
The tab for the large-scale evacuation of Canadians from war-torn Lebanon during Hezbollah's conflict with Israel cost taxpayers $85 million, CTV News has learned.
...
As a rule, Canada asks citizens to reimburse the government for their evacuation from foreign lands.
But the federal government decided in this case that taxpayers would foot the bill for costs related to the evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon.
Ottawa similarly agreed to waive evacuation charges after the devastating 2004 tsunami. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funny...
If there is a catastrophe, they will waive the cost of the evacuation. But, there wouldn't be an evacuation with a catastrophe.
So why have a rule that will never get implimented so long as there is media attention paid?
ps....it's a strange rule if you ask me. How do Canadians living abroad for 2 or 3 years cost the Canadian government money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hogwonguy1979 wrote: |
hey for us americans they keep floating the idea of killing our foreign income exclusion. we would be the only western country (and I think only country) that would tax its citizens no matter where they live. no declaration of nonresidency no nothing. we would have the pay the tax.
feel the same way, the only services of the us or local governments i use living overseas is the evac plan in case of war and like you canucks we too would have to reimburse the us govt
in our case this decision about the exclusion is based on political reasons, the deficit is through the roof and they wont raise taxes in the us so they look for "safe" ways to raise revenue and from people who wont complain. thats us |
I think that tax law changed in December, with effect from January 2006. Some of my chums are considering going home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| hogwonguy1979 wrote: |
hey for us americans they keep floating the idea of killing our foreign income exclusion. we would be the only western country (and I think only country) that would tax its citizens no matter where they live. no declaration of nonresidency no nothing. we would have the pay the tax.
feel the same way, the only services of the us or local governments i use living overseas is the evac plan in case of war and like you canucks we too would have to reimburse the us govt
in our case this decision about the exclusion is based on political reasons, the deficit is through the roof and they wont raise taxes in the us so they look for "safe" ways to raise revenue and from people who wont complain. thats us |
I think that tax law changed in December, with effect from January 2006. Some of my chums are considering going home. |
Some rules changed, but the $82,400 exclusion (for earned income) still applies. So us teachers won't be affected. Unless you've got investment income, which will still be taxed the same.
That said, Americans should still file their tax returns. If you file, there is a 3 year statute of limitations. If you don't file, there is no statute of limitations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
