Location: British Columbia
Posted on: 19-01-06 19:28:22
Quote:
Orginally posted by NorthYorkDesi
"Collateral damage" means "unintended consequential damage". It is typically used in wartime as an euphemism for large scale civilian deaths. In the U.S war on Iraq thousands of innocent civilians died in Iraq in the first few days as missiles hit their houses instead of military targets. These deaths were dismissed by the U.S as "collateral damage".
This term is used cynically to describe any unintended consequence of heavy handed application of government power.
The G&M is a paper which rarely covers stories outside of the GTA unless it furthers the rightwing agenda. It does seem to have a large readership in B.C
Thanks for the definition.
This election campaign is turning out to be interesting... isnt it? Its hard to determine who to vote for...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
~ Morning rain
Quote:
Orginally posted by NorthYorkDesi
"Yes, we're all socially responsible but OTOH, there's the other issue about privacy"
People abusing the honor system causes the system to fail. Right to privacy is guaranteed as long as society polices it's own. Blame the idiots who bring the stuff in from Alberta. Our reluctance to deal with them has removed any rights that we may have had. Don't blame the government.
"Even the Canadian Customs allows you to bring in goods without duties & taxes"
That's a privilege. It exists as long as it is not abused. Importing trinkets from your vacation is what it is intended for. You start smuggling in the expensive stuff......
Agreed that people do abuse the system, that's a known fact. But it has to stopped at the point of entry...literally, set-up a check-post at the border and ask people to declare, just like they do at the customs, and if they're still not satisfied, do a vehicle search.
You...I mean the Govt. can't say Oh, BTW I see that you have a membership with Costco and that you shopped there on 12th July, 2004 for $350, so now we want you to pay tax on that.
NorthYorkDesi - I don't disagree with your points, but I'm just trying to be the devils advocate here....
BTW, your earlier post about Collateral damage was informative. Thanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SS
Reiki Grand Master
"mean the Govt. can't say Oh, BTW I see that you have a membership with Costco and that you shopped there on 12th July, 2004 for $350, so now we want you to pay tax on that."
Isn't that essentially what any government does? Any information in any node in the networked economy can be used against you....
You know what , The kind of response that the G&M article evoked was a total surprise to me. In about 35 responses I didn't see a single response analyzing the social implication of such 'tax avoidance'!! Nobody felt it was wrong! I know that G&M is rightwing but not even a single response????
Location: British Columbia
Posted on: 22-01-06 09:10:41
Quote:
Orginally posted by NorthYorkDesi
You know what , The kind of response that the G&M article evoked was a total surprise to me. In about 35 responses I didn't see a single response analyzing the social implication of such 'tax avoidance'!! Nobody felt it was wrong! I know that G&M is rightwing but not even a single response????
Hey
I dont know if you meant an analysis from this board.. but my thought is that how can this be tax avoidance when really there is no law against shopping in alberta? If one is willing to spend the time...transportation cost. etc. One can move freely from province to province for vacationing..sightseeing visiting etc... really who regulates this.
I dont think this will come to pass.
you know come to think of it I would have assumed this cross border comparision to the US to be one of Quebec and the rest of the country rather than BC and ALberta !! Will Saskatchewan and eastwards start next?
Would this make Alberta seem to be a wanna be seperatist province to the rest of Canada?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
~ Morning rain
"I dont know if you meant an analysis from this board"
There was no one from this board except Sudesingh who analyzed this. I was talking about the G&M talkback.
"how can this be tax avoidance when really there is no law against shopping in alberta?"
There IS a law against NOT paying PST when you shop outside of your province of residence AND bring the goods back into your province.
Location: British Columbia
Posted on: 22-01-06 17:03:49
Quote:
Orginally posted by NorthYorkDesi
"I dont know if you meant an analysis from this board"
There was no one from this board except Sudesingh who analyzed this. I was talking about the G&M talkback.
"how can this be tax avoidance when really there is no law against shopping in alberta?"
There IS a law against NOT paying PST when you shop outside of your province of residence AND bring the goods back into your province.
From various articles online it apears that this is seen as a'vindictive' move on the part of the liberal govt here and that because bc merchants on the border of alberta are complaining.
Why are there no complaints from the other provinces in that case?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
~ Morning rain
