[Newsbot]

Title: Canada Revenue offered amnesty to wealthy KPMG clients in offshore tax 'sham'
Category: Law & Order
Posted By: shockedcanadian
Date: 2016-03-08 05:31:32
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

I'm sure this advantage isn't only for the rich. I'm sure RevCan will apply it to anyone caught cheating on their taxes, after all, we are an equal and equitable society.

What? Oh, wait . . .

[ShepherdsDog]

It's only being offered to those RevCan knows can afford a legal battle.

[DrCaleb]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

It's only being offered to those RevCan knows can afford a legal battle.

'Zactly. The ones they can bully and threaten are the ones that get to carry the wealthy.

[shockedcanadian]

This is why I will repeat over and over, "God Bless America".

You think the IRS or FBI would back away from someone based on wealth or power? On the contrary, they realize that those abusers are the worst kind just ask Wesley Snipes how wealth, power and fame helped him when he tried to cheat the government and in effect, other taxpayers. It's also why you see NY Police officers charged with crimes by the FBI, they don't shy away from the difficult tasks, they will even go after future presidents. The law of the land isn't circumvented by anyone.

Its called liberty and democracy, not cronyism and hypocrisy (a la the OPP and Wynne for example).

[shockedcanadian]

Forgot to mention Pete Rose, even billionaires in the U.S are sent to the can for such crimes. Remember Leona Helmsley? She famously flaunted her disregard for paying taxes, she was sent to prison too.

In Canada if you commit serious crimes and if you have the means what's the worst that happens? You get your Lordship taken away...

The security apparatus is more concerned with drumming up business for themselves and going after poor juveniles or nutjobs who require medication rather than taking on serious threats to National Security. If they took a stronger stance, there would be quite a few high ranked individuals from Ontario who would be in the slammer you can be sure.

[DrCaleb]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This is why I will repeat over and over, "God Bless America".

You mean the place where Warren Buffet pays less income tax than his secretary? That America?

The only time when societies will be equal and equitable is when everyone pays a flat tax rate on income, no exceptions.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

This is why I will repeat over and over, "God Bless America".

You mean the place where Warren Buffet pays less income tax than his secretary? That America?

The only time when societies will be equal and equitable is when everyone pays a flat tax rate on income, no exceptions.

He pays a lower rate, not less tax. His secretary was paying the maximum marginal tax rate, since she still had a high salary. Someone at the bottom of the earnings ladder would be really farked with a flat tax with no exceptions, since they pay very little or no tax at the moment.

No reason that a progressive tax system couldn't eliminate all the deductions in place now.

$1:

a true flat tax impacts taxpayers disproportionately even though the tax is proportionate. For example, let’s assume a tax rate of 10%. For a household making $1,000,000, that 10% would represent $100,000 in tax. For a household making $10,000, that 10% would represent $1,000 in tax. The baseline cost of living does not change as income changes: with respect to a gallon of milk or gas, for example, the cost of that milk or gas doesn’t cost less for the poor than for the wealthy. If basic expenses like food and fuel are relatively inelastic, while a flat tax may be proportionate, the effect of the tax may be disproportionate. If you mix in other circumstances (caring for a disabled child or several minor children), the effect is even more dramatic. To resolve those issues, most flat tax plans typically include an exemption for low income taxpayers, the elderly and the disabled. Many flat tax plans, such as Sen. Paul’s, also include tax deductions and tax exemptions, which, of course, moves the tax away from being flat and more towards being progressive. As that happens, you also move away from the likelihood IRS could be eliminated. Additionally, imposing a tax only on wages means that those who work for a living and receive a traditional wage (typically, the middle class) would pay a higher rate on gross income than those who receive most of their income through dividends and capital gains (like Warren Buffett) or distributions from partnerships and S corporations (think former Senator John Edwards) which, it’s argued, produces an inequitable and unfair result.

Doesn't sound like a flat tax would solve anything at all.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You mean the place where Warren Buffet pays exactly the income tax the law says he owes?

FTFY.

[Thanos]

shockedcanadian shockedcanadian:

You think the IRS or FBI would back away from someone based on wealth or power? On the contrary, they realize that those abusers are the worst kind just ask Wesley Snipes how wealth, power and fame helped him when he tried to cheat the government and in effect, other taxpayers.

It's also the land where they go after the low-hanging fruit like Bernie Madoff or Martin Shkreli but let the architects of the 2008 housing meltdown off scot free because in the previous thirty years they deregulated the financial sector so much that practically nothing any of them do is illegal anymore. Wesley Snipes? Chrissakes, look at what someone like Don Blankenship got away with, up to and including murdering his own coal-mine employees, before you say something as daft as "even the rich are subject to the law".

[BartSimpson]

As much as I want the banksters put up against a wall and shot the real reason why they were not prosecuted is because the government mucked around in the housing and financial sector so much that these people can reasonably defend themselves by saying they were only doing what the government told them to do.

The government doesn't want to admit its own responsibility for what happened in 2008 and for what's inevitably going to happen again.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You mean the place where Warren Buffet pays exactly the income tax the law says he owes?

FTFY.

Doesn't mean the law is right. If everyone pays a flat percentage, then everyone is truly equal. It also discourages these people that KPMG is protecting, as they'd still have to pay.

And yes Andy, we've discussed minimum income strategies for the low income earners before. . .

[peck420]

I must be extremely special.

When the CRA caught me on some...erm...errant taxes...I was offered the same deal.

I guess my money is worth far more than my bank says. Sure as shit wasn't in the millions.

They still forgave the penalties in lieu of immediate back tax + interest payments. Which I did...yay! As for being 'dragged through the courts'...CRA only proceeds with the legal end if you don't pay per your agreement with them.

And, yes, the confidentiality stamp was all over everything...because, outside of me and the CRA...it is confidential.

I love how an everyday occurrence becomes 'more special' the second a large dollar value is assigned to it.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yes Andy, we've discussed minimum income strategies for the low income earners before. . .

So a flat tax with a mincome? So you already have one deduction (the mincome). What about medical expenses? Children? Probably find all sorts of deductions you actually agree with - so much for no exceptions.

You say a flat tax is more fair, yet Buffet would pay nothing since capital gains would not be taxed, only wages.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And yes Andy, we've discussed minimum income strategies for the low income earners before. . .

So a flat tax with a mincome? So you already have one deduction (the mincome). What about medical expenses? Children? Probably find all sorts of deductions you actually agree with - so much for no exceptions.

You say a flat tax is more fair, yet Buffet would pay nothing since capital gains would not be taxed, only wages.

I think that breaks your "assumptions per word count" record.