This new tax gathering policy from the virtually bankrupt government of PEI strikes me as very odd: being taxed for something you may do in the future. What will they think of next?
Canada's Favorite Blog
Almost Famous
Articles
- Articles for the sister station, A Good Beer Blog.
- Pick any day's tunes as heard on CBC Ottawa's All in a Day hosted by my personal emailing buddy, Brent Bambury. You won't find a better music selection on radio anywhere - certainly not on the deeply dowdy CBC.
- Another plume catches my eye.
- Stuff less serious than Stuff.
- From Jan to March 2006, I tried a group humour blog with others on the subject of Canadian politics. It did not last but the posts were worth keeping. #16 was banned. There were no comments. It was at www.shadowcabinet.ca.
- Some writings and other junk of little real interest unless you like law or are a Crow.
A display of hideous graphics focused on the goal of figuring out where the smokestack I can see to the south is sitting.
Comments
'nee - June 7, 2005 10:16 AM
* Being taxed for something you did in an alternate dimension.
* Being taxed for thinking about doing something (with a surcharge if you then do it)
* Being taxed for having been taxed in another jurisdiction
* Toenails
Derek - June 7, 2005 4:05 PM
Maybe if they were more diligent about collecting their monthly pound of flesh from their existing clients they wouldn't have to soak their new customers!
Of course, it is much more work to chase down existing delinquents than to keep new customers from setting up shop. The obvious irony is that less new customers because of the pay up front policy will result in fewer new taxpaying businesses.
I am a little worried that the next time I go to Wal*Mart, I may receive a bill for next year's PST, just in case I go bankrupt in the forthcoming year and can't afford to buy anything!
I sure hope Revenue Canada isn't in on this, too!
Alan - June 7, 2005 4:07 PM
Exactly - what is the point of having new business development if the first thing the new business is greeted with is a crushing obligation?<p>I wonder about the underlying basis in law for such a rule and its obvious selective application but have little interest in researching the point.