The Job Offer

THE JOB OFFER
A Truth in Fiction to Illustrate
Unfair Taxation in Canada
By Victor Drummond © July 2007

Henry Morgan is employed by Widgets Incorporated of Smalltown Ontario. He earns a comfortable annual salary of $65,500.00 which is barely adequate to comfortably maintain his wife Emily and family of four children.

Their children are Annette:15 years old, Marilyn:12 years old, George: 8 years old and Theodore: 4 years old.

Henry is a bit concerned that his employment income may not increase fast enough to allow him to finance the children’s University education. Annette will be graduating from High school in another year and while she is still in University Marilyn will be ready to begin University as well. This will mean tuition, books, accommodation and meals in a distant University town -- for two of his children at the same time. His present level of income would not support that kind of expense.

Widgets Incorporated has been a stable corporation, without notable growth, over the past decade.
Henry hasn’t much prospect of his salary being upgraded in the near future so after discussing the situation with Emily he decides to attend the next job fair in Toronto.

While at the job fair, Henry submits his curriculum vitae to several head hunters and also attended half a dozen job interviews. At the close of the job fair Henry felt rather confident that he had scored well with several potential employers.

One week later Henry received a registered letter – enclosed was a job offer with signatures of the Chief Executive Officer, (CEO) and Chief Financial Officer, (CFO), of Behemoth Enterprises Incorporated. There was a cc reference of a copy sent to The Canada Revenue Agency.

Details of their offer were as follows:-

(1) - A position of Manager Research and Development at their Mining Headquarters 40
kilometers from Inuvik NT, Canada .
(2) – A Guaranteed annual salary of $250,000 ,per year, for a minimum of two years.

(3) - Guaranteed accommodations for Henry and his family – with free bus service to the town of Inuvik for shopping, entertainment and educational purposes – 10 round trips per day –
7 days per week.

(4) – A company car fully maintained, fuel and oil changes etc. for both personal and business use – at company expense.

(5) – Family membership in the Company Health Spa, swimming pool and games room.

(6) – One months vacation, per year, at full salary – starting in the first year of employment.

Henry was overjoyed – he talked the job offer over with his wife first – Emily wasn’t too thrilled at the prospect of living so far from the nearest town and even less enthusiastic about sending the children to school so far from home.

George and Theodore thought it would be a great place to live – with moose and polar bears coming right up to their back-yard.

Marilyn and Annette were dead set against the idea – they didn’t want to move away from their friends and the more they thought about it the more determined they became to stay where they now lived.

After all parties were heard from Henry and Emily decided they would not accept that job offer – and wait for something more suitable to come along.

Things settled down and Henry kept on working for Widgets Inc. When Income Tax time rolled around Henry filed the same type of Income Tax return that he had done for years.

Eventually he received his Tax Return Assessment Notice -- which contained a few surprises:-

Instead of confirming his “Employment Income”, for the previous year, at the amount reported on his T4 slip i.e. $65,500.00 Henry was assessed to have received an “Employment Income” of $300,000.00 He was advised he had underpaid his Income Tax by. $83,000 which was in fact $17,700 more than his total real income.

Henry was thunderstruck – he got in his car and drove straight to Revenue Canada Headquarters in Ottawa. After the usual hurry-up and wait routines Henry finally was interviewed by a Tax Consultant of Canada Revenue Agency.

When Henry asked how in-the-world he could be assessed to have received an “Employment Income” of $300,000 when his real Employment Income was a bare $65,500. Henry was then informed:-

“You had an offer, of a guaranteed income, of:- $250,000, plus a Company Car which we estimated to be a benefit of $5,000, plus family membership in a health spa which we estimated to be a benefit of:- $3,000 plus a free house which we estimated to be a benefit of :- $12,000 ($1,000 per month) plus your real income of:- $65,500 for a gross “Employment Income” of:- $335,500”

“Allowing for generous personal and family Tax reductions Canada Revenue Agency has assessed your “Employment Income” to be: $300,000 as per the assessment notice you received.

Henry couldn’t believe his ears – He said to the Revenue Canada Counsellor: “How can you assess me for an income I never received?” The counsellor replied:- “You had every opportunity to receive the assessed Income -- and benefits -- and it is not Revenue Canada’s fault that you missed the boat on this opportunity – so “Pay Up” -- “Also expect the same assessment next year – the employment offer was for two years minmum”


Victor Drummond ©

Author’s Comment:- Does the above scenario sound far fetched and unreasonable?

Would you believe such a thing could happen in Canada. So far the Canada Revenue Agency hasn’t actually gotten around, to taxing potential income from declined job offers but equally unreasonable happenings have been going on in Canada for more than the past seven years.

It is no more reasonable to tax non-existent profits on employer’s shares -- intended to be an incentive award and/or a performance reward – than it is to tax other declined employment opportunities to make a gain.

Henry’s case, per the above fable, is no more outrageous than the real Taxable Benefits assessments levied by The Canada Revenue Agency that inflated taxpayers “Employment Incomes” well beyond their actual annual incomes and resulted in real taxes that exceeded the person’s total actual income for the entire year.

The inflated “Earned Income” being the result of an opportunity to make a profit – not on any real gain.” Much like the job opportunity in the fable that Henry made a conscious decision to pass over in this fable.

To add insult to injury some Canadian Victims of the “Taxable Benefits” Rip-off have been granted tax concessions (in British Columbia – JDS Uniphase Employee’s only), while all other, identical tax victims, in BC and across Canada have been denied the same Tax break. What a travesty of justice.

Victor Drummond ©


Reference:- URL’s :- http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/voices/story.html?id=457f01fa-2bc1-4589-b744-2eb682d961bf%20

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fcae05b1-9f28-4e2d-89b6-f7cf8fc33217&k=17428

True Love

HOPELESS ROMANTICSTS
A Commentary on Canadians who love a love story.
By Victor Drummond © July 2007


There is a saying that “The whole world loves a lover.” There must be some truth that quotation as a number of print houses that publish romance fiction, such a “Harlequin Romances”, have enjoyed considerable financial success.

What is there about a story of “Love Conquers All” that captures the imagination of so many people? Each story contains the same formula, i.e. a wholesome girl, a handsome boy, and boy meets girl. (Good Start)

Then there are obstacles to overcome, a villain lurks in the shadows,– doing mischievous and/or evil deeds to frustrate any romance between the girl and the boy.

There is always a crisis or two along the way -- but to every readers delight the young couple eventually join forces – overcome all opposition, and – as in all such fairy tales – live happily ever after. (RIGHT).
And that’s the way we would all like to see our world work out.

So let’s exam the qualities of each element of a romantic story to see what makes the various components either desirable, undesirable or are a don’t care, and how they work their magic on our frame of mind.

Everyone is familiar with the children’s romantic fairy tale:- “Cinderella” so that story will do fine for this analysis.

What is there about our heroine Cinderella -- that makes her a desirable element in the story? she is young, she is honest, she is decent, she is trustworthy. She doesn’t strike back when verbally assaulted and when finally decked out in a princess’s finery she is beautiful. So for those attributes alone -- we like her -- and hope all the best things for her.

Then there is the benevolent, (malevolent), Stepmother – who after her husband died – kept Cinderella, clothed her, (in hand-me-downs), fed her, (stale leftovers) and provided shelter for her and a place to sleep, (in the basement coal bin and cinder storage area: ( – hence the name Cinderella.)Last but not least she denied Cinderella, a true heir to her father’s estate, any part of her inheritance

Stepmother gets the image of being a villainess in spite of the good things she does for Cinderella. Why do we see stepmother as an evil person? She didn’t send Cinderella to an orphanage when Cinderella’s father died. That was decent -- wasn't it?

Could it be because she played favourites between her own two spoiled daughters and Cinderella. Could it be because she used Cinderella as a slave? Could it be because she was untruthful, or deceitful, or mean-spirited and lacking in compassion, or all these things combined. (Yes -- all of the above --without a doubt.)

How about the prince? We like him because he is handsome. He is wealthy. He is honest. He is decent. He is trustworthy. He is dependable. He is truthful. He isn’t a womanizer.

Before we discover the Fairy Godmother we expect the prince to don shining armour and go on a crusade to find, and rescue, Cinderella and the two ride off to the princes castle. But it didn’t happen that way.

Enter the Fairy Godmother. What do we like about her? She has virtue, honesty, a sense of fair play, is beautiful and has magical powers. She takes compassion on Cinderella’s plight and decides to do something about it. (Who wouldn’t just love someone like that.)

The drama then unfolds with the -- pumpkin chariot,-- the mice horses and mice footmen, -- and the glass slippers -- and the midnight curfew -- which all add mystery and suspense to the story.

Not one reader wanted the wicked stepsister(s) to fit the glass slipper and deceive the prince into a disastrous union. Things could just never work out for such a mismatched pair.

We all knew that the prince and Cinderella were just right for each other.

And so it worked out – the prince and Cinderella found one another, overcame the evil deeds of the wicked stepmother and lived happily ever after. (To every readers delight.)

Don’t you wish you could enjoy the satisfaction of foiling the evil aspects of an unfair situation and bring happiness to abused and deprived victims – in real life?

If you do – then you are in luck – we have all the elements of a romantic story right here in Canada and right now. Most of the character roles are already cast but there is one prize character role left -- for you to play, i.e. the Fairy Godmother.

The abused victim(s) are those Canadians who were/are unfairly taxed on money they never received. Many are left with a tax debt, (deferred), that could deprive their children of any meaningful inheritance. Their peace of mind has been compromised for years – and the angst is on-going.

When Gary Lunn and Stephen Harper granted tax remission to JDS Employee’s in British Columbia the victims thought they had found a Prince Charming. It seems however our prince got lost somewhere between a good start and a final happy ending.

Hopefully he still has the glass slipper. But to assist our prince (whoever he/she turns out to be) we need a Fairy Godmother. Now that is where – you the voting reader comes in.

Our prince/princess needs a bit of magic to overcome the evil forces that are working hard to prevent a happy ending.

If you have Canadian voting rights you are qualified to play the role of the Fairy Godmother. Apparently all the prince’s horses and all of his men cannot correct the problem without outside help.

There will be a federal election in the foreseeable future and the current polls indicate a dead heat support for the two leading parties that are vying to form the next government.

By notifying your local, MP and/or candidate in your federal riding -- that your support will go to the party that commits to bringing genuine fair taxation to all the victims, (Cinderella’s), -- of the “Taxable Benefits” rip-off -- you may just accomplish the same happy result -- in real life -- that the Fairy Godmother did in our foregoing love story.
Not all happy endings are confined to fairy tales.

If you care enough for your fellow Canadians -- to do something about this unfair tax situation -- then kindly notify your local Candidate for Federal Office and pass the web address of this blog page along to your voting age Canadian friends and contacts -- and ask them to keep the ball rolling.

If you are unfamiliar with this taxation problem read prior postings:- Stone Walls, & Not A leader – for starters.

Victor

You may reach your MP by regular mail, postage free, or by E-mail via the following web page and following the links to the list of sitting MP’s.http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsAddressList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Where is Elmo?

WHERE IS DUDLEY DORIGHT?
A commentary on Canada’s Image
as a nation of Horatio Alger type Heroes.

By Victor Drummond © July 2007


Canadians have a world wide reputation for being straight-laced, fun loving, honest and generous people. These qualities have been portrayed in cartoon, (Dudley Doright), and Television programs such as “Due South”.

In spite of being conned -- with the introduction of the “United Way” charity as a give once to one agency that will share your generosity with all other legitimate charities and consequently relieve citizens of constant badgering to donate – RIGHT
Canadians still rise to support, Runs, Marathons, CN Tower Stair Climbs, Door to door solicitations etc ad infinitem.

The Canadian government participates in food, shelter, and distress relief – wherever and whenever disaster strikes -- without hesitation and with all the resources necessary and/or available.

Obviously Canadians deserve the Dudley Doright image -- except in one specific area – Income Taxes – more specifically “Taxable Benefit” taxes levied on profits that never materialized. (See all prior postings)

The impact of those unfair taxes have produced distress, loss of home ownership, denial of rights, -- guaranteed to Canadian Citizens under the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” -- and left numerous citizens in a state of financial ruin.
(See prior posting:- Stone Walls)

Is the distress of our own citizens of less importance than problems that citizens of other countries are faced with.

Is it easier to send food, water recovery equipment, troops etc. to foreign lands than it is to level the taxation system for our own citizens? Is it not feasible to do both?

Wake up Canadians – CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME – Find the Dudley Doright(s) in Canada’s government and fix this problem at home – and then take care of those outside the country that may also deserve Canadian Charity.

Get the priorities straight and provide a fix that does not require our tax victims to fight for their rights individually. A blanket flaw demands a blanket correction.

Victor Drummond ©

One Too Many

ONLY IN CANADER YOU SAY --- THANK GOD
A commentary on the Unique & Unfair Income Tax Laws of Canada.
By Victor Drummond – July 2007 ©


Television viewers, in the Province of Ontario at least, have been exposed to a number of video clips portraying a series of Canada’s wonderful attributes being presented to persons of British origin. The theme response of the British viewer(s)
is always the same, i.e. “ONLY IN CANADER YOU SAY – WHAT A PITY.”

As these clips always portray some positive element of the Canadian Social/Political scene it seems only “Fair” and “Just” to point out there is at least one negative aspect as well. Something unique to Canada. e.g. Negative, and, zero gains taxed as a benefit.

If that feature of Canada’s Income Tax Regulations were produced as a video clip – and presented to viewers of British origin -- there is no doubt their response would be:- “ONLY IN CANADER YOU SAY – THANK GOD”

A Canadian Tax professional informed me the Canadian Income Tax Law is the only one, in the civilized world, that levies a benefit tax on unrealized (potential) profits.

My research -- to substantiate that claim I did not find a comparable tax in the USA, the UK or Australia. Although all three countries levy a tax on “Fringe Benefits” I did not find a tax on non-benefit benefits in the foregoing countries.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted my research was not all encompassing and therefore I make this offer to everyone who reads this article.

IF ANY READER SENDS ME PROOF THAT ANOTHER INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRY LEVIES A NON-PROFIT TAX ON SHARES ACQUIRED VIA ANY
AUTHORIZED AWARDS/INCENTIVE PLAN --- I WILL IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAW THIS ARTICLE AND POST A RETRACTION.
E-mail:- vic.drummond@sympatico.ca
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My initial reaction -- to the research I have done, was to present comparable excerpts of each countries “Fringe Benefits” tax regulations to illustrate the differences, and prove that Canada stands alone in this respect.

After wading through much of the quagmire and mind-boggling, hair splitting, morass of the Canadian “Income” Tax Act and multiple associated “Interpretive” bulletins, however, I decided to spare the sanity of my readers and merely point out some of the obvious Unfair , Arbitrary, and Ridiculous components of Canada’s Taxable Benefits regulations.

According to a Canadian Revenue Agency non-coded document titled:- “What is a stock option taxable benefit?”, -- a sort of FAQ list, -- there are three types of options issued to employees of Canadian corporations -- as follows:-
“Employee Stock Option Purchase Plan”, (ESPP),
Stock Bonus Plan, (SBP) and
Stock Option Plan, (SOP) which apparently is also known as an:-
“Employee Stock Option Plan”, (ESO).

(Plan descriptions per foregoing document:- )

ESPP – This plan allows the employee to acquire shares at a discounted price, (i.e. for an amount that is less than the value of the stock at the time of acquisition of the shares.) Many ESPP’s provide for a delay in the acquisition of the shares: an employee contributes a certain amount over a period of time and at pre-specified periods, the employee can purchase shares at a discount using the accumulated contributions.
The benefit is equal to the value of the shares, minus the amount paid.

Stock Bonus Plan , (SBP) – Under this plan, an employer agrees to give the shares to the employee free of charge. In effect, the employer agrees to sell or issue shares to the employee at no cost.

Stock Option Plan, (SOP/ESO) – This plan allows the employee to purchase shares of the employer’s company or of a non-arms-length company at a predetermined price.

Note:- This source document does not define:- “The Benefit” per these last two plans but it is safe to say it is the same formula as stated for the ESPP,
e.g. The benefit is equal to the value of the shares, minus the amount paid.

So if “The Benefit” per each plan is the same then the tax levied is the same and any tax relief given to victims of one plan is automatically an entitlement of victims of the other two plans. To rule otherwise is a violation of the rights of those excluded and a discredit to the Fairness quotient of those to apply, or support, that ruling.

No matter how you slice it -- the rationale to deny all victims of the ESPP, SBP, and ESO plans the same tax relief -- the argument is still pure baloney.

This same source document adds more confusion to the issue under the title line:-
“When will the exercise or disposal of an option not result in a taxable benefit from employment?”

i.e. when:-

(a) The benefit conferred by the option agreement was not received by reason of the employee’s employment.

(o) If the employee is also a shareholder, or a unit-holder, it is a question of fact whether he or she received the shares or units as a shareholder, a unit-holder or an employee.

(b) There was no intention to issue securities under the terms of the agreement, but there was an intention to issue a cash payment to the employee as a means of compensation. (i.e… under a phantom stock plan.)

Item (b) above raises some questions, i.e. If there are no securities issued under the plan then what is there to exercise or dispose of? No wonder there is no “Taxable Benefit” to tax. The employee receives a CASH payment which is real taxable “Employment Income”.

The so-called “phantom stock plan” is nothing more than a scheme to give the employee more money – there are no shares actually purchased, vested, or exercised and income tax is definitely applicable.

What possible justification can there be to split hairs on the circumstances whereby a taxpayer comes into possession of corporate shares. Split hair No 1:-

i.e. when
(a) The benefit conferred by the option agreement was not received by reason of the employee’s employment.

(o) If the employee is also a shareholder, or a unit-holder, it is a question of fact whether he or she received the shares or units as a shareholder, a unit-holder or an employee.

What difference does it make whether the taxpayer received corporate shares as an employee of the corporation – or as a complete stranger to the corporation?

Is the “Income” of an employee different in some way from the “Income” of all other taxpayers?

What possible difference does it make if the person is a shareholder or a unit holder or an employee of the corporation? How about an employee who owns shares in his or her corporation that were purchased directly on the stock market, are they then a shareholder excluded from the “Taxable Benefits” tax on their ESPP shares?
If not why not?
What legitimate justification is there for discriminating against employees?




Split Hair No 2

The same document states in a paragraph titled:-
Canadian-controlled private corporation.

If an employee exercises a stock option granted by a CCPC, the taxable benefit will be included in the employee’s income in the year that the employee disposes of the shares and not when the employee exercised the option if:-

(c) when the agreement to sell or issue shares to the employee was entered into,
the issuing or selling corporation and the corporation whose shares were
acquired by the employee (if different) were CCPC’s

(d) right after the agreement was entered into, the employee dealt at arms length
with the employer, the corporation that entered into the agreement and the
corporation whose shares were acquired by the employee.

What possible difference does it make, (c), if the taxpayer is an employee of a CCPC or not?

If the Income Tax Act gives preferential treatment to CCPC corporations as compared to foreign owned corporations what kind of excuse is that to penalize the taxpayer? Sort out the beneficiaries here and treat all employees alike.

What possible difference does, (d), an arms-length relationship make when a taxpayer, enters into an agreement with their employer? There is an unrelated mix here of legal activities and tax levies.

If it is illegal for an employer to enter into a share plan with an employee and they are dealing at less than arms length with each other – that is a legal matter – not a tax issue.

If an illegal contract exists -- is acted upon -- and the employee receives shares as a result – then that may become a tax matter – but only when a profit, or loss, is actually realized. This regulation is pure smoke and mirrors.
(See prior posting:- “Partners in Crime”

It really does not matter whether or not Canada is the only industrialized country to impose taxes on citizens that have not realized the income they are being taxed on. What does matter is:-
ANY COUNTRY -- WHERE HONEST HARD WORKING CITIZENS CAN BE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED AN ENTIRE YEAR AND END UP OWING THE GOVERNMENT MORE MONEY THAN THEY ACTUALLY RECEIVED – IS A DISGRACE.

IF THERE IS ONLY ONE SUCH COUNTRY – IT IS ONE TOO MANY – AND IT SHOULD NEVER BE CANADA.


You may reach your MP by regular mail, postage free, or by E-mail via the following web page and following the links to the list of sitting MP’s.

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsAddressList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E


Victor Drummond ©

Facts vs Fiction

FACT VERSUS FICTION
An observation on human idiosyncrasies
By Victor Drummond ©
July 2007


It doesn’t take a brain surgeon, or a rocket scientist, to recognize (that) the average person in the so-called civilized world prefers fiction to fact.

I feel quite safe in saying the television viewers that watch fiction shows, such as CSI, Seinfeld, Everyone Loves Raymond, According to Jim etc. outnumber the views that watch educational programs, such as National Geographic and Discovery by a factor of 1000 to 1 or greater.

Of course along with the unhealthy dose of fiction some of these programs also supply a taste of spice, (sex), and humour, (frequently a bit off-colour), – and that program content appears to fill the average person's need for an escape from reality.

Public Library’s may fare a bit better – mainly due to the need for students to research history and science topics in order to prepare for tests and term papers. But it is a safe bet there are more fiction books available on library shelves than there are books dealing with facts.

This quirk of human nature also offers unscrupulous individuals a grand opportunity to rape, pillage and rob entire societies and have most victims walk away smiling at the wonderful lies they have soaked in.

A prize example of such manipulation, of an entire culture, was the master propagandist Joseph Goebbels who actually proclaimed that if you mix a little truth with the grandest lie you can imagine – most people will believe it.

Unfortunately the truth of his theory was proven, all to well, by the German rampage of death and destruction that was driven by the lies he told the German people – and their all too willingness to believe him. Apparently the average German, citizen in those days, didn’t care what the political parties were doing and couldn’t care less if they were promoting fact or fiction. Sounds a bit familiar doesn't it.

That was a very serious mistake and one that present day societies appear to be willing to perpetuate. Our present day politicians make rhetorical comments and realistic sounding promises which they have no way, and likely no intention, of fulfilling. But the fiction sounds good to the voter and it doesn’t seem to matter one bit that the proposals, promises and statements have no substance.

For example did anyone take Jack Layton’s suggestion seriously when he proposed (that) Canadian politicians, (himself included presumably), should travel to one, or more, of the Taliban strongholds to negotiate a peace settlement?

(Shades of Neville Chamberlain!!) I wonder what concessions he was prepared to make in order to achieve the peace he wanted. Did anyone ask? Did he offer to say? Does anyone care?
From my perspective the answers are NO, NO and YES. I care.

In WWII I wasn’t prepared to settle for peace at any cost – and I still feel the same way. There is a point -- beyond which -- peace comes at too great a price.

When anyone, in my living space, makes a serious statement, promise or commitment I expect them to fulfill their commitment and if they fail, for lack of trying, their social value drops to zero in my view. They will never borrow money from me. They will never get my support for any public office, and they will never sell me a car etc.

If everyone in Canada applied the same standard of performance we would have, by far, the best compliment of politicians and living standards in the world. We would not have a Prime Minister who makes stupid comments such as:- “When you have a proof, it is a proof, and you then have a proof.” (J Cretien) (or words to that effect.)

You would not have a Finance Minister who can’t account for hundreds of thousands of dollars – missing from the Government treasury, (P. Martin)
You would not have an immigration department fast tracking exotic dancers for the sex trade.

If you desire a government that will uphold the more important aspects of the social structure, that we all presently enjoy -- and wish to maintain same, then raise your own standards and let those, who would represent you in government, know what you expect, NO! TELL THEM WHAT YOU DEMAND OF THEM in order to obtain your support.
If you set low standards – so will your representative in government.

If you are prepared to settle for second best – then that is what you will get – or worse.

If he wants my vote -- my, would-be MP, already knows I DEMAND a genuine fix of the “Taxable Benefits” disaster, left behind by the previous – rather untrustworthy – Liberal government

No such commitment -- no vote AND THAT’S NOT FICTION.

If unfamiliar with the taxable benefits rip-off situation then read the prior postings:- “Stone Walls…”, Not A Leader..” and then if you still feel indifferent to the problems of others and to the quality of your government ???? do nothing.

Victor Drummond © E-mail”- vic.drummond@sympatico.ca


Author’s comment:-
This blog page is a campaign for general public moral support – not for financial support. All we desire is to obtain fair treatment and dependable government.

If you do not feel like posting a comment – send me an e-mail to let our members know you care and are doing something to bring about fair taxation. Unless you request a reply no one will contact you and your identity will remain confidential.

STONE WALLS
DO NOT A PRISON MAKE -- Nor Iron Bars a Cage.
To Althea from prison – Richard Lovelace

A comparison to the loss of true freedom Due to unfair taxation
written by Victor Drummond ©
July 2007


According the experts in the reading of poetry Richard Lovelace is telling the reader, In his letter to Althea that:-

“No one can imprison or enslave the human mind. A human being remains free to think and dream – as well as hold fast to controversial opinion – even though his body has limited ability. Obviously his theme can apply not only to a prisoner in a cell but also to anyone limited by circumstances – such as …. economic deprivation.”
Ref. http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/Guides3/Althea.html#top

Law abiding Canadians are among the most fortunate people on earth. They can be free of any concern regarding loss of privilege, (Inequality), or Liberty, or Mobility, (free to move to and from Canada as often as they wish.)

All of these wonderful benefits are guaranteed to every honest and freedom loving Canadian citizen under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Or are they?

Is it conceivable that the same government that so loudly proclaims its citizens are protected by their inalienable charter rights and makes “Fair Tax” a plank in their election policy platform also perpetuates a system of tax regulations that effectively denies these same citizens those very rights?

Following is a statement from a message sent by a Canadian Citizen – not one incarcerated behind STONE WALLS or Iron Bars but none-the-less a prisoner in his own country.

“I have turned down several job offers in the USA which would have required me to move and most important of all – never selling one single share of the stock that I acquired from ESO’s … as this would trigger a massive debt on profits I would never see.”

Does that sound like a person free to come and go as the charter declares?

How about this statement from the same document:-

“For the past 6 years I have been in the described deferral situation, doing the best I could to prepare and safeguard my families financial welfare. The stress and fear and anxiety that my wife and I have carried over the years has been incredible.”

The above is clearly a statement by a Canadian citizen who is obviously suffering economic deprivation? And what, or who, is making this Canadian a prisoner in his own land – and denying this Canadian his charter rights – and imposing duress and incredible anxiety on his entire family. Could it happen in our Free and Fair Canada?

Perhaps this is an isolated case – and there are no other Canadians disenfranchised in the same way – do you think? If you do – then think again. Following is a clip from another “Taxable Benefits” victim:-

“I am writing to you on behalf of an ever growing group of tax-payers from across the country, who are suffering from what we call the “Stock-Option Phantom Profits” issue. We know you are familiar with it.”

This writer is saying there are many more victims and their numbers are increasing.

And how about this statement from yet another victim of the “Taxable Benefits” robbery:-

“Her offer to donate the shares to the government of Canada was not accepted, her appeal was unsuccessful, her objection was unsuccessful. Finally under duress and after being theatened to have our house (which is in both our names) siezed and liquidated we got a bank loan and paid the taxes with interest.”

A penalty levied on top of an unfair and unwarranted tax! – How low can a government go! (The foregoing happened under the Liberal Regime)

How is that for “Fair, Equal and Just” taxation. Do these victims enjoy the full benefits guaranteed them under of the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms?

They definitely DO NOT. They are as much, if not more of a prisoner than the poet – Richard Lovelace because they are under constant financial duress.

All victims of the Tax on imaginary gains have been tortured and mistreated, both emotionally and financially, as much, if not more, than citizens of many third world countries.

Believe it or not this has happened, and is still happening in CANADA.

This situation is a blight on the character of all Canadian Political parties that do not raise their voice in objection and commit themselves to correct these outrageous tax laws, rules and regulations if they are given the support of Canadian voters.

And Canadian voters who do not demand these ridiculous laws, and their outstanding deferred tax burdens be rescinded are letting themselves and their fellow Canadians down -- big-time.

Any political party that solicits my vote -- without a commitment to rectify this terrible injustice – is wasting their time and money.

Victor Drummond ©