No more sleeping......

THE SLEEPING GIANT
A commentary on the unused power of
the Canadian Voter.

By Victor Drummond ©
January 2008


There are a number of fairy tales and legends that tell of a giant who is asleep and/or unaware of the power the subject has over local conditions.

Nearly every Canadian has heard the story of Jack and the beanstalk.

If you take the position that Jack and his family had been victimized then the sleeping giant was the villain and deserved what he got when Jack chopped the beanstalk down.

In similar context there is an island visible from the shoreline of Thunder Bay Ontario – which is long and narrow and mound-like that the locals call the sleeping giant.

The sleeping giant island is a major landmark and the basis of two or three legends told by First Nations people. A common theme of the legends tell of how failing to fulfill a commitment to the great spirit resulted in a native being to turn into stone.

Then not far away -- in Georgian Bay -- there is a landmark on Beausoleil Island known as:- “The Giants Tomb”.

In this legend the dead giant got that way because he stumbled while carrying a mountain and when he fell the mountain shattered into 30,000 pieces. The mountain pieces landed in the waters of Georgian Bay and formed the 30,000 islands that are presently there.

The giant’s “tomb” was formed when the native people buried the dead giant in the debris from the shattered mountain that had landed nearby.

Both giants suffered misfortune due to their failure to apply their power and resources properly.

Canada apparently has another form of sleeping giant. Canadian citizens collectively who
continue to waste their vote on unworthy candidates for office -- especially at the federal level.

To some extent this giant did wake up momentarily in 2006 when they voted the prior non-representative government out of office.

Did the majority of voters change the party in power -- at that time -- because they recognized they were being exploited, not properly protected or even fairly represented by their elected Members of Parliament?

Did the majority of voters realize that many of them were being fleeced like sheep and their appeals for fair taxation were being totally ignored?

If that is what happened – then our sleeping giant may be waking up.

Was the Conservative government elected because they proposed a “fair taxation” policy?

I would like to believe that was a major reason.

Also I would like to believe the statement made by Jim Flaherty in January 2007 -- that the Conservative government intends to provide:- “Fair taxation for All Canadians.”

Unfortunately “all Canadians” have lost their RIGHT to fair taxation because of a defective bit of legislation that allows certain Canadians to be taxed on a theoretical – “income” – that never happened.

This loss of RIGHT still exists -- in spite of any and all guarantees -- under the Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms.

Fair taxation can never be achieved until that legislation is corrected and people encumbered by taxes levied according to that legislation have been relieved of that tax and duly compensated.

The current government already admitted that tax was grossly unfair – when they passed the tax remission order -- to relieve a few JDSU victims in British Columbia.

When identical victims in Canada – including more in British Columbia – appealed to the government for the same consideration they were told the JDSU employee’s were a special case and that other identical victims did not qualify for the same consideration.

What unadulterated garbage of an excuse to be even more unfair.

The B.C. victims who were granted tax relief had been taxed on “income” they never received. So were all the other victims.

The B.C. victims had suffered loss of employment when the JDS plant closed.
So did a lot of other victims.

Some B.C. victims had to mortgage, or re-mortgage their homes, and deplete their bank accounts, RRSP, savings and/or borrow money to pay the unjustified tax.
So did a lot of other victims.

So far the current government action – to provide “fair taxation for all Canadians” – has been limited to purely cosmetic items.

A fair tax ombudsman – who when identified – is limited to operating within the existing legislation. (Totally useless.)

A commitment to provide some 40 fair tax ombudsman offices across Canada.

So far all the offices mentioned are existing Canada Revenue Agency offices – perhaps with a local tax appeals officer designated. (Totally useless)

Fair Taxation for all Canadians will remain a legend, a fairy tale, a myth – until the legislation that created this disaster is corrected and all the unjustified taxes extorted under that legislation have been restored to their rightful owners – with interest – or if deferred then cancelled.

If the Canadian giant – our voters – woke up to defeat those who tolerated this legal extortion from 1999 to 2006 – THEN STAY AWAKE and notify your riding MP candidate, i.e. commit to correcting this punitive and oppressive tax problem – or no vote.

Failing to receive such a commitment – then when the federal Election Day arrives register your protest by writing my name on your ballot as a write-in candidate.

Canadians do not need more elected representatives that won’t represent them or protect them from exploitation by their own government.

See you at the election polls on voting day, O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

Blood from...

WHEN I GET MINE – YOU WILL GET YOUR’S
A Truth in Fiction
By Victor Drummond ©
January 2008


Bruno Gruffman was born and raised in a back-woods village in Northern Ontario.
Bruno’s parents were killed in an auto accident shortly after he was born and he was raised by his Mennonite Grandmother.

Bruno grew up a type “A” male that would make Paul Bunyan appear a 90lb weakling.
In spite of Bruno’s intimidating physique and exceptional strength he was in fact a gentle giant.

His Grandmother had taught him to be kind to everyone, be honest, be truthful, be tolerant,
and compassionate, and to be gentle – even with those who might mistreat and/or verbally abuse him.

Bruno’s mind was not polluted with doublespeak or forked tongue legalese intrigue.
With Bruno – what you see is what you get.

When his Grandmother passed away Bruno was 19 years old with a couple of years experience in the lumber industry.

He could fall a tree in any direction he wanted – in record time. He stripped a tree of its limbs and cut it into board lengths twice as fast as anyone else. His prowess and ability became known throughout the industry.

It came as no surprise when Bruno received a job offer from Tall-Spruce Lumber Inc. of British Columbia. Tall-Spruce offered Bruno free transportation and a wage more than double what he was currently receiving.

Bruno packed his duffle bag, said farewell to his friends and went to a job interview at Tall-Spruce Inc. The job interview was a mere formality as the Tall-spruce human resources department had already decided they wanted Bruno.

After hiring -- Bruno spent two weeks with experienced Tall-Spruce Lumber-Jacks learning the safe way to scale and top 300 ft trees.

Before long Bruno was literally running up the tallest trees and topping them in less time than the average lumber-jack took to scale a tree.

Management at Tall-Spruce Inc. were delighted with Bruno’s performance and wanted to be sure he stayed with them so they placed his name on a preferred employee list to be granted shares in the company.

Although this bonus deal might be classed as an Employee Share Purchase Plan, (ESPP) a purchase was not actually involved as the shares were given at no cost to the employee.

The quantity of shares to be given each preferred employee was by way of a performance bonus.

So in 1999 Bruno had 1000 shares of Tall-Spruce Inc. transferred into his employee holding account. Not being stock market savvy Bruno paid little -- or no attention -- to the notices attached to his pay check. The significant numbers on his bi-weekly pay check were the bottom line pay dollars. All else were of little or no concern to Bruno.

And so it was that in February of the year 2000 Bruno Received his T4 Income Tax slip which showed he had received a whopping $1,000,000 “Earned Income” in the year 1999.

Bruno was thrilled. To him it meant he had a big raise pending -- that had not yet been handed to him – but was surely coming.

In his previous employment Bruno’s income was based on an hourly rate and at the end of the year he had no trouble calculating and submitting his annual Income tax returns.

The money he took home each payday, plus deductions, added up to the total “Earned Income” that he had actually received.

His new employer had reported he had “Earned” some $1,000,000 in 1999 so it was logical for Bruno to assume that his employer intended to give him the outstanding $875,000 that his T4 reported he had received – or there was some kind of error made that would soon be corrected.

Bruno didn’t really care which way the difference was resolved as his basic wages were more than adequate to satisfy his needs.

Bruno decided to complete his 1999 T1-General Tax Return himself. He totalled the actual pay he had received and calculated the Income Tax due on the actual $125,000 he had received.

When his assessment came back -- a few months later -- Bruno was shocked to see Canada Revenue Agency, (CRA) was insisting he had an “Earned Income” of $1,000,000 and had recalculated his tax on that basis.

The bottom line they said was that he owed the government Income tax of some $297,250 based on an income of $1,000,000 at the 75% inclusion rate ($750,000) taxed at a bottom line tax rate of:- 41% produced a gross tax levy of:- $297,250.00 before personal exemptions were deducted.

As Bruno had already submitted tax payment of some $33,000 on his real income the assessment bottom line said he still owed some $260,000 in unpaid Income Tax.

Bruno was thoroughly outraged when he read this assessment. He took the document personally to the offices of Revenue Canada in Vancouver and demanded to know how his Income Tax could possibly be more than twice his real total Income.

The tax counsellor showed Bruno his Income record for the year 1999 and pointed out that Bruno’s employer had reported Bruno’s gross “Earned Income” was his $125,000 basic salary supplemented by a taxable benefit of $875,000 in his employer’s shares.

The tax counsellor had copies of documents that Bruno had been given by his employer that had notified Bruno of company shares that had been placed in his employee file.

At the time the shares were issued to Bruno they were trading -- on something called a stock exchange – for over $1,000 per share. Bruno wondered why things -- called shares -- were traded along with livestock but accepted the tax counsellors word that he had in fact been given something worth $1,000,000 by his employer in 1999.

Bruno lost no time going to see the paymaster at Tall-Spruce Inc. to pick up his $1,000,000
Shares and settle this “Earned Income” fiasco.

The paymaster was most conciliatory and set up an interview with Bruno – with no time limit – to explain to Bruno where things had come off the track.

The paymaster patiently explained that during 1999 Tall-Spruce Inc. had given key employees, such as Bruno, corporation shares as an incentive and reward for outstanding performance.

That at the time the shares were issued they were trading on the stock market at around $1,000 each and that the law required Tall-Spruce to report the value of the shares Bruno had been given -- on his Tax forms – as a “Taxable Benefit”. In Bruno’s case a total of $1,000,000.

It was also explained to Bruno that he had been issued notices -- along with his pay check --
informing him of the shares issued to him with advisory suggestions as to the choices he could make regarding their disposition, etc.

Bruno admitted he hadn’t paid any attention to these attachment notices that came with his pay check from time to time but now that the matter had been explained to him he said:- “Great news – I will just sell my shares and pay the tax the government wants and spend the rest”.

After a bit of coughing and choking the paymaster finally regained his composure and went on to inform Bruno his shares now are only worth about $5,00 each and he would be lucky to get $5,000 for his 1000 shares. Bruno wanted to know what had happened to his $1,000,000.

It was explained that the Lumber industry had encountered some downturn due to international disputes over subsidies etc. and the shares of all Canadian Lumber companies had taken a big hit.

Bruno then asked:- “Is there any possibility the Tall-Spruce Inc. shares might recover their former high value?” He was told:- “Yes – it is possible but not very likely in the foreseeable future.” Bruno thanked the paymaster and said:- “I will just hold on to my shares until they are worth as much or more than the taxes levied on them.”

Bruno was more than a little dazed over this turn of events and sent a letter to the Vancouver Revenue Canada counsellor explaining the situation – thanking the counsellor for the time he had taken to explain the tax assessment to him and saying:- “I am more the willing to pay all the tax you claim I owe and “WHEN I GET MINE – YOU WILL GET YOURS – Fair Enough?


Victor Drummond ©

Authors Comments:-
Bruno and the story above are a truth in fiction.

Bruno represents those honest, hard working, conscientious Canadian Taxpayers who were totally blind-sided by the taxable benefit legislation that gives the Canada Revenue Agency a right to tax money reported by their employer’s as an “Earned Income” when in matter of fact the so-called benefit actually produced a non-recoverable “CAPITAL LOSS”.

What kind of unscrupulous people make up our government? Anyone with an ounce of common sense would immediately see the gross unfairness of this legislation and the way it has been applied.

It has decimated the financial situation of many innocent, victimized, Canadians.
If no political party commits to correcting this insidious bit of punitive legislation then register a protest vote -- in the coming Federal Election -- by voting for Victor Drummond as a write-in candidate.

See you at the voting polls for the next federal election, O'Grady.
Victor

What O'Grady sez...

O’GRADY SEZ
The question – Who Really Runs Canada’s Affairs?
A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
January 2008


One of the basic training exercises practiced in the Canadian Military -- back in WWII -- was to have a troop of soldiers stand in parade-square formation with full pack and rifle.

The NCO in charge would then instruct the troop that he was now going to give commands in two formats, e.g. “When I give a command preceded by the words:- “O’Grady sez” then you act immediately to perform that command BUT when the command is given without the “O’Grady sez” prefix then you do absolutely nothing. GOT IT?

So then the NCO would begin giving commands at a slow pace with many prefixed by O’Grady sez.

It took a few minutes -- of practice -- before the entire troop began working in unison.

Once the NCO saw the troop was keeping up to him he began to bark his orders louder and at ever increasing speed.

Of course as the command volume and speed increased the perfect unison -- achieved at first -- gradually became undone.

There was usually no penalty imposed on soldiers who goofed and moved to commands without the O’Grady prefix.

It was rare that a soldier who goofed once or twice was given an order to run around the parade square a few time with full pack – or do a few push-ups – (less pack).

We all knew who was calling the shots. It wasn’t the NCO it was some nebulous individual named O’Grady – and what O’Grady sez – GOES.

For most of my life I was under the delusion that our elected members to Canada’s Parliament
called the shots. They made the rules and -- nearly -- everyone else obeyed them.

Our MP’s introduced bills -- to serve and protect their constituents -- and hopefully benefit the entire Canadian society.

Those bills could eventually become the official laws of Canada – observed and supported by
all ministries and law enforcement agencies.

I thought our Prime Minister/Parliament was O’Grady.

Another of my delusions was that – for the most part – our politicians and supporting agencies were staffed by intelligent, honest, compassionate individuals who cared about the well being of all humans and especially Canadian citizens.

That every Canadian in authority – from the police to the Prime Minister -- would take prompt action to rectify any situation that caused and/or allowed abuse, intimidation and/or unjust treatment of innocent persons – especially Canadians.

After all – hasn’t the government of Canada been among the very first to send food, temporary shelters, medicine, fresh water generators, clothing and medical personnel to areas where major disasters have happened.

Yes our government is most compassionate when it comes to others in distress.

Now, after seeing our government in power -- minority or not -- produce mere token attempts to provide Canadians who have suffered tremendous abuse, loss of homes, loss of savings, sometimes loss of spouse and/or burdened with unjustified debt for life – with protection or relief -- I realize they are not O’Grady.

The leader -- of every Canadian Federal Political party -- has been sent numerous letters and/or e-Mails -- telling them of the hardship imposed upon the writers -- by unjust taxation on imaginary taxable benefits – and appealing to them for support and intervention. To absolutely no avail.

Most of those appeals were not even acknowledged and none were acted upon to grant Canadian taxpayers a fair deal. Why not?

Every sitting MP has the power to introduce a bill designed to correct this injustice – why don’t they do it?

Is it because they have few – or none – of the moral/social qualities I attributed to them?

Or is it because they are mere figureheads and some nebulous O’Grady entity actually runs Canada’s affairs?

In any event the present line-up of Canada’s politicians -- except possibly, Stephen Harper, Carol Skelton and Gary Lunn – have not done a thing to correct the abuse of honest, hard working, Canadians. And their efforts have merely produced even greater unfairness so far as the majority of taxable benefit victims are concerned.

Do you believe people who have the power to protect those abused – but who standby and play ostrich – are worthy to be – or become -- members of Canada government? I do not.

Those who ignore the plight of abused Canadians – deserve nothing – definitely not the support of the Canadian voters.

If no political party commits to correcting the flawed taxable benefit legislation and giving all victimized Canadians a truly fair deal then use your ballot to register your protest.

If you agree with me – vote for Victor Drummond – in the next federal election.
Become the nebulous power behind the throne i.e. O’Grady.
Remember:- What O’Grady sez -- GOES

See you at the federal election voting polls – O’Grady.

Victor Drummond ©

FLOW-THROUGH ESPP/ESO ..

FLOW-THROUGH SHARES -- OF THE ESPP/ESO TYPE
A fable to reveal the downstream impact of the Unjust, Unfair Taxable Benefit Tax
On ESPP and ESO participants.

By Victor Drummond ©
January 2008


Joanne Fetherbraan is a beautiful, bright, and talented, young woman who just celebrated her 24th birthday.

She is the only child of Mary and George Fetherbraan who adore, and perhaps spoiled a little, Joanne from the moment she was born.

When Joanne graduated from University, with a degree in economics, her parents bought her a new car as a reward.

Shortly after graduating Joanne took a job as a receptionist, with the firm of Goldberg and sons, at a starting salary of $18,500 per year. There is plenty of opportunity for Joanne to advance in the firm when she has a bit more on-the-job experience.

Even at her starting salary Joanne rented her own apartment and moved away from home as she now wanted to exert her self reliance and independence.

She decorated her new digs with all the cool stuff she had accumulated -- in her bedroom at home -- and even added a few new gadgets and gimmicks that caught her fancy.

Living alone, however, was a new experience for Joanne, and although she has many friends --when the lights go out at night Joanne misses the security and love she felt so close to her while living at home.

On her job, Joanne is supplied a company computer, with on-line access,.

With only a few minutes training Joanne was receiving, sending, and forwarding - e-mails and detecting/deleting spam and scam e-mails like a professional.

Her immediate superior, however, reminded her, “this computer was not for personal use, and to avoid accessing web pages of questionable nature.” “ In other words no porn surfing.”

Joanne was a bit put-out -- at her boss -- for even thinking she might go surfing for porn web pages. But she understood he was obliged to warn all company computer operators the same.

It wasn’t long afterwards Joanne purchased her own lap-top computer and signed up for wireless internet service.

One day she received an e-mail, on her company computer, from a co-worker she had never met.
The message was from a chap named William Stratelace – a junior executive in an upstairs office.

Joanne couldn’t really decide whether the message was personal – which it shouldn’t be or a chain letter type message – which it shouldn’t be either.

All the message said was:-
“Kindly access the blog page:- buyerbeware—caveatemptor.blogspot.com and read articles posted there.” Signed:- Bill Stratelace, and, with his return company e-mail address included.

Joanne was perplexed.
This kind of message was forbidden on the company’s computers.

Yet here is a forbidden type of message coming to her from a junior executive in the same firm who surely new better than to misuse the system.

She decide not to reply to the message but to confront the sender in person and find out if this was some kind of a joke -- or a deliberate attempt to get her into trouble.

Just before lunch break Joanne called up the office where Bill Stratelace worked and requested to come up to speak with him.

When she met Bill face to face she felt a new kind of emotion. She stammered, fumbled with her purse, and generally felt uncomfortable.

Bill was young, handsome, well groomed, soft spoken and the perfect image of her idea of a prince charming. If there is such a thing as love at first sight – for Joanne this was it.

Bill said:- “you asked to talk with me?” Joanne weakly replied:- “yes”. “What about?’ Bill replied. “Your E-mail to me which I do not understand” Joanne answered.

“Oh that!” Bill exclaimed, and went on to say:- “Joanne it is rather complicated and I only have time for lunch but we can talk about it if you will join me in the cafeteria.”

Joanne agreed and they went to lunch together. During the noon break Bill explained he had bent the company rules -- a bit -- in sending Joanne a personal message on her company computer but said it was only done to steer her to the buyerbeware blog page which was important to him.

He also asked if Joanne had her own computer and personal e-mail address which he would use from now on to communicate with her.

Although they spent the whole lunch time talking to each other – somehow the purpose of Bill’s e-mail didn’t receive much attention. They discovered they were both single. Neither of them had a significant other. Joanne was living alone and Bill was still living with his parents.

They found they had common tastes in music, art, live theatre and such.

So by the time lunch was over – and they both now had to attend to company business -- they had made a dinner and theatre date for the coming Friday evening.

In the meantime Joanne visited the buyerbeware… blog page and read a few of the articles posted there. Although she was a bit interested in the stories, fables, comments -- by this would-be writer -- Victor Drummond -- she soon became bored with the common theme, i.e.
“taxable benefit victims” -- that Victor inevitably turned to -- by the end of each article.

As far as Joanne was concerned buyerbeware... articles had nothing to do with her, or her family, or her friends, so what was Bill doing sending her this kind of stupid junk.

She mused about that while lying in bed waiting for sleep to come. She also mused about the surnames -- Fetherbraan and Stratelace. Did Joanne Fetherbraan sound better than Joanne Stratelace or vis versa. Sleep came before Joanne had made a decision.

Friday evening was everything Joanne hoped it would be.

Bill showed up on time, actually he arrived five minutes early, and Joanne felt comfortable in the outfit she had to wear for the occasion.

Dinner was wonderful, the food was excellent and the service couldn’t be better.

They both enjoyed the theatre performance and when the evening was winding down Bill saw her to the door of her apartment building – watching over her -- while she got safely inside before leaving.

Joanne wondered if she shouldn’t have invited him up to her apartment – or at least taking the initiative to give Bill an appreciative good-night kiss. She even wondered why Bill hadn’t tried to kiss her -- on his own initiative. In any case he did suggest they do this again soon.

Bill’s next e-mail arrived on Joanne’s home computer. In the message Bill asked if Joanne had visited the buyerbeware blog page and read any of the articles posted there. Then before she reached the end of the e-mail Bill had invited her to visit his parents and have supper with him and his family next Friday evening.

Joanne forgot all about answering the buyerbeware question and couldn’t reply “Yes” – fast enough -- to Bill’s invitation to supper with his parents. She was very excited, and apprehensive, and wondered if this invitation had any substantive meaning.

Before the big day Joanne decided talk to some of the other women at work and get their opinion of Bill from a co-worker’s point of view. It wasn’t long before Joanne found out
that a good looking young secretary used to date Bill but the relationship came to a grinding halt when the girl suggested that she and Bill should move in together.

Apparently Bill wasn’t into the trial marriage scenario. That was the only bit of scuttlebutt that Joanne was able to dig up on Bill. Apparently his behaviour was above reproach.

During the Friday night supper -- and evening with Bill and his parents – Joanne picked up a lot more information.

Bill’s father, Walter, had worked for the JDS Uniphase Corporation and was among those valued employees offered corporate shares at a discount – as a reward and incentive.

Walter had purchased all the shares he was allowed -- under the Employee Share Purchase Plan, (ESPP) -- and was sitting pretty – in a financial sense – before the tech market correction in the year 2000.

Walter had been wiped out financially by the corrupt tax -- levied on his ESPP shares -- which he had held beyond their date of exercise. To add insult to injury Walter was released from the company employ in 2003 when the company was forced to downsize.

He received some $50,000 as a golden handshake and wished well in his future endeavours.

Walter then used his lifetime savings and his separation payment to pay as much as he could of the horrendous tax levy -- but was obliged to apply for deferment of tens of thousands of dollars in taxes which he could not pay.

Now unemployed -- and trying to make ends meet on his Canada Pension Plan Income, combined with his and his wife’s Seniors Pension income -- Walter was barely surviving.

Rent was going up, utilities were going up, food and gasoline were all going up – but Walter’s income was not going up.

Bill had fixed up small living quarters in the finished basement and paid room and board to his parents by way of giving them a bit more income. He might have gone out on his own long before if his parents were financially sound.

Joanne began to realize Bill had become a secondary victim of the shares his father had purchased from his employer. A kind of flow-through impact of an unwarranted, unjust, unfair, unequal tax swindle.

Joanne also realized that she and Bill had no future together so long as this situation prevailed.
In fact – now that she had decided she wanted to marry Bill – they were both victims of a flow-through tax on Walter’s shares

In the following days Joanne read every posting on the buyerbeware -- blog page.
When she read:- “Could Anyone Want for More” Joanne understood why Walter did not appeal for tax relief by way of the biased and humiliating avenues provided.

Reading:- “You be the judge” told her just how ridiculous, and unfair it was to tax a person who actually purchased shares, howbeit, by way of an ESPP and allowing a brother who stole and sold an identical number of shares go -- taxable benefit -- tax free.

It finally dawned on Joanne why the Victor Drummond articles all ended with an appeal to Canadian voters to get involved in this problem.

That every Canadian was deprived of their RIGHT to fair taxation -- even if they personally did not purchase employer shares.

That every Canadian was a loser if they just stood by and allowed the taxable benefit victims to sink or swim on their own.

Joanne realized if she ever was to become Mrs William Stratelace then she must do whatever she could to get Walter’s unwarranted taxable benefit taxes revoked.

Bill would never leave home until his parents were in comfortable financial circumstances and he would never take a wife to live in his basement bachelor quarters.

So Joanne followed Victor Drummond’s call for public help and sent E-mails to all her Canadian contacts – telling them her story – asking them to take the same actions she was now taking, i.e. “Contacting your riding – Federal Member of Parliament – telling him, or her, to commit to correcting this problem or no vote.”

Joanne mused to herself – voting in an election would be a new experience for her.
She also wondered just how many other victims there might be just like herself – total unaware how their lives and opportunities have been downgraded by this insidious tax.

On their very next date Joanne told Bill she now understood why he bent company rules to send her that very first E-mail – and without asking Bill hugged Joanne and kissed her fondly.

Joanne asked Bill who is this person Victor calls:- “O’Grady” ? Bill replied he didn’t know – but told Joanne to keep watching buyerbeware articles for the answer.

A truth in fiction – Flow through – injustice. A fable possibly with a happy ending if enough readers take the action required. They also will then find out who O’Grady really is:- .

Victor Drummond ©
(First Candidate of the:- “Truly Fair Tax Party”, (TFTP))
If your federal candidate will not support you then in the next federal election register your protest by using my name -- as a write-in candidate -- on your ballot.

Deal or....

LET’S MAKE A DEAL
You want my vote – I want your support.
A proposal by:- Victor Drummond ©
January 2008

Most, if not all, Canadians are familiar with the Television show:- “Let’s Make a Deal” hosted by Monty Hall.

A show that has been very popular since it began broadcasting around 1964.

The base theme of the show being -- you give something for a chance to get something -- hopefully getting something better in exchange. No one ever won a prize -- on that program -- without giving something first in exchange.

The shows popularity is largely based upon the parallel it has to real life, i.e. the saying:- “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” – Generally says it all.

Well perhaps the saying is not universally true. There might be the odd exception, i.e. when candidates for election make promises -- of support and protection to their constituents -- in exchange for a person’s vote. Usually it’s a one-sided – a give with little, or no, get -- deal.

As most voters do not identify, beforehand, the return they expect for their support – politicians are free to conjure up issues which may have – but usually do not have any -- value to the voter.

Consequently – like the show contestants who trade a new car for a can full of garbage – the voter trades away a valuable item – their vote – for a pot full of worthless promises.

There is a much better way to play this game.

Instead of giving politicians a free hand -- to tell you what you are going to get if you elect them -- tell them the action you demand -- of them -- in exchange for your support.

If your would-be Member of Parliament, (MP), does not commit to doing something, worthwhile, for you in exchange for your support – then tell him/her flat out: - “If you will not commit to represent me – if you’re elected -- then I will not vote for you.” It is as simple as that.

But what specifically should you demand of your elected representative?


How about restoring your basic right to fair taxation?

Most Canadians do not realize this important right was lost when the government gave itself the legal authority to levy “Income” tax on Canadians -- where no related “Income” ever existed.


How about equal treatment under the law?

A right granted every Canadian under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This legal right has been abrogated by the Tax Remission Order granted to a very small
minority of taxable benefit victims.

At the very least this same tax remission must be applied to every Canadian taxed on
Non-existent, mythical, income – if anything like equal treatment under the law is to be achieved.


How about correcting the flaw in the taxable benefit legislation to prevent a recurrence of the kind of abuse imposed on those victimized already by the existing legislation?

A simple member’s bill -- introduced in parliament – revising the classification of company/corporate shares from a “taxable benefit” to a “capital equity” would eliminate the problem.


How about giving those Canadians -- who have already paid unjustified taxes --on imaginary income – a fair deal by refunding all such taxes paid -- with interest?

That would not only improve the Canadian Employment Index – for several years -- but would provide substance to the "Fair Taxation" promises made by the current Conservative government.


First:- As a Canadian citizen we should be giving the highest priority to protecting our friends, neighbours and fellow Canadians from neglect, abuse and/or harm. Charity begins at home.

When our own citizens have been relieved of the unfair, unjustified, unequal treatment -- that causes them ongoing distress, anxiety and hardship – then we can expand our charity to include helping others in far away lands.

Therefore as a person -- who is more than willing to be a good neighbour to all my fellow Canadians and -- more than willing to see my government use my tax dollars to help other abused and distressed humans in far off lands -- I support that policy – BUT ONLY -- after my family, my neighbours and my fellow Canadians have been relieved of those very same problems.

So here is my DEAL:- In exchange for my vote YOU AND YOUR PARTY LEADER MUST COMMIT to real and timely action to restore the birthright of every Canadian to truly “fair” taxation.

See you at the voting polls – next federal election.

Victor Drummond ©
(First Candidate of the:- “Truly Fair Tax Party”, (TFTP))

Author’s comments:-
Every Canadian Taxpayer should be outraged at the conduct of our elected representatives -- relative to giving every Canadian protection from all forms of exploitation.

Exploitation by our very own government no less.

By allowing legislation to exist, and operate, that penalizes innocent breadwinners -- for holding shares in their employer’s business -- our elected politicians are derelict in their responsibilities to their constituents.

Furthermore by ignoring the pleas -- of actual taxable benefit victims -- our politicians are essentially saying to all Canadians – your loss of rights and suffering of financial penalties do not matter. Not to us. (Really.)

If you are a Canadian of voting age – the time is long past to let our politicians know we are not sheep to be fleeced at the whim of our elected representatives. Speak up. Make demands for justice.

Let our politicians know who the real O’Grady is. (O’Grady’s attributes are coming in a future article.)

You can begin right now by sending your Member of Parliament, and every other Canadian voter you know, a copy of this posting. Just click on the Envelope Icon below this article and a link will open to allow you send it to everyone you would like to have read it. The same is true of all articles posted to this blog page.

CASH or Not Cash..

CASH – NEAR CASH – WORTHLESS
A commentary on the Canada Revenue Agency Cornerstone
classification of company and corporation shares as
Near Cash Items.
By Victor Drummond – January 2008

In the myriad of bulletins, User Guides and Information Texts -- produced by the Canada Revenue Agency , (CRA), – in an attempt to justify taxing Canadians on mythical taxable benefit “Income” --their rationale foundation cornerstone -- is to declare company stocks and corporation shares as a Near-Cash item.

From that ill-defined rationale the, (CRA), builds a castle-in-the-air argument that ends up with their claim to legally taxing an imaginary, Fair Markey Value, (FMV), for an equity that has no intrinsic or face value.

So what attributes define anything as:- “A NEAR CASH ITEM”?

Let us begin by listing the attributes of Government Minted Currency, GMC):-
(In all cases the holder may not use their name or personal credit rating to support an exchange.)

Logically anything that has – for example 51%, or more -- of the attributes of, (GMC), could reasonably be considered to be a Near Cash Item.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Attributes of GMC versus shares/stocks:-

(1) The holder may exchange GMC at an almost infinite number of places without providing a name,a credit card or any ID of any kind.
Not true of shares or stocks. (0% similarity)

(2) GMC can be fashioned into trinkets, jewellery and/or artefacts that can be exchanged for other goods or currency.
Not true of shares or stocks. (0% similarity)

(3) In addition to the near infinite number of places GMC can be exchanged for goods and services GMC can be utilized 24/7.
Not true of shares or stocks. (0% similarity)

(4) The holder of GMC can pre-determine the value of the GMC being exchanged and demand the face value be honoured.
Not true of shares or stocks. (0% similarity)

(5) GMC can be used to retire debts, PAY TAXES, and/or directly establish a universally recognized credit rating.
Not true of shares or stocks. (at best a 10% similarity)

Expanded commentary on the foregoing comparisons:-

(1) Although anyone with a brokers account may – with proper identification –
exchange stocks and/or corporation shares for GMC, or other equities, it can
only be done with the support of the persons credit standing with the broker.

Consequently even blue rated shares can not be exchanged -- just anywhere --
by just anybody.
No one can take their latest portfolio statement into a bank and obtain any
exchange what-so-ever without having an account, or credit rating with the
bank.
Consequently any GMC issued by the bank -- for shares presented -- is based on
the person’s credit rating – not the zero intrinsic value of the shares/stocks
perse.

(2) Although I have seen clear acrylic toilet seats with GMC imbedded in the
castings I have never seen -- or ever will see -- a stock certificate – or
portfolio statement fashioned like that and offered in exchange for GMC or
other goods or services.

(3) Stocks and shares can only be exchanged at one place – the stock exchange --
and then only during regular business days and hours and then only if the
holder is a client of the broker and then only if the client has a credit
rating equal to – or greater than the gross value of the shares offered for
sale.

(4) The holder of stocks and/or shares has absolutely no control over the exchange
value of their holdings -- or over the quantity of their holdings that can be
exchanged at any time of the holder’s choosing. Stocks/shares have no
intrinsic value and no face value that can be enforced.

Both of these IMPORTANT aspects -- of a share/stock trade -- are entirely under
the control of the bidder.

Shares/stocks can – and do – trade from low to high GMC value or to zero GMC
value without advanced notice.
Bad news -- or shares consolidation -- can alter the GMC value of person’s
holdings with little -- or no -- advance warning.

It is a stretch of logic to assume that because a particular company shares
traded at high volume and at high GMC value for any period of time that the
holder of said shares could have sold their holdings, at the hi-lo- or closing
price, of the same shares – on any given day -- and in the volume they wanted to
sell. Any claim otherwise is pure wishful, or deceitful, thinking.

The only certain thing is the bottom line when the share holdings are:-
ACTUALLY SOLD and the seller has the exchange GMC in hand, or, in the bank.

That is REAL INCOME and may support REAL TAXES.

(5) No one will accept a share certificate, (if you can find one), or a portfolio
statement, issued by even the most prestigious brokerage house, in exchange for
GMC -- or goods -- from an unidentified person.

So where is the NEAR CASH VALUE of stocks/shares – Essentially non-existent that’s where.

The government – by it’s very own actions -- has shown they do not actually believe that shares/stocks are a near-cash item, e.g.:-

I have on file a copy of a taxable benefit victim’s letter – to Paul Martin -- while he was still prime minister – offering to give the CRA the unsold -- very same JDSU -- shares that shortly before had been taxed at a percent of their assigned FMV – creating a tax of tens of thousands of dollars or more -- as a taxable benefit.

THE OFFER WAS DECLINED.

If those shares are a NEAR CASH ITEM why wouldn’t the government accept them in payment for the tax they had just generated? If a fraction of the assumed FMV was a solid enough basis to levy a real huge tax THEN why wouldn’t 100% of those same shares be accepted by the government in payment of the tax they generated? Shouldn’t the original assumed FMV still apply?

WHY? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOW COMPARITIVLEY WORTHLESS – and therefore by the governments own actions they have shown:- SHARES/STOCKS ARE NOT A NEAR CASH ITEM.

But the HORRENDOUS tax they generated still stands. Much of it in the form of a deferred tax per form T1212 -- hanging like the sword of Damocles -- over the head of the victims.

The author of that letter was obliged to borrow money and mortgage their home to pay this unwarranted fine.

How is that for “Fair Taxation” for all Canadians? Non-existent that’s how.

When stocks/shares are removed from the taxable benefit classification and those Canadians who have already been levied taxes on the mythical taxable benefit “Income” are refunded -- with interest -- every cent they were obliged to pay -- for “Income” that never existed – THEN -- Canadians will be receiving the service and protection of those they elected to represent them. And not before.

If no candidates for election -- in the coming federal elections – will commit to correcting this atrocity then please register your protest by using my name -- as a write-in candidate -- on your election ballots.

Victor Drummond ©

The Ostrich Syndrome...

THE OSTRICH SYNDROME
A political commentary by
Victor Drummond ©
January 2008

There is a saying to the effect -- that when confronted
with a perceived threat -- of any kind – the Ostrich
will bury it’s head in the sand in the belief that
what they can’t see – can’t hurt them.


Although any normal adult would immediately recognize that ignoring a problem --by burying one’s head in the sand – does nothing to solve any issues.

Issues which may grow larger, nearer, and eventually bite one in their exposed regions.

Yet many Canadian politicians practice the Ostrich syndrome by either responding to appeals for justice -- with a cookie cutter reply – and then passing the buck to another Member of Parliament – who repeats the tactic OR just plainly ignoring the appeal for help completely.

The bottom line with either tactic has been to play dead and hope the complaining victim(s) become frustrated and go away.

Most of the time this Ostrich tactic works in favour of the politician(s) and the people they are elected to represent go on being abused by government mandarins who apply legislative regulations – both good and bad -- with robotic compassion and efficiency.

Canadians are usually slow to condemn anyone for their poor performance and they take a a terrific amount of intellectual abuse -- from their politicians -- before they finally decide enough is enough.

We collectively forgive our elected politicians when they promise the moon – to get our votes – and deliver dung after they are elected. When the next election comes along many of us still vote for the dung crowd.

It is no wonder then that our elected representatives feel safe in ignoring the distress – and appeals for relief -- of any minority of Canadians.

But they seldom miss an opportunity for a photo shoot -- when they visit our troops in Afghanistan – or when the government donates money, clothing, shelter, food etc. to hapless victims in far off places.

I wonder how – our political leaders -- would respond if when visiting our soldiers in Kandahar and while facing media cameras – a soldier asked what that specific politician was planning to do for the taxable benefit victims back home?

Do you suppose any one of them would commit to doing anything? Would any one of them just ignore the question – and try to have that scene edited out of the news film sequence?

From the ostrich principle they practice -- off camera here in Canada -- trying to have the question sequence edited out of the news film best fits the established pattern.

Does everyone assume that Canadians collectively are all walking on streets paved with gold?

That if a few, (one is too many), are bled dry of their financial resources it really doesn’t matter to anyone else?

It does matter. Not only to those victimized – but to all Canadians.

Your RIGHTS to a fair and equal treatment under the law are abrogated by the defective taxable benefit legislation which has been misused repeatedly to tax non-existent “Income”.

Wake up Canadians – get involved – demand your Member of Parliament state a position supporting REAL Fair and Just taxation for all Canadians.

Do not vote for anyone who will not commit to timely and true implementation of Fair Taxation for all Canadians – whether they belong to your favourite political party or not.

Anyone who will not commit to correcting this abuse – of you and your fellow Canadians – most definitely does not deserve your support. Voting for them without demanding real representation -- and protection from abuse -- merely encourages them to do less and expect more.

If no one running for office -- in the coming Federal Election – will commit to correcting this defective legislation and restoring Fair Taxation to those already victimized – then register your protest by using my name as a write-in candidate on your ballot.

A protest vote will make it clear to all running for office – you demand proper representation – and you won’t settle for dung any longer.

Victor Drummond ©

Let's K.I.S.S. and ...

2008 NEW YEARS RESOLUTION
“Let’s K.I.S.S & MAKE UP”

A proposal by Victor Drummond ©
For a Better Canada in 2008
01 January 2008



It has been a long standing tradition in Canada for people to take stock of the things they have done in the previous year and to make promises, (resolutions), to avoid the mistakes of the past and perform better in the New Year.

Hopefully our representatives in government practice the same tradition.

Although our government has serious concerns – regarding international problems -- in addition to the difficulty associated with keeping the majority at home satisfied – there should be adequate time and money left to address the abused minority of Canadians.

Specifically those Canadians that have been victimized by an insidious, irrational, interpretation of the Canadian taxable benefits legislation.

The principle of “Income Taxation is very logical and straightforward.
If a Canadian has an “Income” -- which from all sources -- exceeds their income exemptions THEN the unprotected “Income” is taxed.

The amount of explaining required by Revenue Canada Agency, (CRA), to make the tax on real income understandable is very clear and easy for the majority of taxpayers to comprehend and apply properly.

Usually this is accomplished -- without difficulty – by merely following the T1-General Income Tax and Benefit Guide and forms.

Even when a taxpayer has “investment income” and has “Capital Gains” to report – the average person can fill in the S3, S3-supp, forms without assistance and calculate the correct tax to pay.

That is unless the person has acquired their employer’s corporation shares via an Employee Shares Purchase Plan, (ESPP), or an Employee Shares Option, (ESO), plan. Then the whole scenario becomes extremely complex.

For starters:- is the employer’s corporation a Canadian Controlled Private Corporation, (CCPC)?

If “Yes”, then no taxes are paid until the shares are actually liquidated AND the Gain/Loss is established.

If “No”, however, then a whole new set of rules kick-in and one has no less than a dozen or so Interpretive Bulletins, (IT’s) and Guide Book publications to help the employee and employer figure out how to calculate:- what, when and where to begin to estimate the taxes to be paid. e.g. T1212, T4137(E), T4130(E),IT-470R, IT-256R, IT-116R3, for example.

It may also be interesting to note that IT-470R “Employee’s Fringe Benefits” has been revised 47 times so far.

One more try ought to make it right. Per revision 48 -- exclude corporate shares as a taxable benefit -- and -- you have it made.

Intangibles such as “Fair Market Value”, (FMV), and assumed events -- such as a conscientious decision to play the markets -- enter into the taxable benefit formula -- even without a shadow of evidence to support such assumption(s).

Whether the assumption is fact -- or fiction -- makes no difference.

The bottom line result is a penalty tax, (or rather a fine), imposed on the basis of a flimsy implication, e.g. the taxpayer is somehow guilty of some kind of offence,

In essence the old adage:- “What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.” -- comes to mind -- whenever I look at the convoluted, illogical rationale for taxing Canadians on an “Intangible”, FMV, potential Income.

The bottom line -- to this insidious, tangled web of rules and regulations -- being that thousands of “Hard working, honest, conscientious Canadians have been legally robbed.

So now is the ideal time to apply the K.I.S.S. principle and exclude -- the non-near-cash equities, i.e. corporate shares and stocks that trade on a conventional stock exchange – from the taxable benefits classification.

A very simple and straightforward solution.

Then after the KISS principle has been applied -- let’s Make-up.

Provide a retroactive period of 10 years -- for all Canadians that have been taxed on non-existent “Income” -- to re-submit their tax returns for every year they paid taxes on non-existent income and report all shares bought, and/or stolen and liquidated -- in those years -- as they really were, i.e. Capital equity transactions.

At the beginning of year 2007, high ranking members of the newly elected conservative government began making speeches featuring the government’s new policy of providing:- “all Canadians” with Fair and Honest taxation.

This same theme was part of the conservative party’s election platform when they were campaigning to be elected in 2006.

The New Year is an ideal time for our government to put substance to their commitment to “Fair Taxation” and make up with those Canadians who have been treated most unfairly by the “Income” Tax system.

Looking Forward to the best year ever – 2008

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE

Victor Drummond ©