babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Liberal Toadies Pay No Taxes

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Liberal Toadies Pay No Taxes
TommyPaineatWork
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2956

posted 20 June 2003 07:17 AM      Profile for TommyPaineatWork     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What a stinking rotten corrupt system we have:


Family Compact Politics Strikes Again.


From: London | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 21 June 2003 01:11 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Revenue Canada forgave $540,000 he owed after years of not paying taxes, according to documents obtained by Sun Media.

$540,000 in unpaid taxes?!? That's more than I've earned in my entire working life!

Oh well, this is kinda good news. In light of this, surely RevCan won't mind if I neglect to pay the piddling few hundred $$$'s I owe them. Right...?

Somehow I fucking doubt it.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 June 2003 01:49 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

How did Revenue Canada let this sneak get away with stiffing the government for back taxes owing not just once but twice?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 21 June 2003 08:03 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's patently obvious that the upper echalons of Revenue Canada are using it as a partizan political tool for the benifit of the Liberal Party.

This is abysmal, and an affront to democratic order.

I would hope that the Federal NDP announce that they will, if elected, undertake an investigation of the system, with an eye to laying criminal charges.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 23 June 2003 09:14 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Radwanski resigns

quote:
Embattled privacy commissioner George Radwanski bowed to intense pressure focused on his spending habits and alleged misleading of Parliament and resigned Monday.

But Mr. Radwanski did not leave office without a few parting shots — saying he was forced out and maintaining that he never "intentionally misled Parliament."

"I have been, and remain, unable to properly defend myself and set the record straight, because the process chosen to attack me deliberately and most unfairly prevents me from doing so."

Mr. Radwanski was under intense pressure after an all-party committee said last week they had lost confidence in him.

This week, the government operations and estimates committee, which oversees officers of Parliament, was preparing to release a report which would have recommended Mr. Radwanski be fired because of questionable expense-account claims, including a $444.49 dinner.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 10:09 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hey, if they're looking for a new privacy commissioner, I'm available!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 23 June 2003 10:10 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Me! Me! I can keep my mouth shut better than anybody. That makes me real private!
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 23 June 2003 10:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh yeah? Well, um, um...I HAVE privates! So there! I'm better qualified!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 June 2003 08:52 AM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Slight misquote above...the former privacy commish actually said:

quote:
I have been, and remain, unable to properly defend myself and set the record straight, because, well, you can't defend the indefensible.

From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 24 June 2003 11:29 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This piggy just won't leave the trough

quote:
George Radwanski quit as federal privacy commissioner yesterday, accepting a four-month severance package worth about $79,000 but crying foul all the way to the bank.

It equals four months' salary — $70,000 plus benefits, pegged at 13 per cent of the four months' salary, for a total of $79,100.

Already, the decision to award any compensation to the controversial former privacy commissioner is being questioned.

"Severance is supposed to be for wrongful dismissal," said Liberal MP Roy Cullen, a member of the committee. "I think Parliament and our committee has made the case he deserves to be fired. The bottom line is I don't think he's entitled to a severance package."

"It's outrageous that there should be any kind of golden handshake for this man," said New Democrat committee member Pat Martin.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 24 June 2003 11:42 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My question is, how did the details of his deal with Revenue Canada get released? These are supposed to be strictly confidential, between a citizen and Revenue Canada. They should NEVER be released, leaked, nohow. It's a pretty serious thing and the media should be asking questions about it. I guess that's why we need a Privacy Commissioner, and for the record, Radwanski was pretty good at his job. In particulary, he was among the only public figures to stand fast against the "public security" legislation that assaults our civil liberties.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 24 June 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not so fast

The thing is he is not behaving like a Liberal toady. He has been in conflict with the government a lot. I even have a suspicion that the appointments people knew about his financial trouble and figured they could use it as as whip to keep him in line. Tax deals are supposed to be private, aren't they? So how did the details of this one blow up right now? The fact that this is the privacy commissioner is an inevitable irony in all this.

As far as the tax deal itself went, he was bankrupt, wasn't he? Although he did manage to keep his house. How much of the taxes owed by Air Canada do you expect to get paid?

PS so give me 10 seconds OK?

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: jrootham ]

[ 24 June 2003: Message edited by: jrootham ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 24 June 2003 11:55 AM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Please fix your sidescroll.
From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Briguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1885

posted 24 June 2003 12:03 PM      Profile for Briguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've no sympathy. The guy cheated on more taxes than I'll ever pay in my lifetime. If it turns out that this "leak" was timed just to shut him up, well I say boo-fuckin'-hoo. Maybe he'll name the liberal leak on the way out, and this issue will cause further embarassment for the boys in red. Once again, boo-fuckin'-hoo.
From: No one is arguing that we should run the space program based on Physics 101. | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 June 2003 12:04 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus_raven:
My question is, how did the details of his deal with Revenue Canada get released? These are supposed to be strictly confidential, between a citizen and Revenue Canada. They should NEVER be released, leaked, nohow.

Wasn't this actually a bankruptcy? Aren't the details of bankruptcy filings actually public?


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 June 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
rasmus, I agree with you about Radwanski's deal with Rev Can, and I am wondering why the press seem not to be up in arms about this violation. Does anyone know how the information got out? His bankruptcy would have been open to public access, yes?

John Ibbitson, in today's Grope, insists that Radwanski was taking all the credit for work also done by a number of provincial privacy commishes on the "public security" legislation. Do you think this is true? (No fan of Ibbitson here.)

Ibbitson has written an entire column making fun of Radwanski for (obviously) not having cultivated friends anywhere in gov't or bureaucratic circles. What Ibbitson failed to note but what seems obvious too is that this man who began as a journalist had no friends left among journalists either.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 24 June 2003 12:23 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If it is actually a bankruptcy, the fact of bankruptcy should be publicly filed. But then, if it is actually a bankruptcy, it's not a political scandal, is it?

As for the negotiated settlement with Revenue Canada, I'm not sure that THIS is public information. So the question still stands.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 24 June 2003 12:25 PM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As far as taking extra credit is concerned, he was the Canadian privacy commissioner, that does give him a bit more weight on the subject than the provincial commissioners. They should clearly be working together on stuff of that magnitude, and giving recognition is a good thing, but hardly a firing offense.

The next question is, how are we going to get a decent privacy commissioner now? Do you think the Liberals will be after a squeaky clean and tough person? How do we get the opposition members to maneuver somebody good to the top of the list?


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 24 June 2003 12:31 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus_raven:
If it is actually a bankruptcy, the fact of bankruptcy should be publicly filed. But then, if it is actually a bankruptcy, it's not a political scandal, is it?

As for the negotiated settlement with Revenue Canada, I'm not sure that THIS is public information. So the question still stands.


I don't find the deal with RevCan so suprising. I find the expenses he ran up to be scandalous.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 24 June 2003 02:20 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The question remains why we are tolerating Revenue Canada -- presumably the Minister thereof -- releasing highly damaging confidential information about its dealings with a taxpayer.

And what, exactly, are the verified charges against Radwanski on his racked-up expenses?


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 24 June 2003 03:23 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Radwanski’s tax liability arose because he didn’t file tax returns for several years and didn’t pay taxes. Since he was self-employed and not subject to withholding, how could Revenue Canada get income data to assess him? His sole registered creditor in the bankruptcy was Revenue Canada.

I presume the information about the sweetheart deal he received was revealed through the Commons committee investigating him. Personally, I think all such deals should be made public. What’s to stop the government from giving similar deals to all of their cronies, and having them protected by privacy laws?


From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
rasmus
malcontent
Babbler # 621

posted 24 June 2003 03:36 PM      Profile for rasmus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First off, it may or may not be a sweetheart deal. Settling for 10% of what's owed is not unusual in bankruptcy cases, no matter how wealthy or influential the person is.

Secondly, the deal with Revenue Canada was NOT made public through the Commons committee, nor is it clear that it fell under their jurisdiction. It was made public through "documents obtained" by a media outlet and then presented to the PMO.


From: Fortune favours the bold | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cadre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3780

posted 24 June 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for cadre        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's very unusual for tax evaders to be allowed to pay only 10% of taxes due in settlement of amounts owing. Usually penalties and interest are levied as well. If an average Canadian made $1 million over several years, didn't declare anything, didn't pay any taxes, and spent the money, would the liability be forgiven for 10c on the dollar, or would the citizen face imprisonment?
From: Stalingrad in mourning | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca