1trailmaker

best sport as an amateur you can play and play it for life great exercise whether you walk or cart keeps green space good or bad you can all play together no other sport like it where else can you spend $50 to make yourself as angry as a Conservative voter where else can you get 4 hours with no wife asking you to do shit, or even worse asking "what are you doing" I hit 500-600 balls a week, its like therapy I play as much as I can The game does take some skill and coordination so that may leave some people out, those people can complain and hope courses get taken away I can't wait for this Saturday, I will try to qualify for MSOP (world putting tournament) - just hoping to make it to second round at Angus Glen. I just need 4 or 5 putts to drop that should do it. My putting is pretty solid but nerves might get the best of me..... FTR my putting over the the last 4 years average is 1.8 per green - short game sucks ass though If I had your money I would just pay my way into the Las Vegas finals lol 5K you're in How about a FSO beat down

Finally found a good read on this, going to look into this more Ever since the 2017 federal budget in March, when the government announced that tax changes affecting private corporations would be coming, I've been feeling queasy. Well, the proposed tax changes were announced by Bill Morneau, the Finance Minister, on Tuesday. And ugly they are. Here's a primer on the potential changes. The overview Mr. Morneau announced in the budget back in March that the Liberals have not been pleased with some Canadians who are using corporations in their tax planning, and that changes would be made. The claim is that certain folks are using corporations to pay less than their fair share of taxes. While the proposed changes are meant to affect the wealthy, there will be no shortage of small-business owners, the backbone of the Canadian economy, who will be significantly worse off as a result. The proposals There are three tax-planning tactics the government is looking to shut down: Income sprinkling Some business owners sprinkle income to family members by way of salary or wages, or dividends, to reduce the family's overall tax burden. There are already rules in place to prevent unreasonable salary or wages from being paid to family members who are not truly earning the compensation they receive. There are even "kiddie tax" rules to prevent dividends paid to minor children from being taxed at their lower rates. So, what's changing? The government wants to now restrict the ability to pay salary or wages, or dividends, to adult children between the ages of 18 and 24, by extending the "kiddie tax" rules – formally called the "tax on split income" (TOSI) – to them. The proposals will apply a "reasonableness test" that will assess the adult child's contributions to the business (both labour and capital) in determining whether amounts paid to that child should be taxed at his or her normal tax rates, or at the highest tax rate possible. In the past, families have also taken advantage of the lifetime capital gains exemption (LCGE), which shelters from tax up to $835,716, in 2017, of capital gains on qualifying small-business corporation shares). Good tax planning has seen the LCGE of each family member used to shelter gains on the family business. The government has proposed to restrict this. Starting after 2017, capital gains realized by a family member can no longer be sheltered with the LCGE to the extent those gains accrued while the individual was a minor. Further, any capital gains accrued while the shares are held in a family trust, or gains subject to the TOSI would not be eligible for shelter using the LCGE. Finally, in the past, the TOSI (which you'll recall is a special tax, at the highest rate going, that applies to certain income reported in the hands of children) has not applied to second generation income – that is, income on income. So, if a corporation paid, say $100 in dividends to a child, and the child paid the highest rate of tax (the TOSI) of, say, $40, there would be $60 left after taxes. That $60 could be invested and any income in the future on that $60 (income on the income) would not be subject to the high rate of tax (the TOSI). This will change if the new proposals are enacted. All future income (income on any income) will be subject to the same high rate tax (the TOSI). Confused yet? Passive income When a corporation generates income, it's eligible for a pretty attractive rate of tax (about 15 per cent, but it varies by province) on the first $500,000 (federally) of active business income. If a business owner doesn't need all of his earnings to support his lifestyle, it's common to leave the rest in the corporation to invest – perhaps in a portfolio earning passive income. For example, if you earn $100 in active business income and pay $15 of that to the taxman, you'd have $85 left to invest in the corporation. If you had earned that business income personally, and you're in the highest tax bracket (a marginal tax rate of about 50 per cent), you'd be left with just $50 to invest. So, there's an advantage to earning business income in a corporation if you earn enough that you won't spend it all. The government thinks this is unfair, notwithstanding that you'll actually pay more tax over all if you invest inside the corporation and then eventually pay that income out to yourself as dividends later. That's right, corporate tax rates on passive income are high even under today's rules – don't let the government tell you otherwise. So, the only meaningful benefit is the larger amount to invest up front as noted in my example above. It appears that the government believes that having more money working for you today, if you have a corporation, is offensive (so much for helping Canadians save for the future). The government is exploring how to limit the perceived benefit of leaving excess earnings inside a corporation to grow in a passive portfolio. Mr. Morneau is looking for comments from Canadians on a couple of primary options: (1) implementing a refundable tax that would apply to ineligible investments (the tax would be refunded once the capital is either paid out to you as taxable dividends personally, or is used in the active business), or (2) change the current refundable tax system on annual passive income so that the tax is no longer refundable if the investments were made with excess business income taxed at low rates. How does all of this simplify our tax system? Converting income to capital gains Some corporate owners have taken steps to convert what would otherwise be taxed as salary or dividends into capital gains. This has been done using a complex set of steps involving selling of some shares to another company related to the shareholder. The government proposes to close these opportunities by tweaking section 84.1 of our tax law, which was intended to prevent this type of planning but doesn't quite do the trick. On this one, I think the changes make sense. If you're so inclined, read over the 63-page consultation paper that outlines these proposed changes (available on the Department of Finance website). In my view, what you'll find are a lot of changes that will do nothing but make our convoluted tax law even more complex.

Paying a member of the family that doesn't work is cheating, if they can prove that person works there isn't a problem...... How can you saying paying a person that doesn't work for you isn't cheating? This isn't a Liberal thing or Con thing, just asking a question

not seeing that posted anywhere. I know he said it or something close back to 70% increase? when in fact its not going up at all - simply stopping people from cheating isn't a tax increase. For those businesses that don't cheat their taxes stay the same. Is that correct?

social media FAKE NEWS with hot right wing chicks is revving up. Apparently Justin is raising taxes 70% on small businesses - the dumb are eating it up..... The next 10 elections are going to be fucked up with lies

that would be a "Budtender" lol You can go to Bud School too you and learn more here https://www.greencultured.co/

Pretty sure they don't want the smell of Pot in their liquor store. Then you have the old people like 02sled that are disgusted with all the POT HEADS. So people are not forced to look at POT or smell it or see anyone that smokes it. The POT store isn't like buying a booze bottle off the shelf. POT stores today have knowledgeable people working the counters IF I am right the government will be selling it like they used to sell booze Can't be any lamer lol

OTOOL GAS PLANTS >>>>>>>>> over here again

More on the topic 02sled missed out on. We the stores and sellers already in place win their fight? Will Patrick Browne jump on it? There is no way 150 stores will be able to stop the black marker, being the goal 100 stores just in Toronto will be needed

no matter who is behind the counter they will be making money, something you are against. Since you can't hire teens to do this job or LCBO who do you expect is going to be hired? You are really not that bright when it comes to most things outside the network box

I understand more than you think about this. What can be done to change this? Hire Math Teachers?

nothing more than "I saw you pull out of that restaurant" either way Thanks Odot

James Taylor has some shit Him and Taylor swift ( I like Taylor)

saw sly and the family at Ontario place concert bowl free with admission

he won chase the ACE

Odot1 have you ever heard of a "mobile RIDE" Wife goes to an event in Aurora at some restaurant bar, leaving she gets pulled over with in a block Cop "this is a mobile Ride" have you been drinking blah blah blah you've done nothing wrong blah blah WTF Isn't that illegal?

damn

Dude he came from third to first in a landslide how the fuck can that be wrong?

seen a few things on this guy, he is going to be the leader of the NDP without a doubt... He has the Trudeau charisma. saw a cbc thing on him and he took off is Turban and swang his hair like a rock start its like 3 feet long Cons may experience what the liberals did under iggy

thats the way it should be the three leaders get in the ring and hammer it out ufc style

classic song still relevant today When buddy goes into the audience the look on the white old dudes is classic

she does have nice tits but clued out so much that she should be posting here

Trudeau would be leader no matter what, Libs were not expecting the results Trudeau brought.

Fail never blamed Harper even once for his first 8 years - stop lying I have only compared deficits by Harper and Wynne - I call them the same where you don't, blowing Harper while bashing Wynne but keep posting anyway AC

He handled himself very well I thought, I would have not reacted the same why with someone in my space