The Canadian Taxman Goes Browsing on eBay 221
Kaneda2112 writes "A story in the Globe And Mail points out that the Canada Revenue Agency is now trolling eBay Canada for high volume sellers — looking to make sure eBay's biggest users are accurately reporting their income. They've successfully gotten a court order for the names, addresses, and other personal information for that website's biggest users. 'Canadians spend about $5-billion online each year and eBay is by far the largest electronic marketplace, accounting for about a quarter of the total sales. The site was visited by nearly 11 million Canadians in August, according to company figures. The CRA said in court filings that it is targeting people who qualified for eBay's PowerSeller program in 2004 and 2005. Only top eBay sellers can qualify for the program, which provides benefits to members. Those benefits include prioritized customer service, special promotions and sales tips.'"
Fair enough (Score:1, Interesting)
Slow news day? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is nothing more than an audit and a crackdown on unregistered businesses. In other words, the Canada Revenue Agency is doing its job (this concept may be unfamiliar to Americans when relating to governmental agencies)
If you're operating a business, then you should be paying taxes as such. Plain and simple.
Maybe it's because I'm British, or a socialist.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe it's just me, a lefty liberal socialist Brit, but I don't really understand the mentality behind the 'humourous' tagline here. Selling stuff on eBay means you're earning money. Why shouldn't it be taxed like any other income? Ok, someone selling a couple of DVDs isn't really going to make any dent in the government's revenue, but there are powersellers on eBay with a turnover to rival a large highstreet store, all tax free if you're a bit underhand about it. That's not a good thing. That's a few more potholes in the road, one less nurse looking after you in hospital, a few less books in the school library. Tax evaders aren't Robin Hood*, they're plain old criminals.
If you give a damn about the quality of your community you probably ought to welcome Uncle Sam getting ideas along the same lines.
* English folk hero, robbed from the rich to give to the poor, portrayed very poorly in film by Kevin Costner.
Re:Maybe it's because I'm British, or a socialist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah I don't get it either. The basic logic works like this, "I was getting away with it before, don't change/enforce the law so I can't continue my bad practices!"
It's like when they put in speed/redlight cameras. The majority of people who bitch are the very people the gear is meant to catch. And they're not really pissed off because of the supposed violation of privacy, it's because they know they won't get away with their previously bad behaviour.
I for one welcome this. I think there should be a discretion though, I mean if I fail to report the $13 toy I sold on ebay last year I shouldn't face prison time. But if you're doing [say] more than $1000/year in sales it should be mandatory.
Re:Makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
> out and be all "holy shit, taxes are too high!" He might be on to something...
This is why I truly appreciate Brian Mulroney.
If nothing else, he got rid of a hidden, difficult-to-navigate tax and replaced with a tax that is clearly visible at the cash register. Harper, on the other hand, has earned by disdain because I know TANSAAFL.
I think ALL tax, wherever possible, should be a separate line item on the bill. Especially fuel taxes. Gas is, what, 30-40 cents a litre before taxes? Have you ever noticed there is a separate line item for tax on liquor in Ontario (sometimes)?
Another thing, I think ALL people should read their pay stubs. My stupid-assed kid won't even check to see if they've added her hours correctly! Every two weeks, she checks her bank balance and it's like Christmas! No idea what's coming from her job, just "oooh, look! I have money again!"
*argh* !!!
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US, the answer is simple: because that's what the market will bear. Turns out people will pay pretty much whatever they can afford, and then some, to keep breathing. So, big surprise, that's exactly the price level the free market settled at.
Personally, I'm trying like hell to keep a system like your Canadian Socialized Medicine out of my country (the good ol' USA), so it doesn't bankrupt us.
That's pretty uninformed.
The US spends more per capita on its existing health care system than Canada does. Our health care is better than yours and it costs less, a lot less. Health care in Canada costs 10% of the GDP. Health care in the US costs 15% of the GDP. Hell, if Canada, increased its health care spending to 15% of the GDP; the amount you ALREADY spend on health care, we'd be in amazing shape. That would amount to a 50% funding increase.
A study by the Harvard School of Medicine found:
-------------
"Savings gleaned from a national health insurance system like Canada's would be enough to provide medical insurance for the 41 million Americans who now lack coverage, the researchers said."
"The study puts the administrative cost of the U.S. system at $294 billion per year, compared to about $9.4 billion in Canada. That translates to a per-person cost of $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada. A similar study, conducted in 1991, put per-capita costs in the U.S. at $450 and Canadian costs at one-third of that."
"Also, the study noted, private insurers spend large sums on marketing and underwriting, costs that the Canadian system doesn't have to bear."
---------------
That last note alone is amusing; and I wish there were some numbers attached to it. What percentage of your private health coverage costs goes towards paying for TV advertising to tell you how great your insurer's coverage is? What percentage of your private health care costs go towards paying marketers and lobbyists to convince congressmen, senators, and people like you that Canada's system is 'teh devil' that will bankrupt your country? There's some real irony there.
Canada's system isn't perfect by a longshot, and if you don't want the system and can come up with something better, I'm listening! Canada wants a better system than its got too. But while you figure out what that system is you'd be considerably further ahead with Canada's system than your own.
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
All that oversight is sure doing great things for your health care. Not only do you pay much more than we do for it, but you're not eve n getting the service you paid for - denial of care rates are sky high, and it looks like health insurance providers will find any excuse under the sun to not give you the care you paid for.
I mean, the only solution to this problem is... *gasp* government regulation! After all, what other way is there to force companies to act counter to their own interests? (failure to provide care, or providing shoddy cheap care, is more profitable)
And once you realize how tightly the system must be regulated to remain reasonable, you come to the inevitable conclusion that things would be cheaper and better off if it were unified. After all, the cost of the regulators and other such systems can be better put to use hiring doctors and nurses! Not to mention that the government has an obligation to transparency, and any member of the public is free to obtain a copy of the health care budget and complain when spending gets wasteful.
Re:Makes sense (Score:1, Interesting)
Add US Income taxes, Sales taxes, other taxes, with your health care "assessment" - and you'll be spending a similar portion of your gross income on the two combined - so - Canada manages to administer almost 4 million square miles (10 million square km) and provide healthcare for everyone - and do it on about the same raw percentage of each person's income. I'd say that's pretty impressive if you ask me. (I say this as a recent immigrant to Canada from the US after I got fed up with life south of the border - America - love it or leave it - I LEFT! Good riddance!)