Letters, March 27

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 27/03/2024 (739 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

A change in fortunes

Re: Sala, NDP need to decide which side of ledger they’re on (Feb. 27) and Province projects deficit climbing close to $2B (Mar. 23)

I get that promises were made in the election campaign about keeping the tax cuts made by the previous government and that, if at all possible, promises should be kept.

However, the circumstances have obviously changed, and just as obviously, some tough decisions have to be made, which the coming budget should make clear. I hope that one of the decisions is to rescind some of the tax cuts in order to be able to fund (at least in part) the other promises (i.e. fixing health care, addressing the serious infrastructure deficit, doing something about homelessness and the housing crisis, etc.) without leaving future generations to pay the bill in the form of inherited deficits.

Politicians should worry about the judgement of history when they keep cutting taxes (which the Canadian Taxpayers Federation seems to think is the only thing that matters) and in the process let the public goods and services that benefit us all, and took generations to build, fall into disrepair. When are we going to admit that what was started so many decades ago by Thatcher and Reagan (the propagation of the message that taxes are always bad, and government is useless) is simply wrong-headed?

Governments need to be both relentlessly focused on being efficient and effective (which audits should be able to help with) and doing what governments should be doing, which at this juncture will almost certainly require raising more taxes from those of us that can afford to pay more.

It has been done before to good effect, let’s do it again.

Gerald Farthing

Winnipeg

A pervasive problem

Your editorial about the Saskatchewan RCMP’s policy of making everyone they stop take a preliminary breathalyzer is very interesting.

In that editorial, (Ends, means and drunk drivers, March 23), it stated that the minister of Liquor and Gaming authority was convicted of impaired driving at 2 1/2 times the legal limit at 11:30 in the morning.

Unfortunately the article failed to mention the premier of Saskatchewan was convicted of impaired driving and beat a second impaired driving charge two years later.

It also failed to mention that in the last provincial election, 10 per cent of all the Saskatchewan Party candidates had been convicted of impaired driving.

I’m guessing with this policy, the Saskatchewan Party has created a lot of designated driver positions for their elected members.

Ken McLean

Starbuck

Faith and COVID

Re: Individual rights aren’t the only rights, (March 22)

I would like to commend the recent editorial that puts into perspective the tensions felt between religious freedoms and the public good during COVID-19.

As the editorial states, there was more at work in this situation than the rights of individuals.

It is my conviction, however, that the public health orders did not restrict the practice of Christian faith. At the heart of Christian faith lies an understanding of God who, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, actually limited himself in order to accomplish the greater good.

Limiting ourselves for the sake of others lies at the heart of Christian freedom. The God of Easter limited his personal rights for the sake of the greater good. This is the nature of love.

Ray Harris

Winnipeg

Testing has a role

Re: What exams do and don’t do, (March 25)

Any tool can be used for benefit or harm. Provincial exams are no different and which outcome happens depends on policies, not on the tests.

There is abundant evidence that some members of society do not perform well in school and systematic evaluations can help to identify such individuals or groups.

What happens next is critical.

A punitive, politicized approach would reflexively blame teachers and schools for poor performance of students on exams and promote ill-considered changes to school practices or even actions that would divert resources from the public school system and weaken it further.

A constructive approach would instead devote resources to understand why some students are doing less well and, where warranted and feasible, to correct inadequacies not only in schools but also in the many other elements of society that contribute to school success, including families.

But this cannot happen without first identifying children at risk.

Although well-intentioned, efforts to ban testing simply hide such disparities and can work against the goal of ensuring as much as possible that all children thrive in school and life beyond.

Jim Clark

Winnipeg

Taxing trouble

Effective for 2023 taxation year, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) is now requiring taxpayers who entered into “bare trust” agreements to file T3 returns. The CRA presumes that a bare trust exists in situations where an adult child’s name is added to the bank/investment accounts of the elderly parent to help manage their financial affairs.

As indicated in David Christianson’s article (Take care with taxes — you may be a ‘trustee’ after all, March 23) a bare trust exists when the parent transfers 100 per cent legal interest but not the beneficial interest to the child on creation of the joint account(s). In this case, the parent reports 100 per cent of the investment income on the basis that the parent retained 100 per cent beneficial interest.

Since the income has been reported and there is no tax leakage to the treasury, why is CRA forcing taxpayers to file costly T3 returns for each joint account created?

Nothing has changed except that CRA is now saying the estate planning arrangement is a bare trust. Since this a change in CRA policy, should these arrangements created before Royal Assent be grandfathered and exempt because it would affect many innocent Canadians?

I am the primary caregiver for my 95-year-old mother with a language barrier. A joint account with the right of survivorship (JWROS) was created in 2013. My mother has reported 100 per cent of the income both before and after the creation of the joint account. This was done solely for estate planning purposes to simplify the probate process and was not a tax motivated arrangement but rather fulfilling my family responsibility to help elderly parents in keeping with federal/provincial caregiver programs. It would be extremely difficult to haul my mother to the bank to stand in line without joint signing authority.

There may be many other type of joint account arrangements of a non-tax nature that may be caught by the new rules.

For example, does a bare trust exist when the parent’s names are added to their child’s home purchase to help secure a mortgage? Or, where grandparents set up a joint investment account to help with their education? Or, adding the kids names to the cottage property (generational estate planning)?

It is my view that CRA should have been more surgical in their targeting and not cast such a wide net to force taxpayers to file costly returns for each account created. Does it not make sense for CRA to target bare trusts used by profit making enterprises? Does CRA not have all the tax information slips to identify who has joint bank/investment accounts? If so, why require taxpayers to file if they have the information?

CRA should just send a letter requesting disclosure of account details and give clearance if there is no tax leakage. The CRA should take a pause and get this right because the cost to file returns will hurt ordinary Canadians in the pocket book. Maybe let your MP know on this issue.

Gary Yip

Winnipeg