Connect with us

COVID-19

Keep It Simple S…ubsidy

Published

5 years ago

9 minute read

You want my idea for the wage subsidy… well here it is.

WARNING: It is so simple to implement, there is no way a government would do it.

(Originally posted on LinkedIn (no joke) April 1, 2020)

 

 

People have said “you are quick to pick apart the wage subsidy, so what is your solution?”

So… you asked for it… here it is:

I’ve said it from the very beginning that it should resemble EI support. All they should be doing is simple.

(No this is not an April Fool’s joke… but I am hoping the Press Conference on April 1, 2020 by the Minister of Finance was)

I was fine with EI amounts… but since we have the Canadian Emergency Response Benefit (CERB)… let’s use that amount to keep it more simple.

The amount is this:

(just like the CERB). $2,000 per worker per month, taxable, and no withholdings up front

Put a ‘clawback’ amount on those that are getting it like the clawback on Old Age Security or regular EI benefits for when they file income tax next year.

The 3-prong approach to the subsidy

 

Prong 1 – CERB from Service Canada

Everyone should get it. Yes, everyone.

However, anyone that makes more than the EI maximum in 2020 must pay back 30 cents of the CERB on every dollar over the $54,200 EI maximum threshold when they file their 2020 taxes.

So when you file your personal 2020 income tax, if you ended up making more than $80,667 in income, you will have had to pay back the full $8,000 of CERB received on a T4E.

This results in helping everyone today, help jump start the economy when we need to and have those that get back on their feet quicker, paying some or all of it back.

If you received both the CERB from Service Canada, and the CERB through your employer, you have to pay back the amount greater than the $8,000 received, and then any other amount based on the formula above.

This will prevent or reduce the double dip.

 

Prong 2 – CERB through the Small Business employer

The small business (less than $15M in assets of all associated corporations) employer would also get the CERB on a per-employee basis. They already have to fill out the number of employees when they file their remittance forms, so what’s the difference?

This $2,000 flows through to subsidize the wages, and must be paid to the employees. You create a different box number to track it on the T4 slips next year for audit purposes and to make sure the employee got the money.

I know this isn’t 75%, but the 75% was a capped amount anyways. That’s why I said keep it simple.

In order to incentivize the small business employer so they don’t lay them off, treat it as a flow through, and non-taxable to the employer.

So if there are five employees at the small business, the employer will get $10,000 of CERB to flow through to the employees.

The employee’s wages will be subsidized by the $2,000 amount, and they will put the $2,000 in a different box on each T4 slip for tracking purposes.

In order to incentivize the employer to act as the flow-through for Service Canada, this $2,000 will not be subject to EI or CPP by the employer and will not be included in the taxable income of the employer.

This allows the employer to claim the full wage deduction, have subsidized payroll costs, and save the income tax amount by deducting the full payroll.

By not counting it as income, this tax and remittance savings can be viewed liked an “admin fee” for acting on Service Canada’s behalf.

On $10,000 (5 employees) this would save up to $252 in Employer EI, $525 in Employer CPP, and $900 in federal income tax.

Cost to government for employer being the administrator instead of Service Canada: $1,167.

Incentive for employer to NOT lay off the staff, $10,000 in wage costs… and $1,167 in tax savings.

 

Prong 3 – CERB through Large Corporations

If the employer is getting the CERB on a per-employee basis and they are a large (greater than $15M in assets) corporation or associated group, allow them to not pay employer EI or CPP on the CERB.

100 employees = $200,000 = up to $5,040 in reduced EI, and $10,500 in reduced CPP remittances as the incentive.

So the employer gets $2,000 per employee as a subsidy to cover wage costs, and does not have to do payroll withholdings on the amount, saving them a total of $200,000 + 5,040 + 10,500 = $215,540.

Or put another way, they can save $15,540 by not laying them off.

If that’s not enough incentive, then perhaps look at it being only 50% taxable, which in the example above, would reduce Federal income tax by $15,000 (using 15% general rate x 50% x $200,000)

 

 

Audit Tracing

By simplifying the process, there is less ability for abuse.

Service Canada will issue everyone a T4E with the CERB they personally received from them (no application necessary).

T4 box numbers can be reconciled by CRA on slip filing to amounts of CERB received by the employer through the PIER system.

Those same boxes can be reconciled to specific individuals on tax filings to see if there were any that should repay.

Amounts greater than $8,000 received by anyone will need to be repaid.

Those with income over the EI Maximum amount, will have to repay some or all of the CERB back when they file.

If you don’t agree… well… the specific repayment formula can be figured out later… we have a year for that. We need the money in the public’s hands now though.

 

In Conclusion

These incentives and recapture mechanisms will reduce the likelihood of layoffs in low-margin industries like hospitality since $2,000 a month goes a long way to covering those wages; it will “Flatten the EI Curve” (trademark pending – not really… but I like saying it)

It would get everyone back working quicker after this is done by maintaining the connection to employers, and get the economy kick-started with cash injections at the front of this thing, rather than the end.

In the end… you have employers flowing the $2,000 through to the employee on Service Canada’s behalf as a no-withholding amount and a nominal cost to the employer to administer it, rather than Service Canada processing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of individual applications.

If they are a small business, they actually get a tax savings by being the administrator and helping Service Canada in the process.

If they are a large business, they can have a good chunk of payroll costs reduced by not having to pay EI and CPP on the amount, and perhaps tax savings.

In the end, every worker gets $8,000 over 4 months just to buy everyone time and we have Flattened the EI Curve.™

Biography of Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr can be found here.

#RedDeerStrong – If you’re struggling and you need to consolidate debt through a mortgage refinance, Kristen is here for you.

Related Topics:

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: “People don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.” More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

More from this author
Opinion / 2 years ago

Escape Room 2 – The NEW Real Estate Owner Tax Game – High Stakes Edition

Community / 4 years ago

Black Entrepreneur Support Announcement: Well Intentioned but not Black and White

Business / 4 years ago

CEWS 2.0 – Why I see it as another attack on the small business owner

Censorship Industrial Complex

UNESCO launches course aimed at ‘training’ social media influencers to ‘report hate speech’

Published on December 13, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

UNESCO’s bills its new ‘training’ initiative as empowering participants to be more credible and resilient while simply turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism launch training courses, e-books, and surveys on disinformation and hate speech for influencers and content creators, big and small.

Last month, UNESCO published the results of a survey called “Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators” that concluded that among 500 content creators in 45 countries that had a minimum of 1,000 followers, 62 percent said they did “not carry out rigorous and systematic fact-checking of information prior to sharing it,” while 73 percent expressed “the wish to be trained to do so.”

And lo and behold! UNESCO and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas have launched a re-education course to brainwash independent creators into thinking like unelected globalists and the legacy media, whose credibility are at an all-time low:

The journalism industry is on high alert as news audiences continue to migrate away from legacy media to social media, and many young people place more trust in TikTokers than journalists working at storied news outlets

“Respondents to the survey expressed interest in taking UNESCO’s free online course designed to equip participants with media and information literacy skills and knowledge,” the report states.

To get an idea of the make-up of those 500 content creators that were surveyed in the UNESCO study:

  • 68 percent were nano-influencers – those with 1,000 to 10,000 followers
  • 25 percent were micro-influencers – those with 10,000 to 100,000 followers
  • 4 percent were macro-influencers – those with 100,000 to 1,000,000 followers
  • 6 percent were mega-influencers – those with over 1,000,000 followers

Only 12.2 percent of the 500 people surveyed produced content under the category of “current affairs/politics and economy” while the majority covered “fashion/lifestyle” (39.3 percent), “beauty” (34 percent), “travel and food” (30 percent), and “gaming” (29 percent).

Equip yourself to combat online misinformation, disinformation, hate speech, and harmful AI content. Collaborate with fellow journalists and content creators to promote transparency and accountability on digital platforms, empowering your audience with the media and information literacy skills they need to navigate today’s information landscape.

In addition to the survey and the online course called “Digital Content Creators and Journalists: How to Be a Trusted Voice Online,” UNESCO and the Knight Center also published an e-book in October called “Content Creators and Journalists: Redefining News and Credibility in the Digital Age.”

This pyramid of propaganda is billed as empowering influencers to be more credible and resilient, but these efforts are also aimed at turning independent content creators into talking heads for the establishment.

 

Despite their expanding outreach, many digital content creators who work independently face significant challenges including the lack of institutional support, guidance, and recognition. — UNESCO, Behind the Screens: Insights from Digital Content Creators, November 2024

How can an independent content creator remain independent if he or she needs institutional support, guidance, and recognition?

This is an attempt by the United Nations to take independence away from the equation, so that its messaging becomes indistinguishable from mainstream, establishment narratives.

And between the survey and the e-book, there is not one, single, solitary example of disinformation or hate speech – save perhaps the claim that denying official climate change narratives is considered disinformation, but that’s highly debatable.

Threats to collective climate action are often perpetuated not only by individual creators but by industries, like fossil fuels, that actively shape public discourse to their advantage.

Speaking of climate change, the e-book contains a lengthy chapter called “Content Creators and Climate Change” that is entirely dedicated to pushing climate activism while claiming climate change disinformation is often perpetuated by coordinated campaigns from fossil fuel industries.

The UNESCO documents place heavy emphasis on disclosing who’s funding content creators while ignoring its partner, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP), and its alleged influence over UNESCO:

The Chinese Communist Party uses UNESCO to “rewrite history” and to “legitimize the party’s rule over regions with large ethnic minorities.”

When held to a mirror, UNESCO comes off as little more than hypocritical with massive conflicts of interests of its own:

One of the biggest ethical questions is knowing from where content creators derive their income.

 

At the same time, UNESCO points readers towards organizations like factcheck.org, which itself is funded by the likes of the U.S. State Department and the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation, the latter of which holds approximately $2 billion of stock in COVID vaccine manufacturer J&J, according to U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie.

In January 2021, UNESCO, the WHO, UNDP, EU, and the Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas ran a similar type of propaganda campaign for so-called COVID vaccine disinformation training for journalists as they are now doing for so-called climate change disinformation for content creators.

Another goal of UNESCO and the Knight Center is to create an environment where content creators snitch on one another under the guise of “hate speech”:

Among those targeted by hate speech, most chose to ignore it (31.5%). Only one-fifth (20.4%) reported it to social media platforms. This indicates an area where UNESCO and its partners could provide valuable training for digital content creators on how to effectively address and report hate speech.

In other words, the U.N. is partnering with journalists to teach influencers how to become victims that need protection.

Hey! Content creators. Were you aware that any criticism against the propaganda that we’ve planted within you means that you were a victim of hate speech? No? Well, climb on board and let’s “effectively address and report hate speech!”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Health Canada received over a million reports of COVID vaccine adverse events: records

Published on December 11, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

As reported first by True North, according to Access to Information correspondence, from December 2020 to December 2022 Health Canada got over a million serious adverse event reports regarding the COVID vaccines.

Newly uncovered records have revealed that during the so-called pandemic thousands of serious adverse event reports related to the mRNA COVID jabs were reported to Health Canada each day, at the same time public health officials and the media claimed the experimental vaccines were safe. 

As reported first by True North, according to Access to Information (ATIP) correspondence, from December 2020 to December 2022 Health Canada got over a million serious adverse events (SAE) reports regarding the COVID vaccines from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna and Janssen. Broken down, some 600,000 of the reports related to the Pfizer jab, 220,000 to AstraZeneca, 160,000 to Moderna and 22,000 to Janssen. Of note is that the Pfizer jab was the most widely distributed in Canada.  

As per regulations, pharmaceutical companies must report SAE that happen anywhere in the world to Canada’s public health minister within “15 days after receiving or becoming aware of the information.” 

The access to information coordinator noted that a “broader interpretation (of your request) could encompass millions of records,” adding that as they had a “processing capacity of about 500 pages per month,” handling such a large volume would “require a significant amount of time to complete.”   

Broken down, if one serious adverse event report totals just a page each, at the given processing speed, it would take 167 years before all the SAEs would be processed. 

The first COVID jab to be approved for use in Canada was Pfizer’s BioNTech mRNA injection, which became available on December 9, 2020. Moderna’s mRNA jab soon followed a couple of weeks later. Of important note is the launch of the jabs came after the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau gave vaccine makers a shield from liability regarding jab-related injuries. 

Health minister would have seen SAE submissions  

By June of 2021, the SAE submissions just for the Pfizer shot totaled over 100,000 reports worldwide, with some 820 in Canada alone. Canada’s then-Minister of Health Patty Hadju would have had information at this time from the various drug jab makers showing how many SAEs there were both domestically and worldwide. 

It is estimated that overall Health Canada was getting about 10,000 SAE reports from worldwide sources every week.  

All levels of Canadian government heavily promoted the COVID shots, regularly touting them as both “safe and effective.” 

The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children and all have connections to cell lines derived from aborted babies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X