Metanet Forums

http://current.com/items/89522903/law%E ... canada.htm
Oh, yeah, environment, woooooo yeah Canada!

*shrugs*

Are you going to link us everything that mildly upsets your worldview?

blue_tetris wrote:*shrugs*

Are you going to link us everything that mildly upsets your worldview?

At least we will have something to talk about then...

The new criteria for "proper" and "legal" carpooling is just messed.
But it's almost impossible to catch people illegally carpooling though. Cause suddenly cops will get suspicious when they see two or more people in a car!!

That's totally bizarre. Why shouldn't you drive with whoever you want?

It's probably intended to prevent people running an unlicensed taxi service.

I really like that image at the top of the article.

Atilla wrote:It's probably intended to prevent people running an unlicensed taxi service.

Atilla and I have had this argument before.

Taxi services have taxable income but an exchange of money between friends isn't easily taxable. So the government has to monitor very carefully who you drive, who you fuck, and who you sell to at garage sales. If there's an exchange of money for any one of those activities, it has to be of a certain level of income for the government to be able to tax it. So they make really sure you're not making that much money.

At some point, it becomes impractical for a government to manage the exchange of money.

blue_tetris wrote:

Atilla wrote:It's probably intended to prevent people running an unlicensed taxi service.

Atilla and I have had this argument before.

Taxi services have taxable income but an exchange of money between friends isn't easily taxable. So the government has to monitor very carefully who you drive, who you fuck, and who you sell to at garage sales. If there's an exchange of money for any one of those activities, it has to be of a certain level of income for the government to be able to tax it. So they make really sure you're not making that much money.

At some point, it becomes impractical for a government to manage the exchange of money.

Laissez faire, mon ami?

blue_tetris wrote:

Atilla wrote:It's probably intended to prevent people running an unlicensed taxi service.

Atilla and I have had this argument before.

At some point, it becomes impractical for a government to manage the exchange of money.

It seems to me that if the exchange of money is large enough to merit taxation, it'll make it into bank records as "this person is depositing a whole lot of money for no apparent reason".
Given that they'd subsequently be investigated for selling cocaine, it'd be advantageous for anyone who wanted to run a taxi service to register it, so why the need for more legislation, surveillance, and money thrown at the problem?

scythe33 wrote:

blue_tetris wrote:

Atilla wrote:It's probably intended to prevent people running an unlicensed taxi service.

Atilla and I have had this argument before.

At some point, it becomes impractical for a government to manage the exchange of money.

It seems to me that if the exchange of money is large enough to merit taxation, it'll make it into bank records as "this person is depositing a whole lot of money for no apparent reason".
Given that they'd subsequently be investigated for selling cocaine, it'd be advantageous for anyone who wanted to run a taxi service to register it, so why the need for more legislation, surveillance, and money thrown at the problem?

Let's allow banks to keep track of income and report to the government with their personal findings? Whatever you say, pal. I have both taxable and non-taxable income going into my bank. I don't know why the government should hold surveillance over our banks.

Also, it's never advantageous to register a business. Unprovable suspicions of drug dealing would be enough to make people want to give up 28% of their earnings? Talk about keeping up appearance.

People register businesses because it's illegal not to.

Suki wrote:Laissez faire, mon ami?

Oui.

blue_tetris wrote:

Suki wrote:Laissez faire, mon ami?

Oui.

Laissez faire, mon bourgeoisie? Oh, non! Even Adam Smith was in favour of "discriminatory taxation to deter improper or luxurious behavior".

I find it funny that our more libertarian members come to the intellectual aid of small business at the hypothetical expense of larger conglomerates. There's an idea in capitalism that a business must survive against the slew of obstacles levied against it. Whether it be taxes, takeover bids or market infringement. Were PickupPal to be, it would persist. Maybe in a different market, functionality or what have you, but it would carry on. Lord willin', nah'mean?

The fact of the matter is that this has less to do with "big government" and more to do with business behaviors. Read the article again: "Apparently bus companies complained after the site was launched and sued under an Ontario law." S'a dick move on the part of the bus company but nothing more. And if you're starting up a fledgling business, you best come prepared.

Comment dites-vous? C'est la vie.

Okay, there was supposed to be a post here, but the forum software somehow corrupted it. I fixed it, it got corrupted again, now you're reading this message.

blue_tetris wrote:

Atilla wrote:It's probably intended to prevent people running an unlicensed taxi service.

Atilla and I have had this argument before.

I don't think we have argued about whether Canada's odd laws on carpooling are the result of attempts to regulate taxi services.

This is one of those laws that no one will follow because it's stupid, a contradiction, and there's really no way you could possibly enforce it. It's just a waste of time and money,