The North American aviation transportation industry in conjunction with the airline industry has figured out something very important. Something that I think we can all learn from. Something the rest of the world can learn from. Something criminal justice systems can learn from. They have figured out how to turn terrorists and criminals into honest people in a very short time. In fact, they can do it in about an hour.
How do they do it? What's their secret? Easy. Just take any terrorist or criminal and put them on a flight. Any commercial aviation flight with a security screening area near the beginning and a baggage claim at the other end.
Not getting it? Don't worry. You don't have to understand it. I don't understand it entirely. But they do. I just know it works. It must. Because they do it.
If you've taken a flight from a major aeroport in North America in the last few years, you've experienced it. When you check in for your flight, they ask you all kinds of questions like "Have you left your luggage unattended?" before you can get to the next step. If you manage to convince them you're okay, they send you onto the next phase: the security screening.
This is the part where, in the interest of equal treatment, they assume everyone is either a terrorist or a criminal - even public servants and airline employees. (I've been both and I still get the treatment.) They scan you with technology of questionable safety in order to see through your clothes. It doesn't matter that these screeners miss obvious things like guns and 12 inch steel razor blades. The point isn't to find anything. The point is to treat everyone equally - like criminals/terrorists. Neither the TSA nor the CATSA have ever caught anyone anyway.
If you make it through that part, you get to get on a plane - if your i.d. checks out. Some of these flights have air marshalls on them, so the criminals and terrorists aren't fixed yet. But the plane takes off and goes to its destination.
Then a miracle happens. You land! You leave the plane! You go to baggage claim! Suddenly everyone is a saint! You just walk up to the carousel and take a bag! It doesn't matter if it's your bag. There's nothing stopping you from taking a bag at random. You might as well. Chances are, someone else's stuff is nicer than yours. At the carousel you're on the honour system.
An hour ago you were being searched like you were going to a maximum security prison, and now you're on the honour system. Like I said earlier, I don't fully understand how the flight acts like some sort of baptism that washes away your criminal intent, but it must. Otherwise, you'd have to claim your bags like you claim your coat at a coat-check: no ticket, no jacket. If you can't be trusted at the coat-check, but you can at the baggage carousel then it must mean you're more trustworthy and honest at the baggage claim. I'm not sure how it all works. Maybe it's an effect of altitude?
Showing posts with label Government Intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Intelligence. Show all posts
Monday, May 07, 2012
Friday, October 30, 2009
Hands-Free Phone Law in Ontario
If you were driving down the road, talking on your cell phone and there was a clown on a unicycle, do you think you'd see him? Would it make a difference if you used a hands-free phone?
Probably not, according to today's Article.
The reason is obvious to those who know anything about attention. You can only really pay attention to one thing at a time. We multitask the way a computer does, but we're not nearly as good at switching from one process to another. The problem is not that you're holding something in your hand. The problem is attention.
If you think the problem is holding something in your hand, try this. The next time you're driving, try holding something in your hand. Heck! Try holding your phone in your hand without using it to talk. There shouldn't be significant degradation in your driving skills. (This may be hard for you to measure. Most people don't notice the degradation in their driving skills when talking on the phone, fiddling with the radio, or polishing off a 2-4.) In fact, if you have an automatic transmission in your car, you can regularly drive with one hand.
Furthermore, if driving with only one hand was as unsafe as driving drunk, then everyone who's either missing an arm or hand shouldn't be allowed to have a drivers licence. And anyone with an unusable hand, due to injury or something, should lose their licence until they recover.
I guess the biggest problem would be for people who talk with their hands. If they're holding their phone with one hand, and gesturing with the other, then they're not steering their car.
So, if the problem isn't having something in your hand, but attention, then why are we passing laws that say "It's okay to be distracted when you drive, as long as you're not distracted while holding something in one hand."?
Probably not, according to today's Article.
The reason is obvious to those who know anything about attention. You can only really pay attention to one thing at a time. We multitask the way a computer does, but we're not nearly as good at switching from one process to another. The problem is not that you're holding something in your hand. The problem is attention.
If you think the problem is holding something in your hand, try this. The next time you're driving, try holding something in your hand. Heck! Try holding your phone in your hand without using it to talk. There shouldn't be significant degradation in your driving skills. (This may be hard for you to measure. Most people don't notice the degradation in their driving skills when talking on the phone, fiddling with the radio, or polishing off a 2-4.) In fact, if you have an automatic transmission in your car, you can regularly drive with one hand.
Furthermore, if driving with only one hand was as unsafe as driving drunk, then everyone who's either missing an arm or hand shouldn't be allowed to have a drivers licence. And anyone with an unusable hand, due to injury or something, should lose their licence until they recover.
I guess the biggest problem would be for people who talk with their hands. If they're holding their phone with one hand, and gesturing with the other, then they're not steering their car.
So, if the problem isn't having something in your hand, but attention, then why are we passing laws that say "It's okay to be distracted when you drive, as long as you're not distracted while holding something in one hand."?
Friday, February 06, 2009
One Strike and We're Out! - Part 3
I don't like to call anyone an idiot. This will be one of the hardest posts I've ever written.
If you've been keeping up with the OC Transpo stike, you'll remember about a couple of weeks ago Rona Ambrose, Minister of Labour, refused to legislate the bus drivers back to work. She basically said "Solve your own problems. That's what collective bargaining is for."
Then, last week I read Today's Article which states that Rona Ambrose is prepared to introduce back-to-work legislation.
Oh great! Another flip-flopping politician! That's just what we need. *groan*
It turns out she didn't even have to do that. The kids agreed to take everything to binding arbitration with no preconditions. Now 70% of service will be restored on Saturday, February 7. 100% of service won't be restored until April 6.
A few things occur to me about all this:
My message to the members of ATU Local 279: When the opportunity to vote in a new Local president, you need to vote someone else in. Get André Cornellier out. He's just hurting you. You need someone who will, not only fight for you, but will be a good communicator, a good public speaker; someone who will get the public on your side.
BTW: Welcome back. It will good to see you again.
If you've been keeping up with the OC Transpo stike, you'll remember about a couple of weeks ago Rona Ambrose, Minister of Labour, refused to legislate the bus drivers back to work. She basically said "Solve your own problems. That's what collective bargaining is for."
Then, last week I read Today's Article which states that Rona Ambrose is prepared to introduce back-to-work legislation.
Oh great! Another flip-flopping politician! That's just what we need. *groan*
It turns out she didn't even have to do that. The kids agreed to take everything to binding arbitration with no preconditions. Now 70% of service will be restored on Saturday, February 7. 100% of service won't be restored until April 6.
A few things occur to me about all this:
- If they can get 70% service up and running in a week, why will it take an additional 2 months for the remaining 30%?
I hope that they're giving a worst-case scenario. We've already seen the restoration moved up once. - André Cornellier is a high-functioning illiterate and needs to be replace as soon as possible. The city continued to make modified counter-offers, which he rejected as being "more of the same." Then, when those counter-offers got into the papers, we could see that it wasn't "more of the same." They city was offering the raises that the union was asking for. In fact, at one point the city said to the union "We're not married to our idea of scheduling. If you can come up with a solution that's safe, and saves money, we're all ears." And what did the union offer? Nothing new, just more of the same. (It's quite possible that I'm wrong about this. If I am, it's the fault of Cornellier not communicating it to me, the public.)
- A public representative/spokesperson, such as André Cornellier, really needs to be a good public speaker. As can be seen in this article he says "Well, I was not elected by my membership to be a public speaker." He's got that right! The union needs to elect someone who will fight for them, and be a good public speaker.
The union didn't just lose the media war. They got pwned! They got slaughtered!
Winning the media was is important. If the union had won the media war, the people would have said to the politicians "End this now, or you lose my vote, and by extension your job." As it was, the city won the war. People were saying to the city "This has been a terrible inconvenience for me, but don't give into their demands!" In other words "You're giving me the shaft, but you're not going to lose my vote over it." What an enviable position for a politician!
In order to win this media war, all André Cornellier would have had to do is get the people to side against policiticans. How hard can that be? Especially when the main politician is Larry O'Brien! People, by default, take sides against politicians. People aren't necessarily big fans of unions either. If André Cornellier didn't make the following two mistakes he could have won the media war, thus getting the public on his side:- Show more sympathy to those affected by the strike.
- Communicate to the public what the strike was all about so that they could understand.
Instead, he:- Showed no sympathy to the public. He appeared to only care about the striking workers. (Whether this is true or not is debatable, but it's appearance that matters in a media war.)
- It took about a month before I started reading in the papers what the union was asking for. To this date, I still hear people talking about the strike, completely misunderstanding the issues. He let us continue on in our ignorance. Forcing workers to spread their working day over 14 hours is ridiculous. Most people understand that. They were in a very sympathetic position. I think communication, or lack thereof, was the culprit.
- Cornellier said "It is a constitutional right to strike, but the government doesn't take it as a right when they legislate — it's sad."
No, André, the government refused to interfere when they were asked for the legislation because "that's what collective bargaining is for".
Then they were going to legislate because they saw that collective bargaining wasn't getting anywhere. After 7 weeks, the union hadn't made any concessions. The strike wasn't any closer to being resolved than it was on the first day. They did what they had to do.
My message to the members of ATU Local 279: When the opportunity to vote in a new Local president, you need to vote someone else in. Get André Cornellier out. He's just hurting you. You need someone who will, not only fight for you, but will be a good communicator, a good public speaker; someone who will get the public on your side.
BTW: Welcome back. It will good to see you again.
Friday, October 24, 2008
These Laws Are Driving Me Crazy!
A while ago I wrote about how harsher prison sentences haven't worked in the States, yet Canada (while experiencing an 25 year low in crime) is following the model. There is talk of continuing to follow that model. There is talk of changing the Youth Criminal Justice Act to try youth as adults for serious crimes.
When I first heard that, I thought "It won't noticeably reduce youth crime." I didn't expect to find many people who would agree with me; mostly granola-crunching Birkenstock-wearing hemp-smoking left-leaning hippies. I didn't expect law enforcement personnel to agree with me. I certainly didn't expect Ottawa's Police Chief to agree with me. But, according to today's article, he does.
Lets look at some anecdotal evidence to support my opinion that harsher sentences don't deter crime, shall we?
First: The Safer Roads to a Safer Ontario Act.
One year ago, Ontario passed the Safer Roads to a Safer Ontario Act, A.K.A.: The Anti-Street Racing Act. If caught going more than 50 km/h you can face fines ranging from $2 000 and $10 000, your license being suspended on the spot, your car being impounded on the spot, and even jail time.
I'd call those pretty tough measures. If I was in a hurry, I'd be keeping that speedometer needle at no more than 49 km/h above the posted limit. If you think tougher laws lead to changed behaviour, you might expect to see a marked decrease in the would-be deterrent law. The desired effect of this law was to reduce traffic related deaths. If tougher laws work, we should see less traffic related deaths.
So, how did the law do?
In the year it's been in effect, there have been almost 9000 charges laid under the act. That averages out to one driver every hour being charged under the act. The average age of the drivers was 31. Four people have been busted three times. Forty two people have been charged under the act twice.
According to this article, there have been 233 fatalities so far in 2008. If that trend continues, there should be 310 by the end of the year. There were 354 fatalities in 2007. That's a reduction of 12%.
That reduction could have come from anywhere. According to this article Canadians drove less in the past year than before. All things being equal, less cars on the road logically means less accidents.
Second: The Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Many Canadians would agree Canada is too soft on youth crime. If that's true, and if it's true that harsher sentences would deter youth crime, then we should see a much higher crime rate for kids than adults.
According to Statistics Canada, the youth crime rate in 2006 looks like it was between 6000 and 7000 accusations per 100 000 population. The overall crime rate was 7518 per 100 000 population.
The youth crime rate is lower than the overall crime rate. So much for a soft youth crime act leading to high crime rates.
A few years ago the government passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act. When I was studying law in university, we had a guest speaker come in to explain that new law to our class. I can't remember if she was a judge, a justice of the peace, or a crown attorney. Anyway, she was more of an expert in the law than I'll ever be. She explained how the new law was designed to find alternate justice for convicted youths. Try to keep the kids out of prison. Our class was in shock. "The kids will be running amok in the streets knowing they have a free pass!" was the general sentiment in the class.
According to Statistics Canada, the youth crime rate dropped after that law was passed.
Note about statistics: In an uncontrolled environment, like the real world, it's really hard to determine cause-and-effect relationships. Laws are passed to change people's behaviour. To see if a law is effective, after the law is passed, watch people's behaviour. The best way to do that is with statistics. But statistics don't show causation. They only show correlation. The best you can hope for is a strong correlation.
For example, the 12% drop in traffic-related deaths looks pretty low to me. I'm not a statistician. It might actually be really good. I don't know. People might be slowing down because driving fast uses more gas. Gas has been expensive this year. Maybe there has been less deaths because cars are being built to be more safe. Perhaps, with more people buying smaller cars (due to high fuel prices) people are being hit with compact cars instead of big, heavy trucks. Maybe that has something to do with it? I don't know. Nobody does.
Frankly, I'd like to see at least a 50% reduction in traffic-related deaths following the enacting of such a law. Something significant. Even that would be a win/lose situation. On the one hand, less people would be dying in traffic accidents. On the other hand, I would be denied the pleasure I derive from being right.
When I first heard that, I thought "It won't noticeably reduce youth crime." I didn't expect to find many people who would agree with me; mostly granola-crunching Birkenstock-wearing hemp-smoking left-leaning hippies. I didn't expect law enforcement personnel to agree with me. I certainly didn't expect Ottawa's Police Chief to agree with me. But, according to today's article, he does.
Lets look at some anecdotal evidence to support my opinion that harsher sentences don't deter crime, shall we?
First: The Safer Roads to a Safer Ontario Act.
One year ago, Ontario passed the Safer Roads to a Safer Ontario Act, A.K.A.: The Anti-Street Racing Act. If caught going more than 50 km/h you can face fines ranging from $2 000 and $10 000, your license being suspended on the spot, your car being impounded on the spot, and even jail time.
I'd call those pretty tough measures. If I was in a hurry, I'd be keeping that speedometer needle at no more than 49 km/h above the posted limit. If you think tougher laws lead to changed behaviour, you might expect to see a marked decrease in the would-be deterrent law. The desired effect of this law was to reduce traffic related deaths. If tougher laws work, we should see less traffic related deaths.
So, how did the law do?
In the year it's been in effect, there have been almost 9000 charges laid under the act. That averages out to one driver every hour being charged under the act. The average age of the drivers was 31. Four people have been busted three times. Forty two people have been charged under the act twice.
According to this article, there have been 233 fatalities so far in 2008. If that trend continues, there should be 310 by the end of the year. There were 354 fatalities in 2007. That's a reduction of 12%.
That reduction could have come from anywhere. According to this article Canadians drove less in the past year than before. All things being equal, less cars on the road logically means less accidents.
Second: The Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Many Canadians would agree Canada is too soft on youth crime. If that's true, and if it's true that harsher sentences would deter youth crime, then we should see a much higher crime rate for kids than adults.
According to Statistics Canada, the youth crime rate in 2006 looks like it was between 6000 and 7000 accusations per 100 000 population. The overall crime rate was 7518 per 100 000 population.
The youth crime rate is lower than the overall crime rate. So much for a soft youth crime act leading to high crime rates.
A few years ago the government passed the Youth Criminal Justice Act. When I was studying law in university, we had a guest speaker come in to explain that new law to our class. I can't remember if she was a judge, a justice of the peace, or a crown attorney. Anyway, she was more of an expert in the law than I'll ever be. She explained how the new law was designed to find alternate justice for convicted youths. Try to keep the kids out of prison. Our class was in shock. "The kids will be running amok in the streets knowing they have a free pass!" was the general sentiment in the class.
According to Statistics Canada, the youth crime rate dropped after that law was passed.
Note about statistics: In an uncontrolled environment, like the real world, it's really hard to determine cause-and-effect relationships. Laws are passed to change people's behaviour. To see if a law is effective, after the law is passed, watch people's behaviour. The best way to do that is with statistics. But statistics don't show causation. They only show correlation. The best you can hope for is a strong correlation.
For example, the 12% drop in traffic-related deaths looks pretty low to me. I'm not a statistician. It might actually be really good. I don't know. People might be slowing down because driving fast uses more gas. Gas has been expensive this year. Maybe there has been less deaths because cars are being built to be more safe. Perhaps, with more people buying smaller cars (due to high fuel prices) people are being hit with compact cars instead of big, heavy trucks. Maybe that has something to do with it? I don't know. Nobody does.
Frankly, I'd like to see at least a 50% reduction in traffic-related deaths following the enacting of such a law. Something significant. Even that would be a win/lose situation. On the one hand, less people would be dying in traffic accidents. On the other hand, I would be denied the pleasure I derive from being right.
Monday, December 10, 2007
My Car, My Hassles (Part 5)
I think it's time for an update on my car situation. For those of you new to this blog, you might want to read my previous four posts on my car-buying adventures, starting with Post 1.
Let's see, where were we. My car is in Ontario. It's been registered in Ontario. I have paid the Ontario provincial tax as well as the Nova Scotian provincial tasks.
Edgar is still dead.
When I left you in Part 4 I had sent in a form to the CRA to get my Nova Scotian provincial tax money back. The only thing the form requested from me was that I fill in the form, and send the original bill of sale with the form. I did that.
I sent the form to the CRA on May 4.
Four months later on August 16 I received a letter from the CRA entitled "Notice of (Re)Assessment GST/HST Rebate Application". They rejected my application for a rebate because I did not send in proof that the vehicle has been moved from Nova Scotia to Ontario.
It makes sense that they would want to see proof of movement. But, as the Bible says, "Ask and ye shall receive." (Matthew 7:7). But the CRA didn't ask. Until now. So I had to resubmit my rebate application, this time with proof that I registered the car in Ontario.
Oy.
On December 4 I received a letter from the CRA saying "We got your request for a (re)assessment, and we are looking at it. We will send you the results in another letter."
It seems to me that it would save time, and money to skip that step, and just send me the results. But, that's just me.
I'm still awaiting the results. I'll let you know what happens next.
UPDATE:
On December 14, over 8 months since this whole fiasco began, I received a cheque from CRA to reimburse my Nova Scotian tax.
That closes this story. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it, and way more than I enjoyed living it. The morale of the story: Don't buy a car in a province other than the one in which you live.
Let's see, where were we. My car is in Ontario. It's been registered in Ontario. I have paid the Ontario provincial tax as well as the Nova Scotian provincial tasks.
Edgar is still dead.
When I left you in Part 4 I had sent in a form to the CRA to get my Nova Scotian provincial tax money back. The only thing the form requested from me was that I fill in the form, and send the original bill of sale with the form. I did that.
I sent the form to the CRA on May 4.
Four months later on August 16 I received a letter from the CRA entitled "Notice of (Re)Assessment GST/HST Rebate Application". They rejected my application for a rebate because I did not send in proof that the vehicle has been moved from Nova Scotia to Ontario.
It makes sense that they would want to see proof of movement. But, as the Bible says, "Ask and ye shall receive." (Matthew 7:7). But the CRA didn't ask. Until now. So I had to resubmit my rebate application, this time with proof that I registered the car in Ontario.
Oy.
On December 4 I received a letter from the CRA saying "We got your request for a (re)assessment, and we are looking at it. We will send you the results in another letter."
It seems to me that it would save time, and money to skip that step, and just send me the results. But, that's just me.
I'm still awaiting the results. I'll let you know what happens next.
UPDATE:
On December 14, over 8 months since this whole fiasco began, I received a cheque from CRA to reimburse my Nova Scotian tax.
That closes this story. I hope you enjoyed reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it, and way more than I enjoyed living it. The morale of the story: Don't buy a car in a province other than the one in which you live.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Different Ways To Learn
Sometimes I wonder if there's any real such thing as intelligence or is it just our imagination?
Some of you may have witnessed someone with a "learning disability" have great difficulty in school. Eventually they take some psychological tests and they're told they have a "learning disability." Along with that, they're usually told how they have to learn. For some, they need to draw what they're learning. Some need to explain what they're learning to someone else. Or they need something else. When they find that something else, they're fine and can do quite well in school.
I have witnessed many examples of people who, by our public "education" system aren't very smart, and have low chance of success. But they found that they learn differently. Once they found out how they need to learn, and put their new learning techniques into practice, they become much more successful, and by our public "education" systems' standards, smart.
After seeing enough cases I have to wonder if there's any such thing as absolute intelligence, but rather different kinds of intelligences, and different learning styles. If you think you're stupid and incompetent you're probably not. You just haven't figured out how you learn. If you know someone who appears stupid and incompetent, they may well not be. They might have yet to learn how they learn.
You may have noticed I put "learning disability" in quotes. "Learning disability" implies that they're disabled; ie: unable to do something. I'd rather call it "learning differentability." They just learn in a different way than what the public "education" system thinks everyone should learn. You'll also noticed I put "education" in quotes. But that's for another post.
At this point you may think I have confused intelligence with school smarts. Right now the best measure of intelligence we have is the IQ test. IQ tests were originally developed to predict academic success in children. If you've taken enough IQ tests then you know they're just testing you in a small set of skills. You can improve upon those skills. Sometimes you see a problem solving question that you already know the answer to so you don't need to use any mental horsepower to solve it. This artificially boosts your test score. The more you practice those types of problems, the better you are at solving them. But your mental horsepower hasn't necessarily changed.
So IQ tests don't actually test your inherent mental horsepower, but your ability to solve certain types of problems. They're meant to predict academic success in a given teaching/learning model. However, it is noteworthy that many people with learning differentabilities have exceedingly high IQs. But I have no actual statistics to back that up. Just the availability heuristic.
Anyway, my point/theory is that there are multiple types of intelligences/learning models, not just one as generally imagined by the mass populace.
Some of you may have witnessed someone with a "learning disability" have great difficulty in school. Eventually they take some psychological tests and they're told they have a "learning disability." Along with that, they're usually told how they have to learn. For some, they need to draw what they're learning. Some need to explain what they're learning to someone else. Or they need something else. When they find that something else, they're fine and can do quite well in school.
I have witnessed many examples of people who, by our public "education" system aren't very smart, and have low chance of success. But they found that they learn differently. Once they found out how they need to learn, and put their new learning techniques into practice, they become much more successful, and by our public "education" systems' standards, smart.
After seeing enough cases I have to wonder if there's any such thing as absolute intelligence, but rather different kinds of intelligences, and different learning styles. If you think you're stupid and incompetent you're probably not. You just haven't figured out how you learn. If you know someone who appears stupid and incompetent, they may well not be. They might have yet to learn how they learn.
You may have noticed I put "learning disability" in quotes. "Learning disability" implies that they're disabled; ie: unable to do something. I'd rather call it "learning differentability." They just learn in a different way than what the public "education" system thinks everyone should learn. You'll also noticed I put "education" in quotes. But that's for another post.
At this point you may think I have confused intelligence with school smarts. Right now the best measure of intelligence we have is the IQ test. IQ tests were originally developed to predict academic success in children. If you've taken enough IQ tests then you know they're just testing you in a small set of skills. You can improve upon those skills. Sometimes you see a problem solving question that you already know the answer to so you don't need to use any mental horsepower to solve it. This artificially boosts your test score. The more you practice those types of problems, the better you are at solving them. But your mental horsepower hasn't necessarily changed.
So IQ tests don't actually test your inherent mental horsepower, but your ability to solve certain types of problems. They're meant to predict academic success in a given teaching/learning model. However, it is noteworthy that many people with learning differentabilities have exceedingly high IQs. But I have no actual statistics to back that up. Just the availability heuristic.
Anyway, my point/theory is that there are multiple types of intelligences/learning models, not just one as generally imagined by the mass populace.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Time For a New iPod
In today's article we see that the CD levy will soon be applied to iPods and other media.
For those who don't know about the CD levy, in Canada whenever you buy a blank CD you pay a hidden tax on it. The money from that tax goes to the recoding industry to compensate artists because it's presumed that the CDs will be used to copy music and give to people who haven't bought it. It's sort of like punishing your kids for the rules they may have broken that you didn't catch them for.
On the plus side, it's what exists to allow music downloading in Canada legal.
It's making it harder and harder to steal from the recording industry that so richly deserves it. I might have to upgrade my iPod before the tax is actually applied.
For those who don't know about the CD levy, in Canada whenever you buy a blank CD you pay a hidden tax on it. The money from that tax goes to the recoding industry to compensate artists because it's presumed that the CDs will be used to copy music and give to people who haven't bought it. It's sort of like punishing your kids for the rules they may have broken that you didn't catch them for.
On the plus side, it's what exists to allow music downloading in Canada legal.
It's making it harder and harder to steal from the recording industry that so richly deserves it. I might have to upgrade my iPod before the tax is actually applied.
Friday, July 13, 2007
The New Rules Are The Bomb!
You can now use words like "bomb" at the airport. You'll get a warning instead of being arrested.
But I think it has to be in certain context. "That concert last night was the bomb!" or "That movie really bombed." will get you a warning. "I have a bomb and I'm gonna blow everyone to kingdom-come!" will get you arrested. In the old days, all three would have gotten you arrested.
(To my international readers, this applies to Canada. It's probably not the same elsewhere.)
These rules still beg the question "How many acts of terrorism have been prevented by these laws?" I figure if someone is intent on getting a bomb on a plane, they're probably not going to mention it, regardless of the rules. You wouldn't want anyone to know your intentions.
On the other hand, if you were the unwilling participant you might want to be arrested. But, even without the law, you could mention it, get arrested (for having the bomb, not mentioning it).
But, on the plus side, I'm no longer afraid of seeing my friend, Jack, on a plane and yelling "Hi!" to him.
But I think it has to be in certain context. "That concert last night was the bomb!" or "That movie really bombed." will get you a warning. "I have a bomb and I'm gonna blow everyone to kingdom-come!" will get you arrested. In the old days, all three would have gotten you arrested.
(To my international readers, this applies to Canada. It's probably not the same elsewhere.)
These rules still beg the question "How many acts of terrorism have been prevented by these laws?" I figure if someone is intent on getting a bomb on a plane, they're probably not going to mention it, regardless of the rules. You wouldn't want anyone to know your intentions.
On the other hand, if you were the unwilling participant you might want to be arrested. But, even without the law, you could mention it, get arrested (for having the bomb, not mentioning it).
But, on the plus side, I'm no longer afraid of seeing my friend, Jack, on a plane and yelling "Hi!" to him.
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Cost of Environmental Friendliness
In Today's Article we read of a guy in North Carolina who modified his car to use vegetable oil as fuel. So, here's a guy who's trying to reduce his dependence on fossil fuels, and do us all a favor.
So, what happened? Got got fined by the state for $1000 and is expected to get another fine from the feds for avoiding motor fuel tax.
Does this not seem right to anyone else? It seems to me he should have gotten a tax break from the government over and above not paying the fuel tax. Not t'other way 'round.
So, what happened? Got got fined by the state for $1000 and is expected to get another fine from the feds for avoiding motor fuel tax.
Does this not seem right to anyone else? It seems to me he should have gotten a tax break from the government over and above not paying the fuel tax. Not t'other way 'round.
Monday, May 28, 2007
My Car, My Hassles (Part 4)
So where were we?
In last week's post the car was brought to Ontario and I am now in possession of it. I have a 30 day Nova Scotian trip permit allowing me to drive around. I have yet to register my car in Ontario. I found out that in order to get my Nova Scotian tax back, I have to apply to the CRA. This could take upwards of two months. They want my original Bill of Sale.
Edgar and Milo have something in common: they're both dead. And, for a change, instead of Chloe downloading schematics to Jack, Morris downloaded some schematics to Chloe.
So I'm ready to go and register my car with the MTO. So one day I leave work and head straight there. I take my number and wait. When I'm called up I explain the situation. The worker looks at my driver's licence, bill of sale, and all other pertinent documentation. She notices my birthday is coming up in a couple of months and asks if I'd like to renew my plates so they won't have to be renewed until next year.
Sure, why not?
Then she notices my driver's licence expires soon and asks if I'd like to renew that while I'm there.
Sure, why not?
The list of things I'm doing there, and therefore paying for, keeps piling up. But I might as well take care of it all in one shot. She takes my picture, gives me a temporary licence and tells me the real one will arrive in a few weeks. (Somehow, they can give you a photo licence in about 20 minutes in Nova Scotia, yet it takes Ontario weeks.)
She looks at my bill of sale, and tells me how much tax she'll be charging me. Fair enough. She gives me the final bill and I pay for it. She gives my plates, and even a couple of screw drivers so I can put the plates on my car. Then she informs me the trip permit given to me by the dealership was not valid outside of Nova Scotia. (Not what an earlier MTO employee told me.) But it doesn't matter now. I have the real plates. The car is registered and insured.
I head out to the car and put the rear plate on. In order to put the front plate on I had to first put a plate-holder onto the front of the car. The dealership gave me one of these plate-holders, including instructions on how to attach it. I read the instructions. "Put rivets here and here, and screw onto car there." I'm looking at the rivets and wondering how I get them to where they're supposed to be. I figure the Saturn dealership in Ottawa will know. So I call them.
"Oh, you'll need a rivet gun to attach the plate holder. Do you have a rivet gun?"
"No."
"Okay, come in tomorrow. We can do that for you."
So now I have to drive around without a front licence plate on. I wonder if I'll get pulled over? Why couldn't Saturn in Nova Scotia have done this, knowing I'd be out of province? Why couldn't the instructions have mentioned the need for a rivet gun?
The next day I start filling out the form to get my Nova Scotian tax refunded. But something odd is happening. None of the numbers are working out. There is no number on the bill of sale which when multiplied by 14% gives the amount of tax I paid in Nova Scotia. I'm very confused. I call Saturn in Nova Scotia and ask them to help me understand the bill of sale. It would figure that the person I needed to talk to is off sick, and it's Friday. But the person I did talk to was able to help me.
Here is the problem. The numbers on the Bill of Sale are out of order. The order they're listed is not the order in which they're calculated.
This is the order they're listed:
This is the order in which they're calculated:
Take all those things, add them up, and that gives a non-taxed price of the car. Then add the 14% tax on that number. And then add the License or Transfer Fee. Subtract the deposit, then you have the "Total Financed" cost, that which I owe them.
You may have noticed things were a little out of order. See, first they calculated tax, then added the "License or Transfer Fee", but when they listed it on the Bill of Sale they listed the tax second! They listed the "License or Transfer Fee" third.
As a result it's very confusing. The actual cost of the car on which the tax is calculated is not shown anywhere on the Bill of Sale. No wonder the person at the MTO was confused. I still am. (I was hoping she would know better, what with it being her job and all to do that sort of thing.)
So the next day as I was trying to figure out how much tax to get back from Nova Scotia, and comparing it to the tax I paid in Ontario I noticed something was wrong. The tax I paid in Ontario was calculated on the cost of the car plus the Nova Scotian tax. I was paying tax on tax. Worse! I was paying tax on tax that I was going to be getting back!
So I call the MTO. They tell me that once they collect the tax it's out of their hands and to get a refund I need to talk to the Ontario Ministry of Finance. So I call them. They point me towards a form to fill out and send in. Oh yes, and they will need my Bill of Sale.
"@#$@! Will you need the original?"
"No. A copy will do. Why would we need the original?"
"The CRA wanted the original so someone couldn't try to use the same receipt to get a refund multiple times on the same purchase."
"Yeah, but a fake would be easy to make."
"You should work for the CRA."
So then later on in the week I receive a letter from the Ontario Ministry of Finance making sure I was being honest and paying all the taxes I needed to. For some reason I laugh. I find this somehow ironic. I'm not sure how. Maybe it's because they owe me?
Anyway, this brings us to the end of the car stories, I hope. I have yet to receive any refunds, but it's still early. If anything else goes wrong I'm sure I'll write all about it here.
UPDATE: Something did go wrong. I wrote all about it in My Car, My Hassles (Part 5).
In last week's post the car was brought to Ontario and I am now in possession of it. I have a 30 day Nova Scotian trip permit allowing me to drive around. I have yet to register my car in Ontario. I found out that in order to get my Nova Scotian tax back, I have to apply to the CRA. This could take upwards of two months. They want my original Bill of Sale.
Edgar and Milo have something in common: they're both dead. And, for a change, instead of Chloe downloading schematics to Jack, Morris downloaded some schematics to Chloe.
So I'm ready to go and register my car with the MTO. So one day I leave work and head straight there. I take my number and wait. When I'm called up I explain the situation. The worker looks at my driver's licence, bill of sale, and all other pertinent documentation. She notices my birthday is coming up in a couple of months and asks if I'd like to renew my plates so they won't have to be renewed until next year.
Sure, why not?
Then she notices my driver's licence expires soon and asks if I'd like to renew that while I'm there.
Sure, why not?
The list of things I'm doing there, and therefore paying for, keeps piling up. But I might as well take care of it all in one shot. She takes my picture, gives me a temporary licence and tells me the real one will arrive in a few weeks. (Somehow, they can give you a photo licence in about 20 minutes in Nova Scotia, yet it takes Ontario weeks.)
She looks at my bill of sale, and tells me how much tax she'll be charging me. Fair enough. She gives me the final bill and I pay for it. She gives my plates, and even a couple of screw drivers so I can put the plates on my car. Then she informs me the trip permit given to me by the dealership was not valid outside of Nova Scotia. (Not what an earlier MTO employee told me.) But it doesn't matter now. I have the real plates. The car is registered and insured.
I head out to the car and put the rear plate on. In order to put the front plate on I had to first put a plate-holder onto the front of the car. The dealership gave me one of these plate-holders, including instructions on how to attach it. I read the instructions. "Put rivets here and here, and screw onto car there." I'm looking at the rivets and wondering how I get them to where they're supposed to be. I figure the Saturn dealership in Ottawa will know. So I call them.
"Oh, you'll need a rivet gun to attach the plate holder. Do you have a rivet gun?"
"No."
"Okay, come in tomorrow. We can do that for you."
So now I have to drive around without a front licence plate on. I wonder if I'll get pulled over? Why couldn't Saturn in Nova Scotia have done this, knowing I'd be out of province? Why couldn't the instructions have mentioned the need for a rivet gun?
The next day I start filling out the form to get my Nova Scotian tax refunded. But something odd is happening. None of the numbers are working out. There is no number on the bill of sale which when multiplied by 14% gives the amount of tax I paid in Nova Scotia. I'm very confused. I call Saturn in Nova Scotia and ask them to help me understand the bill of sale. It would figure that the person I needed to talk to is off sick, and it's Friday. But the person I did talk to was able to help me.
Here is the problem. The numbers on the Bill of Sale are out of order. The order they're listed is not the order in which they're calculated.
This is the order they're listed:
- Price of car
- Sales tax
- License or Transfer fee
- Extended Warranty
- Tire Environmental Fee
- Balance Due (Whatever that means.
- Balance Forward (I figure this and the Balance Due is because the Balance Due is the last thing in that column, and the Balance Forward is the first in the next column. It's the same number.)
- Less deposit
- Balance Owing
- Admin Fee
- Tire Warranty
- Total Financed (AKA: Final price. That which I owe them.)
This is the order in which they're calculated:
- Cost of the car
- Extended Warranty
- Tire Environmental Fee
- Admin Fee
- Tire Waranty
Take all those things, add them up, and that gives a non-taxed price of the car. Then add the 14% tax on that number. And then add the License or Transfer Fee. Subtract the deposit, then you have the "Total Financed" cost, that which I owe them.
You may have noticed things were a little out of order. See, first they calculated tax, then added the "License or Transfer Fee", but when they listed it on the Bill of Sale they listed the tax second! They listed the "License or Transfer Fee" third.
As a result it's very confusing. The actual cost of the car on which the tax is calculated is not shown anywhere on the Bill of Sale. No wonder the person at the MTO was confused. I still am. (I was hoping she would know better, what with it being her job and all to do that sort of thing.)
So the next day as I was trying to figure out how much tax to get back from Nova Scotia, and comparing it to the tax I paid in Ontario I noticed something was wrong. The tax I paid in Ontario was calculated on the cost of the car plus the Nova Scotian tax. I was paying tax on tax. Worse! I was paying tax on tax that I was going to be getting back!
So I call the MTO. They tell me that once they collect the tax it's out of their hands and to get a refund I need to talk to the Ontario Ministry of Finance. So I call them. They point me towards a form to fill out and send in. Oh yes, and they will need my Bill of Sale.
"@#$@! Will you need the original?"
"No. A copy will do. Why would we need the original?"
"The CRA wanted the original so someone couldn't try to use the same receipt to get a refund multiple times on the same purchase."
"Yeah, but a fake would be easy to make."
"You should work for the CRA."
So then later on in the week I receive a letter from the Ontario Ministry of Finance making sure I was being honest and paying all the taxes I needed to. For some reason I laugh. I find this somehow ironic. I'm not sure how. Maybe it's because they owe me?
Anyway, this brings us to the end of the car stories, I hope. I have yet to receive any refunds, but it's still early. If anything else goes wrong I'm sure I'll write all about it here.
UPDATE: Something did go wrong. I wrote all about it in My Car, My Hassles (Part 5).
Monday, May 21, 2007
My Car, My Hassles (Part 3)
So, where were we?
The new car I bought is still in Nova Scotia. I am in Ontario. I am trying to register the car. I am not actually any farther along than I was in last week's episode due to the gross incompetence of certain government workers (with the one possible exception of buck-passing. That seems to be a core-competency. They're quite good at that.)
Edgar is still dead. Milo has a hole in his head.
I had been sent through various levels of the MTO, then to The Ontario Ministry of Finance, then to the Nova Scotia Department of Finance and back to the MTO in a futile attempt to get my Nova Scotia tax money back.
On my second call to the Registry in Ontario I was told to call the Ministry of Finance. At this point my blood started to boil. I told them "I already called them. They sent me to the Nova Scotia Department of Finance, who told me to call you. They told me if I bought a car in Ontario and registered in in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia could get the tax from Ontario without me having to do anything. They suspected, as do I, that it wouldn't be any different to do things in reverse. I mean, why would it only work one way? Why would Nova Scotia work out that deal with Ontario, only to have Ontario not work out a similar deal with Nova Scotia?"
"I don't know anything about that. You'll have to talk to the Ontario Ministry of Finance about that."
GHAA!
So, I check the interweb. Somewhere on the MTO website there was something about calling the CRA. So I called them. Getting hold of them was a task in and of itself. The number I was calling was busy. Usually call centers don't give busy signals, they answer and put you in a queue. So this made me wonder if I was calling the right number. I called around different CRA numbers until I finally got someone working in the Child Benefit program. I was given a different number to call, which I did, then got transfered elsewhere. The person I got talked to had to pass me to her supervisor, so was able to help. He sent me to an online form that I had to print out and send to Charlottetown, PEI with my original Bill of Sale, not a copy, with no guarantee of them returning it. But I needed the Bill of Sale to register the car.
I asked her why a copy would not do. She said that way people wouldn't keep sending in copies to get tax returns for the same purchases. I asked why they didn't keep track of purchases somehow, like with cars, a VIN? Receipts are easy enough to fake with today's technology, surely they could think of a better way to prevent fraud than to make people give up original receipts. I suggested that policy be changed. She told me to write my local MP as the policy was written into law.
It then occurred to me that a problem with doing business with governments is that policies are often times written into law, so they have to followed, even when they make no sense. At least, in the private sector if a policy doesn't make sense, exceptions can be made.
(If I were prime minister, the first law I would try to have passed is that no policy or law would be enforceable unless the reasons for that policy or law were readily available.)
So, I didn't fill out the form right away for two reasons. First, I would do that when I was sure I wouldn't need the Bill of Sale anymore (after I registered the car) and second, the printer wasn't working.
In the meantime I had gotten the car insured, and my dad had driven the car up to Ontario for me, and I gave him his car back. I had been told by the MTO head office that the trip permit given to me by the dealership in Nova Scotia would be legal, so I didn't bother getting an Ontario Trip permit.
And, again I see this post is getting too long, so I'll have leave you hanging here. So join me next week, same car day, same car blog.
The new car I bought is still in Nova Scotia. I am in Ontario. I am trying to register the car. I am not actually any farther along than I was in last week's episode due to the gross incompetence of certain government workers (with the one possible exception of buck-passing. That seems to be a core-competency. They're quite good at that.)
Edgar is still dead. Milo has a hole in his head.
I had been sent through various levels of the MTO, then to The Ontario Ministry of Finance, then to the Nova Scotia Department of Finance and back to the MTO in a futile attempt to get my Nova Scotia tax money back.
On my second call to the Registry in Ontario I was told to call the Ministry of Finance. At this point my blood started to boil. I told them "I already called them. They sent me to the Nova Scotia Department of Finance, who told me to call you. They told me if I bought a car in Ontario and registered in in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia could get the tax from Ontario without me having to do anything. They suspected, as do I, that it wouldn't be any different to do things in reverse. I mean, why would it only work one way? Why would Nova Scotia work out that deal with Ontario, only to have Ontario not work out a similar deal with Nova Scotia?"
"I don't know anything about that. You'll have to talk to the Ontario Ministry of Finance about that."
GHAA!
So, I check the interweb. Somewhere on the MTO website there was something about calling the CRA. So I called them. Getting hold of them was a task in and of itself. The number I was calling was busy. Usually call centers don't give busy signals, they answer and put you in a queue. So this made me wonder if I was calling the right number. I called around different CRA numbers until I finally got someone working in the Child Benefit program. I was given a different number to call, which I did, then got transfered elsewhere. The person I got talked to had to pass me to her supervisor, so was able to help. He sent me to an online form that I had to print out and send to Charlottetown, PEI with my original Bill of Sale, not a copy, with no guarantee of them returning it. But I needed the Bill of Sale to register the car.
I asked her why a copy would not do. She said that way people wouldn't keep sending in copies to get tax returns for the same purchases. I asked why they didn't keep track of purchases somehow, like with cars, a VIN? Receipts are easy enough to fake with today's technology, surely they could think of a better way to prevent fraud than to make people give up original receipts. I suggested that policy be changed. She told me to write my local MP as the policy was written into law.
It then occurred to me that a problem with doing business with governments is that policies are often times written into law, so they have to followed, even when they make no sense. At least, in the private sector if a policy doesn't make sense, exceptions can be made.
(If I were prime minister, the first law I would try to have passed is that no policy or law would be enforceable unless the reasons for that policy or law were readily available.)
So, I didn't fill out the form right away for two reasons. First, I would do that when I was sure I wouldn't need the Bill of Sale anymore (after I registered the car) and second, the printer wasn't working.
In the meantime I had gotten the car insured, and my dad had driven the car up to Ontario for me, and I gave him his car back. I had been told by the MTO head office that the trip permit given to me by the dealership in Nova Scotia would be legal, so I didn't bother getting an Ontario Trip permit.
And, again I see this post is getting too long, so I'll have leave you hanging here. So join me next week, same car day, same car blog.
Monday, May 14, 2007
My Car, My Hassles (Part 2)
So, where we we?
I bought the car in Nova Scotia. The car is in Nova Scotia. I am in Ontario. The car is uninsured, and unregistered. Edgar is still dead, and now Milo is too.
Recall from last week's post that I had bought a brand new car in Nova Scotia and needed to register it in Ontario.
When I bought the car in Nova Scotia I had to, of course, pay the Nova Scotian RST. Nova Scotia tax works a little differently than Ontario tax. In Ontario you see the price of a product, and then you add 6% GST and add 8% PST that's added on. Both percentages are calculated on the list price, so you're not paying tax on the tax. So you pay a total of 14% tax.
In Nova Scotia there's only one tax called the HST. The HST is a 14% tax charged on the list price. I'm not 100% sure, but I think all of that tax is collected by the CRA. They, then, break it down into 6% GST and 8% PST and give that back to the Nova Scotia Department of Finance.
When you register a new car in a province other than where you bought it, you must pay the RST in the province where you're registering. So, having already paid the Nova Scotian tax, I now have to pay the Ontario tax. On a brand new car, that's not a small amount.
When I bought the car I was told by the dealership that Ontario and Nova Scotia probably had something worked out where I wouldn't have to recover the taxes myself, but the governments could work it out for themselves.
So I went on a mission to call the MTO to get the information I needed. I needed to know what I needed to do to get my car registered;
I went to the MTO website to find their number. There wasn't one single number. I could either call a private registration office, a regional office, or the head office. I called them in that order.
The private registration office in Embrun was useless. First, I was greeted with a French computer telling me what buttons to push for what options. Funny. I thought Ontario was an officially English province and I should have been greeted with English first, with the option to switch to French. Not t'other way around. Anyway...
When I finally got to a MTO employee I asked my questions. She told me I would not need an emissions test, but I would need the car to be safetied. I thought this sounded wrong, because it was a brand new car. There were 4 km on it! And it had just passed the Nova Scotian safety inspection. She told me she didn't know about Nova Scotian tax, but she couldn't do anything for me, except that she had to collect the Ontarian tax. I didn't get any further with her because she was a front-line worker, not a telephone answerer and she put me on hold. So I hung up and called the regional office.
The person working at the regional office told me I would not need an emissions test, but I might need a safety inspection for the car, and I should call the head office to find out. So I called the head office.
They told me the car would not need a safety inspection because it was brand new. I told her what I was told by the Registry, and she gave me her name and told me to tell them to call her if they wanted me to get the car safetied. Okay. Good. but how do I get my Nova Scotia tax money back? She told me that I would have to contact the Ontario Ministry of Finance.
So I called the Ministry of Finance and they told me that they had nothing to do with that. They only collected the Ontario tax, and I would need to contact the Nova Scotia Department of Finance.
The Nova Scotia Department of Finance said "if someone were to buy a new car in Ontario and paid PST there and then came to Nova Scotia to register it here, he would NOT have to pay PST here when he registered it. Nova Scotia would recover the PST from Ontario through its own ways." They went on to say that they couldn't be sure, but they suspected it was the same in Ontario, only reversed.
They asked who I had spoken with, and I told them the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. They said "don't talk to them but to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. He says the front line people will know." I guess he doesn't know the Registry is part of the Ministry of Transportation.
So, anyway, he was telling me to call a front line worker with the MTO which, if you recall, was the first place I called.
I had just come full circle.
Well, I can see this blog entry is long enough. So, I will have to pause here and leave you hungering for more. So join me next week, same car day, same car blog.
I bought the car in Nova Scotia. The car is in Nova Scotia. I am in Ontario. The car is uninsured, and unregistered. Edgar is still dead, and now Milo is too.
Recall from last week's post that I had bought a brand new car in Nova Scotia and needed to register it in Ontario.
When I bought the car in Nova Scotia I had to, of course, pay the Nova Scotian RST. Nova Scotia tax works a little differently than Ontario tax. In Ontario you see the price of a product, and then you add 6% GST and add 8% PST that's added on. Both percentages are calculated on the list price, so you're not paying tax on the tax. So you pay a total of 14% tax.
In Nova Scotia there's only one tax called the HST. The HST is a 14% tax charged on the list price. I'm not 100% sure, but I think all of that tax is collected by the CRA. They, then, break it down into 6% GST and 8% PST and give that back to the Nova Scotia Department of Finance.
When you register a new car in a province other than where you bought it, you must pay the RST in the province where you're registering. So, having already paid the Nova Scotian tax, I now have to pay the Ontario tax. On a brand new car, that's not a small amount.
When I bought the car I was told by the dealership that Ontario and Nova Scotia probably had something worked out where I wouldn't have to recover the taxes myself, but the governments could work it out for themselves.
So I went on a mission to call the MTO to get the information I needed. I needed to know what I needed to do to get my car registered;
- Would I need an emissions test?
- Would the car need to be safetied?
- What documents would I need to register the car?
- How can I recover the Nova Scotian Tax?
- Do I register a car before I insure it, or the other way around?
- Also, when I bought the car, the dealership gave me a temporary permit until I could register the car. It was good for 30 days. Would I need to get another trip permit from Ontario, or would the dealership's permit be good enough?
I went to the MTO website to find their number. There wasn't one single number. I could either call a private registration office, a regional office, or the head office. I called them in that order.
The private registration office in Embrun was useless. First, I was greeted with a French computer telling me what buttons to push for what options. Funny. I thought Ontario was an officially English province and I should have been greeted with English first, with the option to switch to French. Not t'other way around. Anyway...
When I finally got to a MTO employee I asked my questions. She told me I would not need an emissions test, but I would need the car to be safetied. I thought this sounded wrong, because it was a brand new car. There were 4 km on it! And it had just passed the Nova Scotian safety inspection. She told me she didn't know about Nova Scotian tax, but she couldn't do anything for me, except that she had to collect the Ontarian tax. I didn't get any further with her because she was a front-line worker, not a telephone answerer and she put me on hold. So I hung up and called the regional office.
The person working at the regional office told me I would not need an emissions test, but I might need a safety inspection for the car, and I should call the head office to find out. So I called the head office.
They told me the car would not need a safety inspection because it was brand new. I told her what I was told by the Registry, and she gave me her name and told me to tell them to call her if they wanted me to get the car safetied. Okay. Good. but how do I get my Nova Scotia tax money back? She told me that I would have to contact the Ontario Ministry of Finance.
So I called the Ministry of Finance and they told me that they had nothing to do with that. They only collected the Ontario tax, and I would need to contact the Nova Scotia Department of Finance.
The Nova Scotia Department of Finance said "if someone were to buy a new car in Ontario and paid PST there and then came to Nova Scotia to register it here, he would NOT have to pay PST here when he registered it. Nova Scotia would recover the PST from Ontario through its own ways." They went on to say that they couldn't be sure, but they suspected it was the same in Ontario, only reversed.
They asked who I had spoken with, and I told them the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. They said "don't talk to them but to the Registry of Motor Vehicles. He says the front line people will know." I guess he doesn't know the Registry is part of the Ministry of Transportation.
So, anyway, he was telling me to call a front line worker with the MTO which, if you recall, was the first place I called.
I had just come full circle.
Well, I can see this blog entry is long enough. So, I will have to pause here and leave you hungering for more. So join me next week, same car day, same car blog.
Monday, May 07, 2007
My Car, My Hassles (Part 1)
As many of you know, I recently bought a car. I will now begin out outline exactly how big of a pain this process has become.
As with everything in my life, it turns out to be a long story, so I will have to tell the story over multiple posts. I will try to make each post as exciting as an episode of 24!
Here's the situation. I'm an Ontario resident, but I am from Nova Scotia. My family is from Nova Scotia. I got my driver's licence in Nova Scotia when I was 16, and have been on my parent's insurance, in Nova Scotia, since then. Then when I moved to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, I had my licence changed to an Ontarian Licence. But I stayed on my parent's insurance policy.
For the last year my dad had lent me his Saturn(s) until I got on my feet and could get my own car. I went home at Easter time when dad told me two things which translated into "You need to get a car soon!" The first thing he told me was that our insurance company wanted to know when I was moving back to Nova Scotia. My licence number on my parent's insurance policy was an Ontario driver's licence number. So, my dad told them "Well, he recently got a job in Ottawa, so he won't be moving back to Nova Scotia in the foreseeable future." So they removed me from the policy, saying that they would give me a letter of experience if I needed one for the next year saying I have been insured.
So here I am, uninsured. Plus, Dad was going to come up to Ottawa, take back the car he had lent me to help my sister move home from North Bay for the summer. So I was going to lose my car soon. I needed to buy a car, and get insured.
The thing about buying a Saturn is that Saturn wants the process of buying a car to be as pain-free as possible. There is no haggling. You pay what the sticker says. Low pressure. I like that.
Of course, I did have a high pressure sale. Not so much from the Saturn people, but from circumstances.
Saturn was offering $0 down, 0% financing on their new cars. And, Saturn of Dartmouth was having some sales the week I was home. Now, the $0 down, 0% financing offer ended on Tuesday, April 11. I was coming back to Ottawa on the 12th. So by the time I could come back to Ottawa and look for other vehicles, the sale would be over. We found this out on Sunday, the 10th. Everything is closed on Sundays in Nova Scotia. That left me Monday and Tuesday to test-drive and make a decision.
On Monday I went around test driving different vehicles. Saturn made me a good offer on their car, with their sales, etc. I knew it would be a bit of a pain to transfer the car to Ontario, plus I wouldn't be able to drive it off the lot if I bought in Nova Scotia. For one thing it wouldn't be ready by time time I left, and another thing, I had no car insurance! But I was saving a ton of dough by buying it there and then.
I wondered if Saturn in Ottawa could match, or better, the offer made to me by Saturn of Dartmouth. If they could I would have bought over the phone. So I called Saturn in Ottawa and started to explain the deal I was getting from Saturn of Dartmouth. The salesman interrupted me and said "Tell you what. This sounds complicated, so here's my email address. Write me an email and I'll let you know either later today, or first thing tomorrow (Tuesday) morning."
I wrote up the email and sent it off to him. I didn't hear back that day. The next morning I didn't get a reply. But I did have to go to my parent's insurance broker to deal with insurance issues and request a letter of experience. When I got home early that afternoon, the email still hadn't arrived. So I called Saturn in Ottawa back and got the guy I talked to the day before. He was having email troubles. He had sent me a reply, but I never got it. So he asked me to send mine again and he'd reply right away again. Unfortunately, he wasn't free to talk at that moment because he was in a meeting that would last until 4:00pm (5:00pm Nova Scotian time.) So I waited until 5:30 and still hadn't received a reply. So I called back. At 5:30, I had two and a half hours before Saturn of Dartmouth closed and the sweet deal was over. The man I had dealt with had left for the day. So I talked to the next available salesman. I requested an answer right away because I didn't have time for email hassles.
I explained the situation to him, and unfortunately Saturn in Ottawa couldn't match the sales. I was going to save lots of money by buying in Nova Scotia. Then, in three weeks when dad was going to fly to Ontario, instead he would drive my car and we would do a car swap. He would give me my car, and I would return his car to him.
I asked Saturn of Dartmouth about registration and tax issues. Saturn of Dartmouth didn't know for sure, but said when I registered the car in Ontario the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario would probably be able to recover the RST directly from the Nova Scotian government.
So I decided to buy the car in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I got a blue 2007 Saturn Ion 2 midlevel. I bought the car at about 7:00-7:30 on the Tuesday night. Another 30 - 60 minutes, and the deal would have been over. While I wasn't able to drive the car off the lot, I did drive it around the lot. The next morning I got on a plane , flew back to Ottawa, and let the hassles begin, which I will get to next week.
Find out what happens in next week's exciting episode of "My Car, My Hassles". Same car day, same car blog.
As with everything in my life, it turns out to be a long story, so I will have to tell the story over multiple posts. I will try to make each post as exciting as an episode of 24!
Here's the situation. I'm an Ontario resident, but I am from Nova Scotia. My family is from Nova Scotia. I got my driver's licence in Nova Scotia when I was 16, and have been on my parent's insurance, in Nova Scotia, since then. Then when I moved to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, I had my licence changed to an Ontarian Licence. But I stayed on my parent's insurance policy.
For the last year my dad had lent me his Saturn(s) until I got on my feet and could get my own car. I went home at Easter time when dad told me two things which translated into "You need to get a car soon!" The first thing he told me was that our insurance company wanted to know when I was moving back to Nova Scotia. My licence number on my parent's insurance policy was an Ontario driver's licence number. So, my dad told them "Well, he recently got a job in Ottawa, so he won't be moving back to Nova Scotia in the foreseeable future." So they removed me from the policy, saying that they would give me a letter of experience if I needed one for the next year saying I have been insured.
So here I am, uninsured. Plus, Dad was going to come up to Ottawa, take back the car he had lent me to help my sister move home from North Bay for the summer. So I was going to lose my car soon. I needed to buy a car, and get insured.
The thing about buying a Saturn is that Saturn wants the process of buying a car to be as pain-free as possible. There is no haggling. You pay what the sticker says. Low pressure. I like that.
Of course, I did have a high pressure sale. Not so much from the Saturn people, but from circumstances.
Saturn was offering $0 down, 0% financing on their new cars. And, Saturn of Dartmouth was having some sales the week I was home. Now, the $0 down, 0% financing offer ended on Tuesday, April 11. I was coming back to Ottawa on the 12th. So by the time I could come back to Ottawa and look for other vehicles, the sale would be over. We found this out on Sunday, the 10th. Everything is closed on Sundays in Nova Scotia. That left me Monday and Tuesday to test-drive and make a decision.
On Monday I went around test driving different vehicles. Saturn made me a good offer on their car, with their sales, etc. I knew it would be a bit of a pain to transfer the car to Ontario, plus I wouldn't be able to drive it off the lot if I bought in Nova Scotia. For one thing it wouldn't be ready by time time I left, and another thing, I had no car insurance! But I was saving a ton of dough by buying it there and then.
I wondered if Saturn in Ottawa could match, or better, the offer made to me by Saturn of Dartmouth. If they could I would have bought over the phone. So I called Saturn in Ottawa and started to explain the deal I was getting from Saturn of Dartmouth. The salesman interrupted me and said "Tell you what. This sounds complicated, so here's my email address. Write me an email and I'll let you know either later today, or first thing tomorrow (Tuesday) morning."
I wrote up the email and sent it off to him. I didn't hear back that day. The next morning I didn't get a reply. But I did have to go to my parent's insurance broker to deal with insurance issues and request a letter of experience. When I got home early that afternoon, the email still hadn't arrived. So I called Saturn in Ottawa back and got the guy I talked to the day before. He was having email troubles. He had sent me a reply, but I never got it. So he asked me to send mine again and he'd reply right away again. Unfortunately, he wasn't free to talk at that moment because he was in a meeting that would last until 4:00pm (5:00pm Nova Scotian time.) So I waited until 5:30 and still hadn't received a reply. So I called back. At 5:30, I had two and a half hours before Saturn of Dartmouth closed and the sweet deal was over. The man I had dealt with had left for the day. So I talked to the next available salesman. I requested an answer right away because I didn't have time for email hassles.
I explained the situation to him, and unfortunately Saturn in Ottawa couldn't match the sales. I was going to save lots of money by buying in Nova Scotia. Then, in three weeks when dad was going to fly to Ontario, instead he would drive my car and we would do a car swap. He would give me my car, and I would return his car to him.
I asked Saturn of Dartmouth about registration and tax issues. Saturn of Dartmouth didn't know for sure, but said when I registered the car in Ontario the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario would probably be able to recover the RST directly from the Nova Scotian government.
So I decided to buy the car in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I got a blue 2007 Saturn Ion 2 midlevel. I bought the car at about 7:00-7:30 on the Tuesday night. Another 30 - 60 minutes, and the deal would have been over. While I wasn't able to drive the car off the lot, I did drive it around the lot. The next morning I got on a plane , flew back to Ottawa, and let the hassles begin, which I will get to next week.
Find out what happens in next week's exciting episode of "My Car, My Hassles". Same car day, same car blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)