The Ontario Superior Court upheld the rule that Canadians expatriates lose their right to vote after living outside the country for more than five years. I tend to agree with this, but am open to argument- do we have skin in the game?
I regret not voting for the last 20 yrs cause I’m sure if I did, Canada would be a utopian society. Sorry,guys.
I can see both sides of the argument, but too be honest, I don’t care much about voting.
Its like Animal Farm, picking a side is just two faces of the same thing, no real change happens.
I support the notion that Canadians living outside the country for that long shouldn’t be allowed to vote. What we’d be voting on no longer affects us in the same way it does other Canadians living there so it seems a little unfair. I don’t really care either way, but I kinda think only current taxpayers should be allowed to vote.
[quote]If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.[/quote] – Mark Twain
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. It may even be a good thing in its own, small way because the fewer people who vote the more obvious it becomes who’s really running things.
[quote=“Winston Smith”][quote]If voting made any difference they wouldn’t let us do it.[/quote] – Mark Twain
I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. It may even be a good thing in its own, small way because the fewer people who vote the more obvious it becomes who’s really running things.[/quote]
Some have suggested that voting is nothing more that a poll to see who is buying into the BS they are feeding us. When people start to figure shit out , you can bet our corporate sponsored leaders will adjust their tactics accordingly in conjunction in dealing with alternative media sources. ie the internet. That may sound a bit too Orwellianish to some but welcome to Globalism where they are more equal to us.
To the extent that voting in federal elections in Canada is tied to being a resident in a specific riding, I think the reasonable thing to do is to make it open to citizens who are residents or who have residential ties to a riding. This is not something that can be determined with a five year cut-off. I think the Ontario court is off here and I imagine its decision will eventually get challenged.
Guy
I’ll be voting against the Conservatives because of this issue. In most Western locales, expats can vote for 15 years (e.g., UK) or indefinitely. Criminals can vote, but not expats who may have substantial ties or investments? This combined with the local crass Tim Hortons style of populism/nativism that the Conservatives seems to be dishing out these days. They want to have the right to revoke citizenship? The right to tell us what countries we can travel to or not? 
:no-no:
Instead of pissing off immigrant voters or internationalist voters, they should be vetting candidates! 
[quote=“ChewDawg”]I’ll be voting against the Conservatives because of this issue. In most Western locales, expats can vote for 15 years (e.g., UK) or indefinitely. Criminals can vote, but not expats who may have substantial ties or investments? This combined with the local crass Tim Hortons style of populism/nativism that the Conservatives seems to be dishing out these days. They want to have the right to revoke citizenship? The right to tell us what countries we can travel to or not? :no-no:
Instead of pissing off immigrant voters or internationalist voters, they should be vetting candidates!
nydailynews.com/news/politic … -1.2350811[/quote]
Yeah, and if you watch the video- not that you should- he wasn’t caught short or anything. He looked to see if the homeowner was watching, deliberately pissed in the cup, then dumped it into the sink. Like people who act like assholes to restaurant servers- hey guys, these people are back there alone with your food.
As NDP leader Tom Mulcair said, just another example of Harper’s trickle-down economics.
The fact that you may have investments there is irrelevant. You could invest in India right now, or Russia, or the UK. Are you suggesting that you should also be allowed to vote in their elections if you have enough investment money on the line? I can’t see that slippery slope going anywhere positive. This is a global economy with few restrictions on how and where you can make investments. That shouldn’t have anything to do with voting rights.
People can invest in anything they want, but if they want to vote they should be a resident who pays taxes. Why should I get a vote? Being born in Canada was not my choice. I did however choose not to live there and not pay taxes there. Seems only fair that the choices I did make outweigh the happenstance of my birth. 
Not irrelevant at all. If you have investments in Canada then for tax purposes you are a resident. If you are paying taxes, are considered a resident and are a citizen what possible reason is there for denying you the vote?
I am not a resident of Canada, I don’t pay taxes and I don’t have any investments in Canada, can I vote? I think that it would be a violation of my human rights if I cannot. That’s how I see it anyway…
Not sure who you’re addressing but for my part in this thread, I said if you are not a resident and do not pay taxes, you should not get to vote. I think it’s about as clear as could be that if you are a citizen, a resident, and a tax payer, then yeah of course you get a vote. Doesn’t that go without saying? 
I should be able to live wherever I want and get benefits from whichever country I want because I feel that I have these rights. They are my human rights. You have to respect them.
Not sure who you’re addressing but for my part in this thread, I said if you are not a resident and do not pay taxes, you should not get to vote. [/quote]
Sigh. You mentioned that having investments in Canada was irrelevant to your right to vote. No it’s not because residency (and hence the right to vote) is determined by Revenue Canada based upon a citizen’s ties to Canada. Those ties can include investments, property, bank accounts, student loan payments, and even a drivers license. If you have lots of investments in Canada (and are upfront about this with revenue canada) then you are almost certainly a resident and have the right to vote. I thought you would know this.
You should have been after Chewie for suggesting that a Canadian can live abroad as a non-resident (to avoid double taxation) and still have investments in Canada: and furthermore, that those undeclared investments should count in the argument that he has the right to vote. 
I find it unlikely that Chewie was using “investments” or “ties” as he said to mean the type that automatically makes a person a tax paying resident and clearly an eligible voter of a country. His comments, and the whole thread for that matter wouldn’t make any sense if he were. I stated several times, you couldn’t have missed it, that I was talking about non residents and non tax payers and referred to myself as an example. There are ways a person can invest in a country or have a vested interest in the policy of the country and not be a resident or tax payer. I have ties to Canada, I have investments and bank accounts, I’m a Canadian citizen, but I can’t think of a reason why I should be allowed to vote. Haven’t lived there in ages…
I find it unlikely that Chewie was using “investments” or “ties” as he said to mean the type that automatically makes a person a tax paying resident and clearly an eligible voter of a country. His comments, and the whole thread for that matter wouldn’t make any sense if he were. [/quote]
You are a trusting man. But of course it makes sense. Many people are unaware of the rules, or quietly flout them. Taiwan makes that very easy. Lots of expats here who should have residency status (and hence be paying taxes) don’t.
It’s also make sense in the Taiwan context as the reason most of us declare non-residency is because our country does not recognize Taiwan and hence if we maintain Canadian residency we would be subject to double taxation. By losing the vote we lose the ability to affect that policy for better or worse. I don’t accept the argument that if I want a say in foreign policy decisions that directly affect me then I must be willing to subject myself to a tax burden higher than that of other citizens.
Btw, I am curious, truly, what investments one can have in Canada that could not potentially make you a resident for tax purposes. When I declared non-residency, revenue canada was clear that the final decision was theirs. Hence I believe that any investment potentially leads you open to being declared a resident and liable for taxes. Recently, I discovered that even to re-apply for a drivers license I would have to declare myself a resident. Being a non-resident is a pretty clear break.
I am a resident and live in Canada. When I lived in Taiwan I was a non resident as I had minimal ties as most people do living away in their early 20s.
The CRA determines residency on a case by case basis but the rules are pretty straightforward. If you have kept cars, houses, holiday homes, have multiple bank cards (one is ok), receive family allowance and other benefits, have credit cards etc. you will likely be deemed a resident for tax purposes. You have to basically show them that you are leaving and have no intention of ever returning. Many Canadians in Taiwan, myself included back in the day, easily fit into this category as I lived away for almost a decade, had no intention of returning, and only returned after I got married and had kids. I kept no ties except for my bank card. I had no investments, only debt. It was only after marrying that my situation improved In fact, I accidentally used an old health care card once (to get a vaccination once on a trip home) a few months after becoming a non-resident and was charged money because of my non-resident status. In the eyes of the authorities, I was a non-resident. Of course, at the time, I was thoroughly worried about my status because there is so much disinformation out there. During this time I didn’t vote as most people in their 20s don’t, especially when they’re out of the country.
By the way, most accountants recommend not getting a CRA non-residency opinion, especially if it is clear cut (as most cases in Taiwan would be–e.g., economic migrants in their 20s with minimal or no ties). I was told this later in life when planning a possible move overseas in my late 30s (not to Taiwan). Try to get non-residency in your 30s or 40s (when you have considerably more assets) and it is a lot tougher to divest. Certainly not nearly as easy as when you are younger or when you are a poor uni grad.
At this later stage in life, it is recommended to get professional advice. You have to sell or rent your property at arms length (i.e. with a property management company), freeze RRSP/RESPs/TFSAs–you can keep your investments but just not contribute any more), keep minimal bank accounts, and it is often good to get a good accountant. You can still have investments and be a non-resident, you just have to make sure you pay the 25% withholding tax on your tax return on any capital gains. It is slightly different with a TFSA (where there is no tax). For TFSAs, you just have to freeze them and you won’t get any new annual contribution room if you are a non-resident. But the space/contributions you made when you were a resident? Fine to keep and freeze. I haven’t been an expat recently, but was considering a move recently and learned a lot more about the issue after seeking professional advice from an accounting firm.
But in your early 20s when you are keeping one bank card and have more student debt than assets of any kind? Not worth going through the process of getting an opinion.
However, back to voting, I still think non-residents should get a vote. Wayne Gretzky or Donald Sutherland have contributed to Canada more than criminal prisoners and yet can’t vote while the latter can. Non residents may hold property in Canada, have frozen investments in the country, and have contributed greatly to the country (such as being a world class hockey player or actor).
How come UK sets the bar at 15 years away (not 5 years)? Or other European countries, with the exception of Ireland, that have no restrictions at all? What about the US? There are Democrats and Republicans Abroad organizations overseas where voting amongst long term expats is celebrated (because the US exempts income tax on overseas expats that make below 115K or close to that bracket). How would they feel about losing their right to vote after 5 years? They’d be rightly pissed! What about the Taiwanese? They come back from the US and mainland China to vote in droves. Imagine if Taiwan tried to eliminate non-resident voting! Would never happen because they vote KMT. Harper sees non-residents as not being conservative and that is why this move is so political and not based on policy norms. In others words, setting the overseas limit to five years away is bad policy, is totally political, and goes against most Western norms, especially US and European ones. It also goes against Asian democratic norms.
I like a lot of what the Tories have done, but this? Idiotic and appealing to the nativist rural Tim Hortons base. Same with their “stripping of citizenship policies,” telling Canadians where they can and can’t travel and their hard stance on refugees. They’ve made such inroads into the immigrant vote and now they adopt such dumb policies? As an urban Red Tory possibly considering an NDP vote, I am reminded of Joe Clark’s stance on Vietnamese refugees after the fall of Saigon when leading the PCs in the late 70s. Quite the contrast to Harper.
I think you would be incredibly sad if the US did the same thing that Harper has done. If American expats living abroad for more than five years lost the right to vote, there would be a huge outcry from American expats and overseas business people that remain attuned to political developments stateside. In fact, I’d venture to guess that most U.S. lobbying organizations abroad would fight such measures. There wouldn’t be Democrats Abroad parties we could crash I must say that the Republicans Abroad shindig back in 2004 and crashing the Democrats Abroad party afterwards was quite enjoyable indeed. Lots of sad Kerry/Silk Pony Edwards supporters crying in their beers :roflmao:
As ChewDawg said in a lot more detail, there are all kinds of investments a person could have in Canada that don’t make you a resident. You’re allowed to move to and live in a new country, you don’t have to clear your life out and start from scratch as you seem to be implying. Continuing to amass new domestic investments may in many cases make you a resident in the eyes of Revenue Canada, but what makes you think that just because you have investments and ties to Canada and a clear vested interest in the future direction of policy (which is what sparked this tangent) that you are automatically a resident and tax payer for life? Pretty much every country in the world has tax and withholding treaties with each other. In this global economy, it’s not that difficult at all to pay taxes where necessary, but to only be a tax paying resident in a single country. Since the title of the thread was Expats, I’m assuming that means residency in Taiwan, or at least somewhere NOT Canada right?
A resident and tax payer in Taiwan, with investments and ties in Canada, and not being allowed to vote in Canada. That’s how I read the topic anyway…