Murray Edwards Changes Residency from Calgary to London

[4X4]

Originally Posted by combustiblefuel

I get your point and respect it. It was the only object of value I owned. When I posted about that was back in what 2014??? It's been sold to another person 10 months ago. So whats your point???

That they only object I ever owned of true value was 9000 to make but sold at an extreme lost of 70% that I can't make a comment of a man whos net worth is 2 billion can't afford 25 million?

Or is your cage rattled because he is a majority owner of our beloved Flames and is above critisism because of this fact?

I don't really get your point about hqving a bike I really couldn't really afoord 2 years ago then compare me to a multi BILLIONAIRE.

I get you were trying to make me sound condescending and no different then Mr Murray but it really dosen't work to compare a brake ass guy that had one nice thing in his life that he was proud of for a short time to a guy that is a multi BILLIONAIRE that could wipe his ass with hundred dollar bills and not even wince at it.

No, I just think it's ridiculous that some peoples money is worth more than others. Your $9000 bike is a prized possession, but Edwards' money is something that should be carved up for public good?

Hey, if he robbed that money from the Canadian Mint, I'd be on your side, but he made that money employing Albertans and Canadians, most of which pay taxes. I don't see how some people are getting so pissed off that a guy that has actually contributed so much to the local and regional economy, only to get an extra few inches of dick put up his ass, is a bad guy for finding a better place to chill. I mean, you may think it's extravagant to have hundred dollar bills to wipe your ass with, but you own a bike that is so much more expensive than most people on Earth own? So what's fair? My truck is worth maybe ten grand. Do I owe it to the poor and downtrodden, or am I a victim of my father who owns an $80,000 vehicle?

It's just so pathetic to read people who think that just because someone has money, they either owe it to the greater good, or else they are greedy a-holes.

[Schultzie]

Originally Posted by 4X4

No, I just think it's ridiculous that some peoples money is worth more than others. Your $9000 bike is a prized possession, but Edwards' money is something that should be carved up for public good?

Hey, if he robbed that money from the Canadian Mint, I'd be on your side, but he made that money employing Albertans and Canadians, most of which pay taxes. I don't see how some people are getting so pissed off that a guy that has actually contributed so much to the local and regional economy, only to get an extra few inches of dick put up his ass, is a bad guy for finding a better place to chill. I mean, you may think it's extravagant to have hundred dollar bills to wipe your ass with, but you own a bike that is so much more expensive than most people on Earth own? So what's fair? My truck is worth maybe ten grand. Do I owe it to the poor and downtrodden, or am I a victim of my father who owns an $80,000 vehicle?

It's just so pathetic to read people who think that just because someone has money, they either owe it to the greater good, or else they are greedy a-holes.

They might not owe it to anyone in a legal sense, but it's absolutely fair to question/disagree with their decision to hoard obscene amounts of material wealth from a moral and ethical standpoint.

"It is absurd and disgraceful for one to live magnificently and luxuriously when so many are hungry. If one who takes the clothing off another is a thief, why give any other name to one who can clothe the naked and refuses to do so? The bread that you store up belongs to the hungry; the cloak that lies in your chest belongs to the naked; the gold that you have hidden in the ground belongs to the poor. ...How can I make you realize the misery of the poor? How can I make you understand that your wealth comes from their weeping?" - Basil the Great

"Non-possession is allied to non-stealing. A thing not originally stolen must nevertheless be classified as stolen property, if we possess it without needing it. ...The rich have superfluous store of things which they do not need and which are, therefore, neglected and wasted, while millions are starved to death for want of sustenance."
- Gandhi

"I don't think there is such a thing as an intelligent mega-rich person. For who with a fine mind can look out upon this world and hoard what can nourish a thousand souls."
- Kabir

If actively choosing to possess or hoard more of something than one needs simply for the sake of possessing it doesn't fit within your definition of greed, what does?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Alberta WAS the most favourable tax regime in North America, I believe. I was at a luncheon a few years ago where Ken King was using this argument as one of the reasons why high-income NHL players would want to play in Calgary. The 2016 changes in taxation and, potentially, more taxation will make that advantage disappear.

That was true for single hockey players making millions of dollars. However, families making a decent middle class income, and owning a house, play far less taxes in most states. That always seemed wrong to me, and seemed like it was in need of some correction.

[OMG!WTF!]

This may or may not apply to Edwards, but generally speaking how much of a typical paycheck is subject to variability and loss? None. How much of a float does the average paycheck earner need to keep his/her money and business safely managed? None. People with fortunes spread out across multiple companies in multiple sectors like Edwards are subject to massive swings in wealth and earnings and need proportionally more available to stay solvent. While his personal fortune may not be at risk in his corporate life any more, it certainly was at some point and his net worth currently is and always will be. He lost tens of millions with a couple pen strokes. I guess bike chain grease costs a bit but tire air is free.

I think CNRL still pays dividends too. If the royalties aren't enough, there's always shares available. Although a wicked fast bike is pretty sweet too.

[GaiJin]

Speaking of hockey in a tax discussion, what do visiting players pay when they come to play here? Anything? I know several US states and cities make players pay tax for playing within their borders.

[the_only_turek_fan]

How can you just move to England? Is he a dual citizen?

Work visa?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

How can you just move to England? Is he a dual citizen?

Work visa?

Honestly, if you're wealthy, you can move pretty much anywhere. Immigration restrictions are to prevent usage of the social safety net.

[bossy22]

This is a good thing. The money he saves will help cover the cost of CalgaryNEXT.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

So, my primitive math wasn't really as off as CHL had suggested.

I wasn't challenging your math, but your understanding of how tax liability works as between Canada and the UK. Locke just gave you taxable income calculated according to Canadian tax rules. He did not give you any information as to who would get what portion of that money, because he can't do that based on the information available. Maybe Edwards's income is Canadian source income. Surely a lot of it is earned through Canadian resident corporations, which still pay tax at the corporate level. Are his shares those of companies that own significant Canadian real property?

I'm just saying your initial comment is clearly wrong. Just because someone becomes resident in another jurisdiction does not mean they stop paying tax to the Receiver General. It doesn't even mean Canada ends up with a significantly smaller share, though of course it might.

Say, he does receive most of his income as dividends, even then Alberta and Canada stand to lose tens of millions of revenue from his personal taxes; is that not a fair assumption?

Nope. Not without a lot more information. But it's fair to assume that he would be doing this to reduce tax paid, and that some portion of his tax paid will be going to England instead of Canada.

[White Out 403]

This is why I'm starting to care less and less about politics and the future of western society. Greedy ####s like this and the race to the bottom. Ya, no one likes to pay taxes but we sure all like paved roads, police, education and healthcare dont we?

America is already, essentially, a plutocracy. We aren't too far behind.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Violator

Any confirmation he's actually getting payed a salary right know?

Pretty sure he was paid a salary of $1 from CNRL last year. Not to suggest he isn't getting paid by other means (bonus, dividends), but as CEO of a public company, those numbers are public.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

...
Nope. Not without a lot more information. But it's fair to assume that he would be doing this to reduce tax paid, and that some portion of his tax paid will be going to England instead of Canada.

Corsi, I generally respect your argumentation, but sometimes (often) I think you argue just for sake of arguing.

Let's look at the facts logically:

1. Changing residency for tax purposes is a significant and very expensive undertaking. For people with sophisticated financial structures (family trusts, companies, personal assets etc.) changing residency may also trigger additional and potentially very high expenses.
2. For someone so deeply connected to Alberta in pretty much everything, to undertake this change, tax savings must be worthwhile and commensurate with the cost and effort.
3. Is it not realistic to assume that these cost savings should amount to tens of millions for a billionaire (otherwise, there's no point)?
4. So, unless Edwards is doing this as a political gesture to stick it to Notley (which I dismiss as implausible), then he is not doing it just to save a few hundred thousand bucks, which would be a pocket change for him.
5. And, if the above is reasonable, then is it not correct to assume that those tens of millions of dollars he saves because of this change of residency are NOT going to Alberta and Canada even if we don't know anything at all about his personal finances?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

In this case you might be right about arguing for the sake of it - I initially recoiled at what was a clearly wrong statement about how income tax works, and have now been defending that against further misunderstandings on your part for a couple of pages now. I do think he's doing this to save some money (not necessarily entirely income tax related, but probably a lot to do with income taxes). However, it doesn't follow from that that Canada suddenly loses all of its Murray Edwards related tax revenue, or anything close to that. That was my problem. I feel like we're going back and forth over this for no reason.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

This is why I'm starting to care less and less about politics and the future of western society. Greedy ####s like this and the race to the bottom. Ya, no one likes to pay taxes but we sure all like paved roads, police, education and healthcare dont we?

America is already, essentially, a plutocracy. We aren't too far behind.

Lol. Yeah we all like paved roads. If you added up all the tax revenue you have paid in your life, would you have even paid for the asphalt on your street? Edwards has paid for more roads than he will ever drive on, and he will continue to pay ($100s of millions per year) while he resides in London, where he is not even using Canadian services. Maybe the "greedy ####s" are the people who want all their roads/hospitals paid for despite not contributing enough taxes to cover their use?

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

...I feel like we're going back and forth over this for no reason.

As long as you concur that he is doing this to save a lot of money (i.e. in the tens of millions magnitude) and that Alberta and Canada are losing the money he is saving as a result.

[sharkov]

Perhaps Murray Edwards just wants to live in a more international city

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Lol. Yeah we all like paved roads. If you added up all the tax revenue you have paid in your life, would you have even paid for the asphalt on your street? Edwards has paid for more roads than he will ever drive on, and he will continue to pay ($100s of millions per year) while he resides in London, where he is not even using Canadian services. Maybe the "greedy ####s" are the people who want all their roads/hospitals paid for despite not contributing enough taxes to cover their use?

A short sighted view. Whatever. Like I said, we should keep going like this and see how things are in 50 years when the wealth is so hoarded amongst a few families it can like Downton Abbey again. Cant wait! But, at least this time, the servants and riff raff can have sweet TV's on credit.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

A short sighted view. Whatever. Like I said, we should keep going like this and see how things are in 50 years when the wealth is so hoarded amongst a few families it can like Downton Abbey again. Cant wait! But, at least this time, the servants and riff raff can have sweet TV's on credit.

As long as it becomes socially acceptable to have a governess and see your children for 1 hour per day after dinner, I am on board. Sign me up for this magnificent future! And a butler!

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Perhaps Murray Edwards just wants to live in a more international city

Seriously, if I had 2 billion I'd be back in London in a heartbeat, art, culture, food just living in a proper effing city.
I love Canada and Vancouver but this isn't a city it's a provincial town, there is no comparison to a London or Tokyo

[CaptainYooh]

Wealthy people can live almost anywhere in the developed countries without changing residency for tax purposes.