XPost: can.general, can.politics, ott.general   
   From: Canuck57@nospam.com   
      
   On 31/05/2011 8:57 AM, Duncan Patton a Campbell wrote:   
   > On Tue, 31 May 2011 06:21:04 -0700, Alan Baggett wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >> The teachers work at a school on the Waterhen Lake First Nation, near   
   >> Meadow Lake, about 300 kilometres north of Saskatoon.   
   >>   
   >> Some of them live in accommodations supplied by the reserve and pay $250   
   >> per month in rent, a rate that is below market level for housing in   
   >> nearby communities such as Meadow Lake.   
   >>   
   >   
   > That's no benefit, that's a hardship.  And after the debacle with   
   > those Residential Schools, there's no question that it's the GoC's   
   > responsibility to deliver education to people *in situ*.   
   >   
   > Dhu   
      
   Not at all hardship, I am sure the salary is healthy.   
      
   To me (my opinion) it depends on something not fully quantified.  If a   
   teacher has a real full time qualified residence off reserve, say 200   
   miles away, that is owns a HOME that they live in and call home for   
   taxes, banking, licenses, and don't rent it out or anything, and use the   
   reserve residence to avoid travel, say M/T/W/T type, then it should not   
   be taxed or maybe even deductible as an employment expense.   
      
   But if it is their real residence, taxable benefit.  You bet.   
      
   But then, I would tax natives too.  I don't subscribe to racial,   
   cultural or location biases in taxation.  Laws should be exactly the   
   same for everyone.  The rest is racism or discrimination.  Rent there   
   should be like rent anywhere.   
      
   --   
   Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)