So this is the agreement............what a joke or is it just me ...again?

I feel as confused as this goat.

http://www.wimp.com/chickengoat/

Put me out to pasture

So about 17% off the retro gross amount. Interest and going forward do not count for any calculation I see. So the 7.5% is just wording things to look better as we will still be paying about 17% on the retro which is alot of money.

At the bare minimum we should have got interest/top up to cover this expense. That's what's bothering me the 3% and 3.27% does not even come close to covering the lawyer fees at 15%. I see this as a loss of money that I don't want to eat. Now if the interest was compounded....then the extra money would come close to paying the legal fees. Thats my first bitch for tonite the next is we should only be paying taxes at the rate we would have been paying years ago if we got the money, period. Very simple very easy and easy to swallow. The devil is in the details and I need some details so straighten my head about all this.

rags yes but when i recived retro before i would have had to pay penelties and when they worked it out for me taking it in the present year was best for me as even though it raised my tax bracket i would still pay less as the penelties ore (deemed tax) if you will were much higher.

propat

Propat, I have been deeply involved with CRA on tax issues and penalties in my own life via business and personal. In some cases I won and others I lost. In all cases usually penalties was a part of each battle i waged with them. In each case the CRA never had any issues with tax due being late if it was a future calculation cause income changed and it was not a misleading or misconduct by individual. In one case i was collecting revenue to business owed money as income but won later in law suit. Tax owed was taxed but no penalty applied as I did not know I was getting it and did not receive it to years later. In our case we did not collect the income so no tax due. we did not know we were getting the income till this case so no malice on our part.

that works for me

id like to see an example with all the math for 10 years at 1000 a month.i think that would give everyone a rough idea.

propat

ok thx bigrex,

Why dont someone say OK you will receive this if you fall under 20k and this for 40k and so on

the retro is were they make their money.

And one guy on the tweet thing from BC thought that was too much for the lawyers image what he would of thought if they said 17%

DCHD, they are asking for 15.7% of the gross amount of each individual award, and an additional 2% (will vary between provinces) of the gross amount to cover HST and disbursements. The 7.5% is that of the total award, including the bursary and reserve amounts??? These reserve amounts equal half the settlement, $453500000, but what the hell are they? Is this money to pay the future monthly benefits. If so, then there are paying legal fees on the go forward payments.

To the media, 7.5 sounds better than 17

well they do state the total but it is a shame they didnt also state that would be 17% of the retro.

propat

Yes but it seemly they are saying that there fee will be 7.5% out of our pockets which is not correct

dchd it says 7.5 % of the total buds but they are taking it all from the retro and it will be 17% of that.

propat

maggie see my attachment go there and see. Its says 7.5% of the settlement in black and white and also said in news release

rags where did you get that info if you dont mind me asking as this is a huge issue?

propat