Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Canadian payroll dependency chart

daemonology.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 301 posts

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#221

Post by abe_m »

Topgamer7 wrote: post #74
mmastrac wrote: post #4

It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. The only way that I know how to do this reliably is using the web form provided by the CRA here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/... As you can imagine, doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

I want something similar for my mortgage calculation. For example I cannot get my bank (TD Canada) to inform me of how much each payment goes towards my principal. I'm pretty sure I've calculated it properly, however the number is often in the 10's of dollars off from what the bank reports my outstanding balance is after a payment is made. Also don't get me started that I can't use an api to get my account details an…

First of all: I fully agree with you. The calculation should be listed explicitly in the mortgage documents.

I've also struggled through figuring it out on my own, and the two things that got me to less than a dollar of difference were: 1) "Mortgage" in Canada is a specific legal term used for fixed term mortgages that compounds every 6 months. Therefore, to get your effective annual you take you have to convert it: ((1 + nom_rate/2)^2)-1 2) You then take your effective rate, divide by the days in the year to get your daily rate. You then take your daily rate, multiply it by your outstanding principle, and multiply it by the number of days since your last payment. That result is the amount of interest you pay, and the rest of your payment goes to pay down principle.

In practice, I have a monthly payment, and just divide my annual effective rate by 12, and call it close enough. The extra precision of daily vs monthly isn't worth the extra complexity in the spreadsheet.

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#222

Post by phpisthebest »

wk_end wrote: post #13
phpisthebest wrote: post #5

[flagged]

OT: wasn't it less about the tax per se and more about "taxation without representation" (and also a culmination of a long list of non-taxation related grievances)?

I do not feel like I am represented in Congress today....

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#223

Post by akira2501 »

mmastrac wrote: post #4

It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. The only way that I know how to do this reliably is using the web form provided by the CRA here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/... As you can imagine, doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

> It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government.

I completely disagree. Then you're just handing them a mechanism to make this as complicated as they possibly can. Taxes should be simple enough to be fully understood by the people paying them.

I'm not some algorithmic tool for the government to abuse when it's failed to balance it's budgets and I should not _need_ software to figure out something so basic as a deduction in wages.

> doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

It's a shame there isn't a law forcing the government to make this possible.

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#224

Post by ibejoeb »

akira2501 wrote: post #223
mmastrac wrote: post #4

It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. The only way that I know how to do this reliably is using the web form provided by the CRA here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/... As you can imagine, doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

> It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. I completely disagree. Then you're just handing them a mechanism to make this as complicated as they possibly can. Taxes should be simple enough to be fully understood by the people paying them. I'm not some algorithmic tool for the government to abuse when it's failed to balance it's budgets and I should not _need_ software to…

I don't understand what you mean. You're beholden to the law regardless of whether you understand it. The government ought to be required to create a reference implementation if for no purpose other than to prove that it is indeed possible to implement.

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#225

Post by spydum »

MrPatan wrote: post #92
spydum wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats pretty cool, I wonder though what the implication is if there is a bug or package hijacking? Are you expected to cross check the calculations and they are only offered as a convenience, and not authoritative?

Do you also worry that rogue employees or literally anybody with the keys to the office of a printer could have been changing the texts of laws as printed in official publications and books for the past few hundred years? If not, why not?

Way? I thought the op was saying the French government published the code. Totally different if not.

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#226

Post by phpisthebest »

mixdup wrote: post #122
sneak wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d take chaos that I actually participated in creating over the preexisting oligarchy any day. I’m also not sure why you think it would be any more chaotic than the existing run of government. Are we less competent at making laws today than we were a hundred years ago? In any case, it seems plainly ridiculous on its face that I am to be bound by laws I had no part in voting for. This idea that my ancestors get to de…

>Are we less competent at making laws today than we were a hundred years ago? Yes, absolutely. I have zero confidence that today we'd have public education, social security, or freedom from religion. I'd be terrified if we had to relitigate the Bill of Rights >In any case, it seems plainly ridiculous on its face that I am to be bound by laws I had no part in voting for. And then the next step is going to be "well I d…

>> zero confidence that today we'd have public education, social security,

Neither of which should be federal programs. It has no business being at the federal level.

>>or freedom from religion.

It was not until the Civil War really the passage of the 14th amendment that the Bill of right even applied at the state level, that is why each state has their own Constitution.

In fact federal constitution implicitly did not bar States from supporting religion, the "separation" as it were was intended to only be for the federal government leaving each state to choose for themselves if they wanted to be secular or not (most did desire that anyway) however the federal government was to powerless to force a religion on any state, but also power less to prevent it.

the Civil War and 14th amendment forever upended the role of the federal government in State Affairs.

>>I'd be terrified if we had to relitigate the Bill of Rights

Hamilton as not in favor of the Bill of Rights[1], in fact has now be proven correct in his fears. he thought that the Bill of rights would become something it was never intended to be, that the people would view it as a complete list of rights the government as granted the people. A complete inversion of how the constitution is suppose to work. Often times the case law authorizing these new powers dive into the nuances of the "bill of rights" proving Hamilton correct when he said that men disposed to usurp power would use the Bill of Rights to expand government power beyond its authorized remit

For example since Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution does not grant the authority for the federal government to regulate Education then the government should have no power to create the Dept of Education yet they find all kinds of ways do things they are not actually empowered to do

>>.changed the method of election over the course of the past 200-odd years

yes for the worse, we have progress more to a centralized democracy with power consolidated into a single federal government. Moving away from the Republican form of government our founders established.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_r... [1] >> I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? -- Alexander Hamiton

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#227

Post by gorky1 »

akira2501 wrote: post #223
mmastrac wrote: post #4

It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. The only way that I know how to do this reliably is using the web form provided by the CRA here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/... As you can imagine, doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

> It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. I completely disagree. Then you're just handing them a mechanism to make this as complicated as they possibly can. Taxes should be simple enough to be fully understood by the people paying them. I'm not some algorithmic tool for the government to abuse when it's failed to balance it's budgets and I should not _need_ software to…

You're right, and it's extremely hard to undo.

Once you have that complexity, you'll always be taking away something from somebody by simplifying.

So all simplifications end up as additional "if" clauses, defeating the purpose.

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#228

Post by kelseyfrog »

patrickmay wrote: post #161
mmastrac wrote: post #4

It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. The only way that I know how to do this reliably is using the web form provided by the CRA here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/... As you can imagine, doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

All laws should be expressed in code. It would quickly show how many either conflict with each other or are incoherent.

It wouldn't even work if the universe was expressed as data.

Unfortunately there will be an input layer that requires predicates or measurements that cannot avoid ambiguity.

Ignoring that, there's Godel's Incomplete Theorem to deliver the final blow. If integer arithmetic cannot be complete and consistent, a set of laws governing society has no hope. If you disagree, you'd at least have to admit that such a set of laws could not include integer arithmetic, and could certainly be no more complex than integer arithmetic. I'd posit that such a restriction renders such a project impossible.

We've chosen completeness (every action can be rendered legal or illegal) over consistency. The alternative - consistency - would make some actions legally undecidable.

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#229

Post by lozenge »

akira2501 wrote: post #223
mmastrac wrote: post #4

It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. The only way that I know how to do this reliably is using the web form provided by the CRA here: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/e-services/... As you can imagine, doing this by hand is quite painful and error-prone.

> It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. I completely disagree. Then you're just handing them a mechanism to make this as complicated as they possibly can. Taxes should be simple enough to be fully understood by the people paying them. I'm not some algorithmic tool for the government to abuse when it's failed to balance it's budgets and I should not _need_ software to…

Ah yes, because the current system is incentivising them to keep it simple... otherwise we'll vote for the simple taxes party... which party is that again?

Re: A Canadian payroll dependency chart

#230

Post by phpisthebest »

ibejoeb wrote: post #224
akira2501 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a shame that we don't have open formulas in code form published by the government. I completely disagree. Then you're just handing them a mechanism to make this as complicated as they possibly can. Taxes should be simple enough to be fully understood by the people paying them. I'm not some algorithmic tool for the government to abuse when it's failed to balance it's budgets and I should not _need_ software to…

I don't understand what you mean. You're beholden to the law regardless of whether you understand it. The government ought to be required to create a reference implementation if for no purpose other than to prove that it is indeed possible to implement.

the government should be barred from implementing a law or regulation that requires "reference implementation " to prove it is "possible to implement"

If it needs such a thing it is too complex and should be repealed

Post reply on HN