I'm reminded of Lord Randolf Churchill (the father of Sir Winston Churchill). He was in line to be a probable candidate for the Prime Minister of England, and would have had he not contracted sypholis... anyway! Before his afliction he was as swift minded as his son was to be. After inumerable quotes that garnished him a reputation for intellectual greatness he finally said "...and the constant necessity of trying to say something new makes one a drivelling idiot..." (The Last Lion/ Visions of GloryLittle, Brown and company, Author: Manchester page 203, ).
If you scroll through the history of short articles you will have more knowledge about saving taxes for a lease/owner operator than 80-90% of all designated accountants serving operators coast to coast. It dosn't matter if they belong to a "fellowship" or even have direct access to the Finance Minister! You have the eductiona to save more tax cash than they do.
This site gets 450-650 hits per day! It has had over 15,000 hits per month since inception. I chart both the number of hits as well as how many pages are viewed. Today I'm going to suggest over viewing the history, starting with the very first post (November 1st). This blog is designed as an educational and entertainment source for CanadaTruck Operators. It's designed to expose one of the most horendous incremental tax assaults in Canadian history. It is also designed to perfectly cure the anguish that assault has caused. Go ahead educate yourself! If you e-mail me that you read it all I will place your name in a draw for a free copy of my book on CD. I will draw one winner every Saturday for the entire month of April 2009.
About Me
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Don't get detoured on the road to tax savings
On the issue of incorporation many operators ask very similar questions. One question that keeps coming up is having your corporation own a vehicle so the entire costs can be written off. It is a question that comes about because when the average individual thinks about corporations they picture big money operations such the trucking companies they work for. They see trucking companies have “corporate vehicles” and they often are allowed to drive around “free”. They then assum they can do the same thing if their corporation purchases one. The truth is, they can but at a cost.
CRA does not want “company vehicles” driving around as total write offs. Automobile dealerships (for example) regularly used to provide dealer plates to their salesman. One of the reasons why they do a lot less of it is because of “taxable benefits”. Taxable benefits are the exact opposite of non-taxable benefits (on that point my logic is impenetrable). Estimated re-imbursement for job related costs are classified as “non-taxable” the exact opposite of receiving the benefit of a “company vehicle” for personal use.
If a company owns a vehicle and the employee uses it as a personal vehicle, CRA calculates the percentage of personal use and assigns a taxable benefit to the use (a generous rate by the way). However, even if the vehicle is NEVER used but is parked on the driveway of the employee, the opportunity for personal use still exists, and is therefore taxed. The specific name of this opportunity is called “standby charges”. To place a long complicated formula into a simply number it would be 30% of the purchase value. This means that a $20,000 vehicle that is NEVER used but parked just once on the employees driveway is deemed to be $6000 of taxable benefit… indefinitely! If the vehicle is kept and owned by the corporation for 10 years the charge will be $6000 EVERY YEAR! It does not reduce in value as does depreciation.
This application of tax is BRUTAL on company owned vehicles. It is so horrendous that operators who are incorporated should NEVER have their corporations own a small vehicle. Using their personal vehicle for business use, and having the corporations pay them “non-taxable benefits” by using the treasury board re-embursement figures is the BEST after tax system available to ANY Canadian citizen. Check out your province rates at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tbm_113/b-eng.asp.
Saving bucks is often times a matter of using the right system!
CRA does not want “company vehicles” driving around as total write offs. Automobile dealerships (for example) regularly used to provide dealer plates to their salesman. One of the reasons why they do a lot less of it is because of “taxable benefits”. Taxable benefits are the exact opposite of non-taxable benefits (on that point my logic is impenetrable). Estimated re-imbursement for job related costs are classified as “non-taxable” the exact opposite of receiving the benefit of a “company vehicle” for personal use.
If a company owns a vehicle and the employee uses it as a personal vehicle, CRA calculates the percentage of personal use and assigns a taxable benefit to the use (a generous rate by the way). However, even if the vehicle is NEVER used but is parked on the driveway of the employee, the opportunity for personal use still exists, and is therefore taxed. The specific name of this opportunity is called “standby charges”. To place a long complicated formula into a simply number it would be 30% of the purchase value. This means that a $20,000 vehicle that is NEVER used but parked just once on the employees driveway is deemed to be $6000 of taxable benefit… indefinitely! If the vehicle is kept and owned by the corporation for 10 years the charge will be $6000 EVERY YEAR! It does not reduce in value as does depreciation.
This application of tax is BRUTAL on company owned vehicles. It is so horrendous that operators who are incorporated should NEVER have their corporations own a small vehicle. Using their personal vehicle for business use, and having the corporations pay them “non-taxable benefits” by using the treasury board re-embursement figures is the BEST after tax system available to ANY Canadian citizen. Check out your province rates at: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/tbm_113/b-eng.asp.
Saving bucks is often times a matter of using the right system!
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Human Resourse: supply, demand, taxes and labor laws
I have had the pleasure of talking with perhaps hundreds of drivers coast to coast. Sometimes it affords me information about certain geographical areas that experience certain trends where other areas do not.
As a small example (if you please). I spoke with a recruiter a little over two years ago (pre Oil boom of Alberta) and they informed me that the rate of pay for their lease/owner operators based in the West was four cents per mile MORE than the rates for Ontario based operators. It confused me slightly because at the time it tended to be more expensive to live in Ontario than in the West. The reason was… supply and demand! There were more operators available in Ontario than there was in the West, therefore they didn’t need to pay as much.
This supply and demand example reflects more than just “rate of pay”. Another more drastic example I have heard and seen out of Ontario is the tendency for trucking companies only to hire/contract drivers who own their own corporations. It’s a “driver services company/corporation”. A single driver wanting to work for a company is pressured into incorporating, and the corporation would be paid by the mile. The benefits to the trucking company are numerous: no labor board hassles, payroll taxes, short or even long term obligations, damage claims… on and on. This tendency allows some trucking companies to do an end run around numerous labor restrictions while legitimate companies are forced to operate legally. It’s a corner cutting that MUST stop.
Of course when everyone is looking for work, desperate people end up doing desperate things. Giving up employee rights should not be tolerated. It’s not good, but it probably won’t stop until demand picks up above supply.
In tough economic times scoundrels run rampant. Watch yourself.
As a small example (if you please). I spoke with a recruiter a little over two years ago (pre Oil boom of Alberta) and they informed me that the rate of pay for their lease/owner operators based in the West was four cents per mile MORE than the rates for Ontario based operators. It confused me slightly because at the time it tended to be more expensive to live in Ontario than in the West. The reason was… supply and demand! There were more operators available in Ontario than there was in the West, therefore they didn’t need to pay as much.
This supply and demand example reflects more than just “rate of pay”. Another more drastic example I have heard and seen out of Ontario is the tendency for trucking companies only to hire/contract drivers who own their own corporations. It’s a “driver services company/corporation”. A single driver wanting to work for a company is pressured into incorporating, and the corporation would be paid by the mile. The benefits to the trucking company are numerous: no labor board hassles, payroll taxes, short or even long term obligations, damage claims… on and on. This tendency allows some trucking companies to do an end run around numerous labor restrictions while legitimate companies are forced to operate legally. It’s a corner cutting that MUST stop.
Of course when everyone is looking for work, desperate people end up doing desperate things. Giving up employee rights should not be tolerated. It’s not good, but it probably won’t stop until demand picks up above supply.
In tough economic times scoundrels run rampant. Watch yourself.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
BEWARE OF DRIVER CONTRACTS...
Though this blog doesn’t get many comments I regularly receive responses directly by e-mail. The other day through various circumstances I received a copy of a “driver contract”. For obvious reasons I won’t share who it came from. Here is a condensed outline:
1) Driver’s name:_________________
2) _______ cents/mile for the month… etc.
3) A $300 per week ($1200 per month) for road allowance is deducted prior to payroll deductions in lieu of TL2.
4) A phone allowance… etc.
5) Health benefits… etc.
Item 2) shows the individual gets a cent per mile “gross” and item 3) shows a road allowance deducted off gross. This means the rate of pay is entirely based on cents per mile while “subsistence/per diem/road allowance” is deducted as a portion off the gross.
No matter how a person explains this or defends this it will NOT pass a non-taxable benefit audit. As I have stated many times before subsistence/meal allowance/per diem MUST be paid BY THE DAY and independent of productivity pay. I’m not trying to be a smarty pants, I’m trying to save people a mountain of headaches, penalties and interest. I repeat, this contract will NOT stand up to an audit!
In an audit the truck driver will be reassessed based on the gross (before road allowance deduction), therefore the tax deducted will be far too small (ie big tax bill). T4’s will be RE-ISSUED and both EI and CPP will be assigned as penalties to the trucking company. Additionally, holiday pay can be assessed on the $1200.
The risk to driver and company is outrageous with no benefits whatsoever unless both the company and driver are never audited. If you are a driver or a company that uses a contract like this please, for your own sake, stop immediately!
In my book I went through the application of subsistence to a trucking company. The national implications are bold and somewhat risky (to the company if they hire a lazy character). It can be done, probably in the next ten years it will be done but not like the example above. If companies try and cut corners and have the best of both worlds like this contract tries to, there will be screaming “Nay Sayers” coast to coast when re-assessments are issued. Do it right or don’t do it at all! This above mentioned contract places risk on both driver and company. STAY AWAY from this!
There is a way to do it legally but it’s almost triple the paperwork and the risk to the DRIVER is substantial. It will also produce a moderate risk to the company if the driver is lazy. For both these reasons I will not publicly explain how to do it. You can contact my office if you like but I’m not convinced of the national benefit of having companies hold that much power over individual drivers.
My goal is to have subsistence allowance applied the way it is designed to be, as a daily reimbursement of job related costs! Personally I don’t think the trucking industry is financially or emotionally mature enough to carry the responsibility of it. Some will undoubtedly desire to, but the pressures of the industry will financially hammer them back into the old mold.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
1) Driver’s name:_________________
2) _______ cents/mile for the month… etc.
3) A $300 per week ($1200 per month) for road allowance is deducted prior to payroll deductions in lieu of TL2.
4) A phone allowance… etc.
5) Health benefits… etc.
Item 2) shows the individual gets a cent per mile “gross” and item 3) shows a road allowance deducted off gross. This means the rate of pay is entirely based on cents per mile while “subsistence/per diem/road allowance” is deducted as a portion off the gross.
No matter how a person explains this or defends this it will NOT pass a non-taxable benefit audit. As I have stated many times before subsistence/meal allowance/per diem MUST be paid BY THE DAY and independent of productivity pay. I’m not trying to be a smarty pants, I’m trying to save people a mountain of headaches, penalties and interest. I repeat, this contract will NOT stand up to an audit!
In an audit the truck driver will be reassessed based on the gross (before road allowance deduction), therefore the tax deducted will be far too small (ie big tax bill). T4’s will be RE-ISSUED and both EI and CPP will be assigned as penalties to the trucking company. Additionally, holiday pay can be assessed on the $1200.
The risk to driver and company is outrageous with no benefits whatsoever unless both the company and driver are never audited. If you are a driver or a company that uses a contract like this please, for your own sake, stop immediately!
In my book I went through the application of subsistence to a trucking company. The national implications are bold and somewhat risky (to the company if they hire a lazy character). It can be done, probably in the next ten years it will be done but not like the example above. If companies try and cut corners and have the best of both worlds like this contract tries to, there will be screaming “Nay Sayers” coast to coast when re-assessments are issued. Do it right or don’t do it at all! This above mentioned contract places risk on both driver and company. STAY AWAY from this!
There is a way to do it legally but it’s almost triple the paperwork and the risk to the DRIVER is substantial. It will also produce a moderate risk to the company if the driver is lazy. For both these reasons I will not publicly explain how to do it. You can contact my office if you like but I’m not convinced of the national benefit of having companies hold that much power over individual drivers.
My goal is to have subsistence allowance applied the way it is designed to be, as a daily reimbursement of job related costs! Personally I don’t think the trucking industry is financially or emotionally mature enough to carry the responsibility of it. Some will undoubtedly desire to, but the pressures of the industry will financially hammer them back into the old mold.
That’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Ombudsman's report...
Last week I received a copy of the Taxpayer Ombudsman’s first annual report. I’m not sure how many people know of or use the Ombudsman but as an accountant it’s a valuable source and venue for our industries difficulties.
I want to comment on a story the report shared. I’ll quote it here:
“The operator of a special care home for adults received a per diem allowance for each of her residents from the provincial government. This allowance is a form of subsidy to the residents and is not considered taxable income for the owner of the home. The CRA officials who reviewed the owner’s file were not aware that this revenue was ax-exempt and proceeded with collection action that included freezing the taxpayer’s bank account and garnishing $4700. This resulted in considerable difficulties for the taxpayer. Once the Ombudsman got involved, the CRA ceased its collection activities and released the taxpayer’s bank account.”
This story in the report showed me two things. First, that rogue auditors (its what I call them) often times are wrong in their interpretations of events (such as per diem or subsistence allowance being classified as non-taxable). Since per-deums are relatively unique to the trucking industry I assume in the next couple years rogue auditors will make their stand somewhere or in several places across Canada. Accountants must be aware.
Secondly, the concept of non-taxable benefit is clearly understood, not just by the Ombudsman but also by CRA (once they are enlightened).
The crusade to have operators use subsistence will be speckled with resistance and education both by drivers as well as CRA agents.
The only comment that needs pondering is what form of compliance did the special care operator have in regards to the per diem system? Was there an appropriate agreement? Paperwork? Etc. We must assume there was since CRA backed down on the claim. In my opinion compliance and audit trail will be the fulcrum for many accountants applying the system.
I want to comment on a story the report shared. I’ll quote it here:
“The operator of a special care home for adults received a per diem allowance for each of her residents from the provincial government. This allowance is a form of subsidy to the residents and is not considered taxable income for the owner of the home. The CRA officials who reviewed the owner’s file were not aware that this revenue was ax-exempt and proceeded with collection action that included freezing the taxpayer’s bank account and garnishing $4700. This resulted in considerable difficulties for the taxpayer. Once the Ombudsman got involved, the CRA ceased its collection activities and released the taxpayer’s bank account.”
This story in the report showed me two things. First, that rogue auditors (its what I call them) often times are wrong in their interpretations of events (such as per diem or subsistence allowance being classified as non-taxable). Since per-deums are relatively unique to the trucking industry I assume in the next couple years rogue auditors will make their stand somewhere or in several places across Canada. Accountants must be aware.
Secondly, the concept of non-taxable benefit is clearly understood, not just by the Ombudsman but also by CRA (once they are enlightened).
The crusade to have operators use subsistence will be speckled with resistance and education both by drivers as well as CRA agents.
The only comment that needs pondering is what form of compliance did the special care operator have in regards to the per diem system? Was there an appropriate agreement? Paperwork? Etc. We must assume there was since CRA backed down on the claim. In my opinion compliance and audit trail will be the fulcrum for many accountants applying the system.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Tax deductions usually a matter of definition
I came across an income tax case the other day. It’s related to the topic I raised last week (personal vehicle for business travel). All accountants know that driving to and from work is NOT tax deductible. Here’s the story:
An employee of a company worked out of their personal home office. During that time they also drove too and from the employer’s office. The employer paid the employee for the travel and the employee did not report the income on their taxes. Even though the employee mostly worked from their home office, the judge sided with CRA that the amounts received from the employer was taxable. One of the critical points in the case was that the employer had an office available for the employee at the employer’s location. The choice to have an office at home “…was entirely the taxpayer’s decision… and the decision was based on convenience.” McCreath v. Canada (2008) T.C.J. No 454, T.C.C., Campbell J., Oct.30/08. Digest No. 2833-025
Something of importance should be noted. The tax courts determine business travel and also home office expense (not specifically discussed in this case) in light of “base of operations”.
If a person is self-employed the base of operation is clearly the home office (practically or so documented). Under incorporation the base of operation is clearly the head office (practically or so documented). Therefore an employee driving to and from the place of employment is not an issue unless documentation implies otherwise.
Therefore when a driver logs his/her personal vehicle as “went to work” there may be an implied problem with the definition of “base of operations”. However, if the log reads “went to move equipment” or “delivered paperwork to customer” the definition of “base of operations” is not compromised.
Though this case isn’t an exact replica of the concept it does enforce the courts understanding of tax deductibility.
An employee of a company worked out of their personal home office. During that time they also drove too and from the employer’s office. The employer paid the employee for the travel and the employee did not report the income on their taxes. Even though the employee mostly worked from their home office, the judge sided with CRA that the amounts received from the employer was taxable. One of the critical points in the case was that the employer had an office available for the employee at the employer’s location. The choice to have an office at home “…was entirely the taxpayer’s decision… and the decision was based on convenience.” McCreath v. Canada (2008) T.C.J. No 454, T.C.C., Campbell J., Oct.30/08. Digest No. 2833-025
Something of importance should be noted. The tax courts determine business travel and also home office expense (not specifically discussed in this case) in light of “base of operations”.
If a person is self-employed the base of operation is clearly the home office (practically or so documented). Under incorporation the base of operation is clearly the head office (practically or so documented). Therefore an employee driving to and from the place of employment is not an issue unless documentation implies otherwise.
Therefore when a driver logs his/her personal vehicle as “went to work” there may be an implied problem with the definition of “base of operations”. However, if the log reads “went to move equipment” or “delivered paperwork to customer” the definition of “base of operations” is not compromised.
Though this case isn’t an exact replica of the concept it does enforce the courts understanding of tax deductibility.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Why accountants are conformists rather than activists? (part two)
Here is another theory why accountants are conformists. “most accountants are conformists because the accounting industry is a conformist industry”. (pause for laughter)
Dah! (you say) Of course the industry is conformist!
Yes it is… but let me explain my point from a different angle.
Several years ago Enron, and other multi billion dollar accounting scandals, exposed a virtual tsunami of accounting and reporting conflicts. Consequently the government implemented there own tsunami of new reporting requirements. Over the last several years accounting firms all across Canada were struggling and reorganizing to implement the new requirements. I heard it said that if a firm had 100 clients they can now only serve 75 of them, due to the new restrictions. Firms have been adding staff, combining firms and releasing clients frantically trying to conform. Their energy has been placed in conforming and not in being a client activist. With regards to service, unfortunately too many truckers are falling through the cracks.
For those who think the “change” may be over may I inform you its only BEGUN! With the advent of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) Canadian accountants will be consumed by many more rigorous changes. IFRS represents one of the most dramatic changes the accounting profession has witnessed in a long time, maybe even ever! The difference between IFRS and Canadian GAAP are substantial and is scheduled for implementation in 2011. The “conformist industry” is about to become the most rigorously regulated in debit and credit history. Many truckers will be standing at the dock waving good buy to quality service. It does, however, represent an opportunity for those accountants who wish to specialize in lease/owner operators, construction contractors or some other niche.
It seems the only logical alternative to a highly regulated, wide sweeping, information intensive industry.
Vivi La Avant-garde!
Dah! (you say) Of course the industry is conformist!
Yes it is… but let me explain my point from a different angle.
Several years ago Enron, and other multi billion dollar accounting scandals, exposed a virtual tsunami of accounting and reporting conflicts. Consequently the government implemented there own tsunami of new reporting requirements. Over the last several years accounting firms all across Canada were struggling and reorganizing to implement the new requirements. I heard it said that if a firm had 100 clients they can now only serve 75 of them, due to the new restrictions. Firms have been adding staff, combining firms and releasing clients frantically trying to conform. Their energy has been placed in conforming and not in being a client activist. With regards to service, unfortunately too many truckers are falling through the cracks.
For those who think the “change” may be over may I inform you its only BEGUN! With the advent of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) Canadian accountants will be consumed by many more rigorous changes. IFRS represents one of the most dramatic changes the accounting profession has witnessed in a long time, maybe even ever! The difference between IFRS and Canadian GAAP are substantial and is scheduled for implementation in 2011. The “conformist industry” is about to become the most rigorously regulated in debit and credit history. Many truckers will be standing at the dock waving good buy to quality service. It does, however, represent an opportunity for those accountants who wish to specialize in lease/owner operators, construction contractors or some other niche.
It seems the only logical alternative to a highly regulated, wide sweeping, information intensive industry.
Vivi La Avant-garde!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Why accountants are conformists rather than activists? (part one)
I have a theory that’s not going to be very popular among accountants. They may agree in private but may contest in public. The theory is this “most accountants are conformists because the market pressures them to be activists”.
Accountants, especially designated ones, may be held financially liable in the event there is something wrong with an income tax return (or review/audit etc). The market (ie. clients) place pressure on accountants to report earnings/expenses in a format that may not (or will not) survive a CRA audit. Here are a couple examples:
Using a personal vehicle for business is a legitimate expense. However, if the person is self-employed they must keep a vehicle log which shows the personal to business ratio (how many business miles used compared to total miles logged). If 22% of the miles were traveled for business than 22% of the cost of operating the vehicle are expensed. Without a log of business to personal travel how is an accountant or auditor to know what percentage to expense? Every good accountant KNOWS this is the law! However, if an accountant tells a truck driver that he/she CAN’T expense anything on their vehicle without a log book most clients would walk out the office and seek an accountant who allows something (try and get a trucker to keep ANOTHER log book).
So the accountant has an ethical choice. What (in his mind, or in the mind of the average auditor) is a reasonable percentage or figure to expense? Thus the “self-deception” and market “disinformation” begins. The accountant has convinced themselves to become an income tax activist. They are cutting corners. Their internal conscience nags them that under audit they may well be taken to the cleaners. They are vulnerable and they know it. Therefore they become “conformists” by desperately trying to stay off the CRA “radar”.
Another example is the “non-use” of TL2’s for meal deductions. By now all well informed accountants know that self-employed operators require meal receipts as expenses. They are not allowed to use the TL2 any more. However, many calculate meal expenses using $51.00 per day and place the dollar figure in “8523” where the total of all meal receipts should to go. This means under audit, when asked for verifying receipts, there will be none. OPPS! No wonder many accountants are emotionally hiding under their desks at the thought of an auditor.
One more theory! “Compliance builds confidence, and confidence endorses boldness”. Do you want to know why I wrote my book the way I did? Or maybe why I write the way I do? My passion is justice and equality in a system of compliance not self induced cowardice.
Vivi La Avant-garde!
I don’t expect to be sent invitations to Christmas parties. Oh well!
Accountants, especially designated ones, may be held financially liable in the event there is something wrong with an income tax return (or review/audit etc). The market (ie. clients) place pressure on accountants to report earnings/expenses in a format that may not (or will not) survive a CRA audit. Here are a couple examples:
Using a personal vehicle for business is a legitimate expense. However, if the person is self-employed they must keep a vehicle log which shows the personal to business ratio (how many business miles used compared to total miles logged). If 22% of the miles were traveled for business than 22% of the cost of operating the vehicle are expensed. Without a log of business to personal travel how is an accountant or auditor to know what percentage to expense? Every good accountant KNOWS this is the law! However, if an accountant tells a truck driver that he/she CAN’T expense anything on their vehicle without a log book most clients would walk out the office and seek an accountant who allows something (try and get a trucker to keep ANOTHER log book).
So the accountant has an ethical choice. What (in his mind, or in the mind of the average auditor) is a reasonable percentage or figure to expense? Thus the “self-deception” and market “disinformation” begins. The accountant has convinced themselves to become an income tax activist. They are cutting corners. Their internal conscience nags them that under audit they may well be taken to the cleaners. They are vulnerable and they know it. Therefore they become “conformists” by desperately trying to stay off the CRA “radar”.
Another example is the “non-use” of TL2’s for meal deductions. By now all well informed accountants know that self-employed operators require meal receipts as expenses. They are not allowed to use the TL2 any more. However, many calculate meal expenses using $51.00 per day and place the dollar figure in “8523” where the total of all meal receipts should to go. This means under audit, when asked for verifying receipts, there will be none. OPPS! No wonder many accountants are emotionally hiding under their desks at the thought of an auditor.
One more theory! “Compliance builds confidence, and confidence endorses boldness”. Do you want to know why I wrote my book the way I did? Or maybe why I write the way I do? My passion is justice and equality in a system of compliance not self induced cowardice.
Vivi La Avant-garde!
I don’t expect to be sent invitations to Christmas parties. Oh well!
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Ten Commandments of an Owner Operator in a troubled Economy
1. Never, Never, Never, Never, Never run out of cash. Do everything you can to build and keep four to six months worth of cash in a safe and liquid place. The new "tax free savings account" is a great place for some of it.
2. Get out of debt! Pay off as much as you possibly can, as fast as you possibly can without violating the first commandment. Simplify your life! If that means selling things... then sell! Nobody can eat a bass boat or a Harley!
3. The value of a truck is based on its fuel economy not its age or comfort. Your primary asset is you golden goose. It's what makes you money. Without violating the first two commandments make sure your truck holds and keeps its VALUE! If it gets terrible cash flow because of fuel consumption change your driving habits. If that dosn't help trade down (or maybe up), to a more fuel economy based assest, but remember you'll take a bath on the trade in.
6. The key is compliance, don't speed, don't neglect your log book, follow the rules and don't cut corners. When money is scarce fines and penalties are often used to subsidise municipal/country/state/provincial budgets. They're out there gunning for you, stay off the radar!
7. If your not mechanically inclined TRUST your mechanic. The best way to embrace your mechanic is to PAY him! PAY your mechanic... PAY your mechanic! If you can't trust them find someone you can trust. If you don't trust anyone and your not mechanically inclined, get out of the business!
8. Work harder, sacrifice more, go the extra mile, serve your customers, create your own value, build your own life margin! and of course STOP COMPLAINING!
9. Build a network of support. Friends who encourage each other through tough times are priceless. Everyone needs support and encouragement. If you don't have one, start your network today! and I'm not referring to a multilevel marketing scheme... dah!
10. Invest your time in eduction. GROW, GROW, GROW! Think! Plan! Learn more about your craft than you've ever known before. It should cost virtually nothing to learn the most valuable things. Ask questions, knock on doors introduce yourself to new people and learn how to keep yourself afloat.
2. Get out of debt! Pay off as much as you possibly can, as fast as you possibly can without violating the first commandment. Simplify your life! If that means selling things... then sell! Nobody can eat a bass boat or a Harley!
3. The value of a truck is based on its fuel economy not its age or comfort. Your primary asset is you golden goose. It's what makes you money. Without violating the first two commandments make sure your truck holds and keeps its VALUE! If it gets terrible cash flow because of fuel consumption change your driving habits. If that dosn't help trade down (or maybe up), to a more fuel economy based assest, but remember you'll take a bath on the trade in.
4. Reducing speed and acceleration is critical to reducing both fuel and maintenance costs. Consume less and invest as little as possible. In a troubled economy there are loads of get rich quick schemes that entice people to SPEND rather than save. Be the smart one! Become more efficient rather than trying to break into a NEW market!
5. If you DON'T trust the company you work for, its probably too late to find a quality company that is hiring. Therefore make the best of what you got!
6. The key is compliance, don't speed, don't neglect your log book, follow the rules and don't cut corners. When money is scarce fines and penalties are often used to subsidise municipal/country/state/provincial budgets. They're out there gunning for you, stay off the radar!
7. If your not mechanically inclined TRUST your mechanic. The best way to embrace your mechanic is to PAY him! PAY your mechanic... PAY your mechanic! If you can't trust them find someone you can trust. If you don't trust anyone and your not mechanically inclined, get out of the business!
8. Work harder, sacrifice more, go the extra mile, serve your customers, create your own value, build your own life margin! and of course STOP COMPLAINING!
9. Build a network of support. Friends who encourage each other through tough times are priceless. Everyone needs support and encouragement. If you don't have one, start your network today! and I'm not referring to a multilevel marketing scheme... dah!
10. Invest your time in eduction. GROW, GROW, GROW! Think! Plan! Learn more about your craft than you've ever known before. It should cost virtually nothing to learn the most valuable things. Ask questions, knock on doors introduce yourself to new people and learn how to keep yourself afloat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)