I don't know about that, but it was supposed to do my dishes. Still waiting.

One reason is because, unlike nuclear power, wind and solar do not have 24/7 availability and are in fact unpredictable and inconsistent. Additionally, energy storage technology does not presently exist that can be used to mitigate that deficiency to a sufficient degree.

Cryptocurrencies are good for only 2 things:
1) Facilitating illegal transactions
2) Speculating (not investing!)

Maybe that will change at some point, but in the here and now, that's it.

You are not alone. I look for a number of things in a phone; screen refresh rate is not one of them.

Which is why a fair system provides for regular (quarterly or so) rebates for low income individuals. Canada has a VAT-like tax, the GST, and does this.

Ways that an USC in Canada can be taxed, even with foreign tax credits and/or the FEIE, which doesn't apply to passive income.
- Gains above $250K USD on the sale of your principal residence are taxed. This is not taxed in Canada. (FWIW, we can't deduct mortgage interest in Canada).
- Gains in the sale of (shares in) a qualified small business are fully taxed ($800K CAD exclusion is not recognized)
- Gains in a Canadian mutual fund held outside of a RRSP are hideously taxed because they are considered PFICs (Passive Foreign Investment Company). Possible double taxation.
- Gains from the exercise and sale of employee stock options can result in US tax owed. Canada has a better tax treatment of these.
- Gains in a RESP are taxed. RESP is not recognized by the IRS. It is similar to a US 529 plan, but not recognized as such.
- Gains in a TFSA are taxed. TFSA is not recognized by the IRS. It is similar to a Roth IRA, but not recognized as such.
- Gains in a RDSP are taxed. RDSP is not recognized by the IRS. Don't know if the US has anything similar.
- Lottery winnings are taxed. They are not taxed in Canada (although IMO they should be).
- The NIIT (Net Investment Income Tax) can result in true double taxation.
- Phantom gains caused by exchange rate fluctuations are taxed. E.g., buy shares in a stock when CAD is weak, sell it for the same price in a different year when CAD is strong. Too bad for you if you bought your home when the Canadian was weak, held it for a few decades, then sold it when the Canadian dollar was strong (see point #1). Really too bad if you bought in a weak real estate market and sold in a strong one.

Because the above are all considered passive income (with the exception of employee stock options), the $108,700 FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) does not apply to them. And because they are passive income, you need passive income foreign tax credits to offset them, which you may not have any of if all your savings are in a RRSP and TFSA.

And then there's the fact that certain common tax saving vehicles, like RESP, is considered a "foreign trust", resulting in additional filings. And, of course, PFIC filings are a nightmare.

A USC living outside of the US is subject to the worst of 2 tax regimes.

Quite right. There is a significant number of *middle class* former dual Canada-US citizens living in Canada who renounced their US citizenship.

The names of renunciants are published quarterly.

The vast majority of people renouncing are not wealthy, they are regular people who have made their home in other countries, often for decades, and see no point in any longer being US citizens, especially when it means being subject to 2 conflicting tax codes, which literally results in the worst of both tax worlds. Given the existence of the "exit tax" which tends to hit the wealthy, I'm really not sure how many truly wealthy people are renouncing.

You're talking about something else. There is indeed a standard $2,350 USD (used to be $450) fee to renounce US citizenship. You pay it at the Consulate on the day you renounce. It has nothing to do with the IRS. There's also the "exit tax" which applies in certain cases, and can be substantial as it is basically a tax on unrealized capital gains (in Canada we have something similar for people severing their tax residency). This is the IRS' kick at the can. Having been through all this (thankfully when the fee was still $450), I know something of it.

Not at all the same thing, says the person who just barely graduated high school French.

Still waiting for an autonomous car that can legally drive me to work while I nap, and drive me home after drinking too many beers at the pub. Anything less will make me stick with my jetpack.

And for good measure, see Prof Michael Geist's post where he pretty much says the same.

https://www.michaelgeist.ca/20...

Totally correct, assuming we're just talking about linking (I've found the news stories on this to be infuriatingly vague on *precisely* what is being targetted).

Linking to news articles drives people to the content hosters' sites. I.e., it is a good thing for content hosters and their content providers. Additionally, if they don't want to be linked to, they can prevent it with robots.txt, no? Google even has web pages devoted to testing your robots.txt file to verify it's blocking Google's web crawlers.

As such, it does appear that these folks both want Google to link to them, but insist that they get paid for it, whereas an argument can be made that, if anything, they should be paying Google, as they are profit from the linking.

AFAICT, this appears to be nothing short of an attempt at a money grab from deep pocketed, foreign corporations.

Note: all of the above is predicated on the assumption that linking is the issue.
FWIW, I live in Canada, and I'm not employed by Google.

Heretic! God uses emacs.