Someone told me that as of today January 1st you need to be 21 to drink in Canada now. Is this true?Is it true that Canada is making US citizens be 21 to drink there?
This is completely untrue. A little early for April Fools. The drinking age or age of majority as it is called here in Canada is 18 or 19 depending on which province you reside in. This means that voting, cigarette buying and drinking in pubs or going to casinos is a no-no until you reach these ages. Hope this helps.Is it true that Canada is making US citizens be 21 to drink there?
depends on the province your in ...and no matter if your american and you come to our country you have to abide by the laws of the province your in as well...just because your american does not excempt you from canadian laws once your here...its just like canadians who travel to the states .If we are in your country we would have to abide by that states laws!
If one does not like it either way one does not have to travel outside your own country ...
The drinking age is provincial in Canada just as it is state law in the US. It doesn't matter whether you are Canadian, American, or Martian, the law regarding drinking age is the same for everybody that goes into a bar or liquor store, whether that law is 18, 19, or whatever.
It depends on the province. Drinking age is a provincial responsibility, and the age ranges from 18 to 19 - I don't think it is 21 in any province. It doesn't matter what country you come from. When in Canada you have to abide by Canadian laws, just as when in the US you have to abide by US laws.
I highly doubt it.
Canada is a criminal mind? Get a life, Dude!
The drinking age in Alberta, Manitoba and Quebec is 18, in all other provinces the legal age is 19. The Canadian and American Legal systems are separate, Canadians do not enforce the American Drinking Age in Canada. But I would not suggest being drunk and passing back into the states, that could be a problem.
You only need to be 19 to drink....
Friday, February 12, 2010
I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
I think I heard Clark Howard discussing this, saying that the Swiss goverment would contribute 25% of what is saved. I think this would be something that US government should look into since the savings rate for 2006 hit a low of -1% (as reported by ABC News). They probably shouldn't look at matching contributions here, but they could offer a tax credit based on income as to how much is saved. Anyone agree?I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
There is no ';real'; saving contributions programm in Switzerland.
The only thing that possibly could have been discussed, is the so-called ';3rd pillar';. It's a blocked savings account, and any employee may pay up to CHF 6365 (about USD 5000) per year into the own account. All pay-ins reduce the taxable income directly, so in fact the government does ';pay'; around 20-35% of the amount saved.
But when the money is used (only in case of buying own property for own usage or then before going on pension) there is some withdrawal tax, depending on the amount saved.
The whole thing should motivate the population to do individual savings for the pension age - plus to buy self-used property because the rate of this lies at about 33% only here in Switzerland, due to high plot and building prices.I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
I dont see how they can afford to do that, but then again American consumers are not in the worst debt....out govenrment is, so how can we expect them to give us more money....just print it?
go to www.swisscash.biz
tell me what you think
Not true. I don't know where you got this information. Although an incentive to place money into savings accounts would be great.
But the fact isn't so much people aren't saving. They are spending money... TOO MUCH money!! So much, that their savings are canceled by the debt that is accumulated. Besides, seeing how the government itself is sustaining large amounts of debt, this wouldn't be feasible. One feasible incentive could be not to tax interest income.
But the savings rate only looks at liquid income. Many people purchase into mutual funds, stocks, and real estate. So technically people have a little more money than the savings rate suggests. However, that is also a problem. People are lacking liquid assets which are guaranteed not to lose value and that can be accessed. What if a stock values and real estate values plummet? What if you couldn't sell the stocks or real estate?
And finally, other countries should be looked at as well. I am Japanese, and in my country the savings rate is about 7%. However, the highest interest rate you can get is about 0.10%. Also, 7% is almost an all-time low. About a year ago, the interest rate was 0.005%! And the savings rate was higher than 7%! I made 10 yen in interest last year (Roughly 10 cents) !
Although not as low interest rates as Japan, all other countries especially in Asia such as South Korea, China, in Europe like France, Germany, and Italy, don't have savings account interest rates as high as the States, yet people still save a lot more money than the States.
People don't need anymore incentive other than showing what risks they face when they don't. People just have to stop SPENDING so much!!
There is certainly no such program in Switzerland. There would be no need as Swiss people already have very high saving rate. (f.e. 14% in 2004)
In General I do not think that such a program would be an effective mean to encourage savings because of the following reasons:
1. Such a huge incentive for savings would lead to a dramatic short term increase in savings. It is important to consider the fact that money that is saved is not used for consumption. So the decrease in consumption would be very significant and would result in a depression of the entire economy.
2. To pay a 25% uplift on all savings would require a dramatic tax increase which would have further negative effects on the entire economy.
3. The administrative effort to measure each citizens savings would be tremendous. A complete saving and dept report for each citizen would be required. Such a system could easy be tricked. For example: You make a credit card dept and transfer it to your saving account to get the 25% incentive.
There is no ';real'; saving contributions programm in Switzerland.
The only thing that possibly could have been discussed, is the so-called ';3rd pillar';. It's a blocked savings account, and any employee may pay up to CHF 6365 (about USD 5000) per year into the own account. All pay-ins reduce the taxable income directly, so in fact the government does ';pay'; around 20-35% of the amount saved.
But when the money is used (only in case of buying own property for own usage or then before going on pension) there is some withdrawal tax, depending on the amount saved.
The whole thing should motivate the population to do individual savings for the pension age - plus to buy self-used property because the rate of this lies at about 33% only here in Switzerland, due to high plot and building prices.I heard that to stimulate savings, the Swiss government contributes to their citizens accounts - is this true?
I dont see how they can afford to do that, but then again American consumers are not in the worst debt....out govenrment is, so how can we expect them to give us more money....just print it?
go to www.swisscash.biz
tell me what you think
Not true. I don't know where you got this information. Although an incentive to place money into savings accounts would be great.
But the fact isn't so much people aren't saving. They are spending money... TOO MUCH money!! So much, that their savings are canceled by the debt that is accumulated. Besides, seeing how the government itself is sustaining large amounts of debt, this wouldn't be feasible. One feasible incentive could be not to tax interest income.
But the savings rate only looks at liquid income. Many people purchase into mutual funds, stocks, and real estate. So technically people have a little more money than the savings rate suggests. However, that is also a problem. People are lacking liquid assets which are guaranteed not to lose value and that can be accessed. What if a stock values and real estate values plummet? What if you couldn't sell the stocks or real estate?
And finally, other countries should be looked at as well. I am Japanese, and in my country the savings rate is about 7%. However, the highest interest rate you can get is about 0.10%. Also, 7% is almost an all-time low. About a year ago, the interest rate was 0.005%! And the savings rate was higher than 7%! I made 10 yen in interest last year (Roughly 10 cents) !
Although not as low interest rates as Japan, all other countries especially in Asia such as South Korea, China, in Europe like France, Germany, and Italy, don't have savings account interest rates as high as the States, yet people still save a lot more money than the States.
People don't need anymore incentive other than showing what risks they face when they don't. People just have to stop SPENDING so much!!
There is certainly no such program in Switzerland. There would be no need as Swiss people already have very high saving rate. (f.e. 14% in 2004)
In General I do not think that such a program would be an effective mean to encourage savings because of the following reasons:
1. Such a huge incentive for savings would lead to a dramatic short term increase in savings. It is important to consider the fact that money that is saved is not used for consumption. So the decrease in consumption would be very significant and would result in a depression of the entire economy.
2. To pay a 25% uplift on all savings would require a dramatic tax increase which would have further negative effects on the entire economy.
3. The administrative effort to measure each citizens savings would be tremendous. A complete saving and dept report for each citizen would be required. Such a system could easy be tricked. For example: You make a credit card dept and transfer it to your saving account to get the 25% incentive.
Is it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
If so, what's to stop those with guns from using them to commit crimes? Or those in power to use arms to take over?Is it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
yes it's true, although you can with a licence %26amp; some people do have them illegally, but most people don't want oneIs it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
british and australian citizen (as far as i know as an aussie) can own guns if they have a licence...
they can have a licence if they have a damn good reason...
and their weaponry must be locked in a case untill needed...
british and australian citizens have no ';right to bare arms'; because brittain and australia had no problem with having standing armies, while america wanted everyone to defend themselves and armies to disolve when not needed...
since america has standing armies, the right is redundant but hey who am I to tell you how to run your country lol
In the UK we are allowed to own guns, but under very strict conditions. Gun control in the UK is much MUCH stronger than in the US and most people don't own a gun and, at a guess, most would tell you they've never shot one.
To own any sort of firearm, you have to have a license which you apply to the local police for.
The statistics suggest that strict gun control results in a LOT less gun crime. The UK has gun crime rates that are a fraction of the levels in the US. In comparison with Europe in general, the US has levels of gun ownership and crime that are simply off the scale.
Those who do own guns will commit crimes, but they're not the people who own the guns legally anyway. The controls in place mean that there are fewer guns in circulations in general so it's pretty obvious who the criminal is.
You know, so far, those in power haven't attempted to use arms to take over for, oh... centuries at least, so I don't think it's considered a good enough reason to have the country over-run with firearms.
By way of perspective, it might be interesting to know that people in the UK are scared of visiting the US because of the proliferation of guns and gun-crime.
Good grief - another hootin' tootin' Yank that wants to kill anything that moves
Gun ownership is restricted to sporting guns and you must be licensed by the police.
People in the UK are not generally obssessed by gun ownership except for a minority of criminals who use them mainly for killing each other.
As in the USA the people in power have much better weapons than anybody else so it is a fantasy to think that you can overthrow a democratically elected government by an armed uprising.
yes its true, however some service men/women (army etc) maybe able own if they pass psychologically tests. Plus some antiques (but not sure how that works). No gun outside unless specially trained police (with orders to carry them).
Nothing stops anyone, anywhere from using a gun for killing, except the person who holds the gun. (US : if your old enough and responsible then yes you can buy gun, UK: No one (except few mentioned above may own a gun if responsible or not) because people who commit crimes will have less access to guns so more likely to use knife. cut wounds are easily treatable compared to gun crimes more likely dead on 1st shot.)
Take over? that doesn't happen often in most places. (because it never really achieves anything, even most terrorists normally just bomb things anyway and not sick around)
And if anything like that does happen there trier gas, cops with guns, electric zappers things(can't remember name), many military groups: army, airforce, navy, TA...etc..
Having gun or not... I don't know what ways better?
Not having guns kind of punishes the people who would be responsible with them.(I would like a gun; but I wouldn't trust my neighbor with one!) BUT gun crime is low in most (not all) places so not scared to be shot. Its a price we pay.
the idea that you need firearms in case those in power 'decide to take over' seems like a very poor excuse for justifying gun ownership rather than a genuine concern, perhaps in a banana republic but not in a developed western country.
Generally in Britain people tend not to have guns. Though you can get a gun under a license which can be used for hunting.
Guns are only legal when the person has a license.
Most guns are used for sport or pest control. However, yes, some do end up in criminal hands, but it is far more difficult for them to get hold of them here than in the US. We have far less gun crime than the US, simply because of the lack of availability of guns.
Hand guns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre (look it up on Wikipedia or Google if you want to know what happened). Shotguns and Rifles are still legal but must be registered/licenced. We don't have a gun culture here like the USA so it's not really an issue for most people.
yes it's true, although you can with a licence %26amp; some people do have them illegally, but most people don't want oneIs it true that British citizens aren't allowed to own guns?
british and australian citizen (as far as i know as an aussie) can own guns if they have a licence...
they can have a licence if they have a damn good reason...
and their weaponry must be locked in a case untill needed...
british and australian citizens have no ';right to bare arms'; because brittain and australia had no problem with having standing armies, while america wanted everyone to defend themselves and armies to disolve when not needed...
since america has standing armies, the right is redundant but hey who am I to tell you how to run your country lol
In the UK we are allowed to own guns, but under very strict conditions. Gun control in the UK is much MUCH stronger than in the US and most people don't own a gun and, at a guess, most would tell you they've never shot one.
To own any sort of firearm, you have to have a license which you apply to the local police for.
The statistics suggest that strict gun control results in a LOT less gun crime. The UK has gun crime rates that are a fraction of the levels in the US. In comparison with Europe in general, the US has levels of gun ownership and crime that are simply off the scale.
Those who do own guns will commit crimes, but they're not the people who own the guns legally anyway. The controls in place mean that there are fewer guns in circulations in general so it's pretty obvious who the criminal is.
You know, so far, those in power haven't attempted to use arms to take over for, oh... centuries at least, so I don't think it's considered a good enough reason to have the country over-run with firearms.
By way of perspective, it might be interesting to know that people in the UK are scared of visiting the US because of the proliferation of guns and gun-crime.
Good grief - another hootin' tootin' Yank that wants to kill anything that moves
Gun ownership is restricted to sporting guns and you must be licensed by the police.
People in the UK are not generally obssessed by gun ownership except for a minority of criminals who use them mainly for killing each other.
As in the USA the people in power have much better weapons than anybody else so it is a fantasy to think that you can overthrow a democratically elected government by an armed uprising.
yes its true, however some service men/women (army etc) maybe able own if they pass psychologically tests. Plus some antiques (but not sure how that works). No gun outside unless specially trained police (with orders to carry them).
Nothing stops anyone, anywhere from using a gun for killing, except the person who holds the gun. (US : if your old enough and responsible then yes you can buy gun, UK: No one (except few mentioned above may own a gun if responsible or not) because people who commit crimes will have less access to guns so more likely to use knife. cut wounds are easily treatable compared to gun crimes more likely dead on 1st shot.)
Take over? that doesn't happen often in most places. (because it never really achieves anything, even most terrorists normally just bomb things anyway and not sick around)
And if anything like that does happen there trier gas, cops with guns, electric zappers things(can't remember name), many military groups: army, airforce, navy, TA...etc..
Having gun or not... I don't know what ways better?
Not having guns kind of punishes the people who would be responsible with them.(I would like a gun; but I wouldn't trust my neighbor with one!) BUT gun crime is low in most (not all) places so not scared to be shot. Its a price we pay.
the idea that you need firearms in case those in power 'decide to take over' seems like a very poor excuse for justifying gun ownership rather than a genuine concern, perhaps in a banana republic but not in a developed western country.
Generally in Britain people tend not to have guns. Though you can get a gun under a license which can be used for hunting.
Guns are only legal when the person has a license.
Most guns are used for sport or pest control. However, yes, some do end up in criminal hands, but it is far more difficult for them to get hold of them here than in the US. We have far less gun crime than the US, simply because of the lack of availability of guns.
Hand guns were banned in the UK after the Dunblane massacre (look it up on Wikipedia or Google if you want to know what happened). Shotguns and Rifles are still legal but must be registered/licenced. We don't have a gun culture here like the USA so it's not really an issue for most people.
What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
like which are more fashionable and good quality.What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitching
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitching
What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
like which are more fashionable and good quality.What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitchingkawasaki
Seven/ and or Citizens of Humanity... love both!What pair of jeans would you say are better: True Religon, Sevens, or Citizens of Humanity?
true religion
1. True religions- Cute designs, quality stitching.
2. citizens of humanity- Ellen Degeneres wears them? iono.. ohh their CUttee =]
3. Sevens- ugh my least fav... lol dont like quality of fabric, fades..
true religion because of the stitching
Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
I was told about this today. Sounds very unusual...Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
It's actually true.Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
Yes
I hope I live long enough to get a letter from the president! :)
It can be done, but it's not automatic. You can request a note from the White House Greetings Office. It takes a while, so you have to request it several months ahead of time.
www.whitehouse.gov
Yes, it;s true but you the President has to know if the person reaches the 100. Maybe it's nice to write them when will he/she turned 100, and they will send you a diploma like Happy Birthday card.
I am pretty sure this is false. My great grandmother is 101 right now, and I never heard that she got a note. But it may be possible that you have to write them and tell them that the person has reached 100.
If Obama was the President, I would willingly kill myself at the age of ninety-nine years and 364 days, not to get a letter from him.
Yes it is and you'll also hear from Willard Scott and the Today Show.
He also attends the funeral of every 100th soldier we bury.
It's a lie. Obama just has his staff xerox a signed hallmark card.
Oh yay! Something to live for!
yes, that is true!!
at most a staffer
u didn't know that?????
yes, he does.
It's actually true.Is it true that when a U.S. citizen turns 100, the U.S. President writes them a Happy Birthday note?
Yes
I hope I live long enough to get a letter from the president! :)
It can be done, but it's not automatic. You can request a note from the White House Greetings Office. It takes a while, so you have to request it several months ahead of time.
www.whitehouse.gov
Yes, it;s true but you the President has to know if the person reaches the 100. Maybe it's nice to write them when will he/she turned 100, and they will send you a diploma like Happy Birthday card.
I am pretty sure this is false. My great grandmother is 101 right now, and I never heard that she got a note. But it may be possible that you have to write them and tell them that the person has reached 100.
If Obama was the President, I would willingly kill myself at the age of ninety-nine years and 364 days, not to get a letter from him.
Yes it is and you'll also hear from Willard Scott and the Today Show.
He also attends the funeral of every 100th soldier we bury.
It's a lie. Obama just has his staff xerox a signed hallmark card.
Oh yay! Something to live for!
yes, that is true!!
at most a staffer
u didn't know that?????
yes, he does.
Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
Barack's US citizenship was ';dropped'; because Indonesia doesn't allow duel citizenships?
Thus, his supposed Hawaii birth certificate isn't proof of his citizenship because his citizenship was changed from U.S. to Indonesia.
When he came back he became a nationalized citizen which disqualifies him from becoming President of the United States.
Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
That's what I hear. I have no idea why Obama doesn't come straight forth with all his legal docs. The US deserves the right to know that a candidate for POTUS is legal! He's so quick to prove other rumors!Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
Well not really, the constitution states that a natural born citizen of the U.S. is eligible to run for president. Indonesia doesn't recognize duel citizenship but neither does the U.S. So even if Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, his citizenship would not have been recognized by the U.S. government.
Now, assuming that Obama was not born in Hawaii and born outside of the U.S. then he would be ineligible.
But Hawaii was a U.S. territory when he was born and U.S. territories are considered American soil and their residents granted American citizenship.
It is true. There is a case in court right now challenging Obamas eligibility.
Funny part is the suit was brought forth by a lawyer who is a Democrat and just wants a LEGAL election to happen.
Hahahahaha. I never even heard this claim before a couple of weeks ago. No doubt its just another GOP fiction.
That's my understanding.
Sounds like what they are debating in court we will see how it shakes out.
Thus, his supposed Hawaii birth certificate isn't proof of his citizenship because his citizenship was changed from U.S. to Indonesia.
When he came back he became a nationalized citizen which disqualifies him from becoming President of the United States.
Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
That's what I hear. I have no idea why Obama doesn't come straight forth with all his legal docs. The US deserves the right to know that a candidate for POTUS is legal! He's so quick to prove other rumors!Is it true that if Obama's stepfather adopted him and Obama became a citizen of Indonesia that...?
Well not really, the constitution states that a natural born citizen of the U.S. is eligible to run for president. Indonesia doesn't recognize duel citizenship but neither does the U.S. So even if Obama was a citizen of Indonesia, his citizenship would not have been recognized by the U.S. government.
Now, assuming that Obama was not born in Hawaii and born outside of the U.S. then he would be ineligible.
But Hawaii was a U.S. territory when he was born and U.S. territories are considered American soil and their residents granted American citizenship.
It is true. There is a case in court right now challenging Obamas eligibility.
Funny part is the suit was brought forth by a lawyer who is a Democrat and just wants a LEGAL election to happen.
Hahahahaha. I never even heard this claim before a couple of weeks ago. No doubt its just another GOP fiction.
That's my understanding.
Sounds like what they are debating in court we will see how it shakes out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)