Path: utzoo!attcan!lsuc!dave
From: dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: Re: SIN Number
Summary: corrections
Message-ID: <1988Dec24.222620.22203@lsuc.uucp>
Date: 25 Dec 88 03:26:19 GMT
References: <1988Dec23.024016.22054@ziebmef.uucp>
Distribution: can
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 33

In article <1988Dec23.024016.22054@ziebmef.uucp> mcp@ziebmef.UUCP (Colin Plumb - borrowed account) writes:
>There must be some loophole in this.  I know neither the bank at which
>I have an account nor the one at which I recently cashed some CSB's
>has a SIN for me.

They will need one in 1989.  See the amendment to the Income
Tax Act which I posted recently.

>The thing is that these things expire.  If I were to re-apply for
>a replacement SuperDuperChargeACard, I'd get a new card number out of
>the hat.  The SIN is a great thing to play Big Brother games with, since
>it's guaranteed not to change.

You can get your credit card number changed (I had our CIBC VISA
number changed when I asked for a due date change), but normally
one doesn't.  Most of our cards have had the same number for many
years, through many expiries and renewals.

>But the only reason the government keeps records on me is to catch me if
>I try to cheat on taxes.  So helping them keep these records verges on
>self-incrimination.  (To be precise, if I *am* up to something, helping
>them catch me is self-incrimination.)  So I try, pretty hard, to make
>their lives difficult.  Not (necessarily :-}) becasue I have something
>to hide, but becasue I'm not required to prove I don't.

The same government also wants to pay you your CPP, and UI if
you lose your job -- another good reason for keeping records on you.
Anyway, what's wrong with self-incrimination?

David Sherman
-- 
Moderator, mail.yiddish
{ uunet!attcan  att  pyramid!utai  utzoo } !lsuc!dave