Johan Norberg's vital lessons from rise and fall of historic golden ages makes Peak Human a persuasive read
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Bolles School names new baseball stadium after famed alumnus Chipper Jones
The new home of Bolles baseball will officially be known as Chipper Jones Stadium, after National Baseball Hall of Fame inductee and alumnus Larry 'Chipper' Jones Jr. '90. The renovation project at The Bolles School, designed by David Luke Architecture, is set to enhance the baseball facilities at the Upper School's San Jose Campus with a budget of $3.7 million. The lead gift for the renovation came from Jones himself, honoring the school and coaches who contributed to his career success. 'The heart and soul of Bolles Baseball will reside at this stadium where lifelong friendships will continue to form and teams grow stronger together,' Jones said. [DOWNLOAD: Free Action News Jax app for alerts as news breaks] The renovation includes a Fieldhouse named in honor of Jerry and Bruce Chappell, featuring approximately 3,000 square feet of space with locker rooms, a video room, coaches' offices, and an entrance lobby showcasing over half a century of baseball excellence. The stadium improvements will also feature an upper-level terrace with dual towers and a traditional architectural design that pays homage to historic Bolles Hall. Planning for the facility began in 2021, with a ceremonial groundbreaking last December. The aim is to wrap up construction before the 2026 season. Jones played his entire career with the Atlanta Braves, earning eight All-Star appearances and the 1999 National League MVP title before joining the National Baseball Hall of Fame in 2018. >>> STREAM ACTION NEWS JAX LIVE <<< [SIGN UP: Action News Jax Daily Headlines Newsletter]
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wild ATO deductions called out as expert exposes tax 'grey area'
Depending on your area of employment, there is a range of tax deductions that could be available. The basic rule is that if you've incurred an expense as part of your job, you can claim it. For instance, if you're a taxi driver, you can claim fuel for your car. If you're a tradie, you can likely claim a deduction for an array of essential tools. Such examples are relatively straightforward and obvious, but with tax being something of a grey area for many, it is inevitable that some of the claims tax specialists encounter aren't always of the typical variety. Here are some of the examples that H&R Block has encountered. RELATED ATO's urgent warning to tradies over 'growing' tax trend FIFO worker's huge compensation win after being unfairly sacked Tradie loses $449,000 in an instant after missing key detail TV star's op shop gifts Each time a certain high-profile television personality graced our screens, he bought a new suit. Once he'd worn each suit, he gave it away to a charity shop. Not only did he want to claim a tax deduction for the cost of each new suit (which he said he was obliged to wear to maintain his personal brand), he also wanted to claim a further tax deduction for the donation to charity. Sadly for him, the ATO doesn't allow deductions for the cost of conventional clothing, a category that includes business suits, even those purchased by TV stars. As for the donations — well, in theory, a donation to a charity is tax-deductible, but what is the value of a second-hand suit? Our dapper star couldn't say because he didn't have receipts from the charity, and without a receipt, there is no possible surgery and tax Still with the rich and famous, a well-known fashion model had undertaken various cosmetic procedures to maintain her appearance. She argued that the work done was to maintain her career past the point that it would otherwise have faded out if she hadn't had the work done. As such, she argued there was a clear link between the cosmetic surgery and deriving her income. It's an argument that seems superficially compelling, but it's not one the ATO would agree with. As far as they are concerned, medical procedures are rarely, if ever, tax-deductible, no matter what the reason. Taxable boob job? Taxpayers in the adult entertainment industry can claim all manner of interesting deductions. Taxpayers in the US — but not here — have even claimed that breast enhancements could be tax-deductible as a 'tool of the trade' (not an argument that would find favour here, following the same logic as the cosmetic surgery for the model, above). So, it's a controversial claim even for adult performers but the lady — with no known connection to the adult industry — who tried to claim that her enhancements were necessary for work was facing even more of an uphill battle. The claim wasn't allowed. Breast enhancements might be a tax no-no, but adult performers can look at successfully making claims for items as diverse as dance lessons, hair care, oils, lingerie, costumes and 'toys'. Work clothes that can be taxed Another profession that can generate some very strange tax deductions is a circus performer. Not many people can successfully make a claim for a clown costume, but one client who did was a professional clown. The whole costume was allowable, including the red nose, as a work-related clothing claim. Similarly, the professional sword swallower was able to claim the ceremonial swords used in his act. Deductions for pets? Can you claim a tax deduction for your dog? In very limited circumstances, yes you can, both for the cost of acquiring the animal (the cost is depreciated over several years) and for the costs of keeping it (food, vet bills, etc). The two most common scenarios where the cost of a dog is tax-deductible are farming (where an animal might be used to round up sheep, for instance) and security (where the cost of a guard dog to patrol business premises might be allowable). Other than that, forget it. So, for the taxpayer who tried to claim for their pet poodle, no deductions were allowed. Claiming the daily commute Lots of people try to claim for the cost of traveling from home to work and back again. Usually, they are unsuccessful because the daily commute is regarded as private — not work-related — travel and hence not claimable. The only exception is where you're required to carry bulky tools and equipment and you have nowhere secure at work to store them. That exception didn't apply to the hairdresser who tried to claim the daily commute because she had to transport her scissors and clippers, which might have been sharp but certainly weren't bulky. When you can claim on a caravan Caravanning is a popular leisure pursuit among the 'young at heart' but is it possible to claim your caravan as a tax deduction? Surprisingly, the answer might be yes. One taxpayer who travelled extensively for work decided to buy a caravan to provide overnight accommodation whilst working away, rather than paying for a hotel room every night. From a tax point of view, that stacks up to be deductible. But if you are in the same situation and also use the caravan for holidays, you'll need to apportion the deduction between work use and private use. People who can claim gym memberships A very limited number of taxpayers can claim gym memberships. Amongst those who can are professional sportspersons, some police officers and some defence force personnel. Bouncers aren't on the list, so for the bouncer who wanted to claim his martial arts course fees, no deduction was allowed. Garden feature on tax Do you own a rental property? In among the usual deductions — mortgage interest, rates, repairs, etc — did you know that you can claim for items that improve your property's 'street appeal'? Whether you think garden gnomes do that or not is really a matter of personal taste, but several clients have successfully claimed them in respect of their rental property. Here's a tip — make sure the gnomes are actually for your rental property; if they turn up in the garden of your family home, they are not deductible! Thinking of claiming these? Don't — they're not deductible! Personal grooming (hair, make-up, etc) Child care Gym memberships and other club memberships Cost of attending social functions Driver's licence Fines Glasses and contact lenses Rent, mortgage and other 'ownership' costs when working from home 'Conventional' clothing Business suits Retail staff in clothing outlets Home to work travel With the exception of where you are required to carry bulky tools Undertaking incidental work related tasks on the way to or from work (eg, collecting the mail) won't make the journey deductible! Medical expenses (IT 2217) eg, sleep apnea machines, hearing aids, wheelchairs, artificial limbs What can I claim? Depending on your job, you might be eligible to claim the following: Bags, briefcases, etc Conferences, seminars and training courses Fares Fees for tax advice/preparation First-aid courses by a designated first-aid person Insurance of work-related equipment Overtime meal expenses Parking fees (eg, if visiting clients) Professional association fee Personal protective equipment (masks, sanitiser, etc) Self-education expenses directly connected with current employment (includes fees, travel, books and equipment) Specialist publications (not newspapers) Sun protection (if you work outside) Stationery used for work-related purposes Technical and professional publications Travel, accommodation and meals when traveling for work Work-related clothing Work-related car useError in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: For Coldplay concert couple, Canadian harassment law would top privacy concerns
If you want to know how far harassment protections have expanded in Canadian workplace law today, look no further than the Coldplay concert debacle. While most observers seem to agree that the two colleagues caught canoodling at a Boston Coldplay concert — the chief executive and head of HR for U.S. tech company Astronomer — have been appropriately (and very publicly) shamed, there are divisions on the question of professional punishment and accountability. I have read arguments suggesting that the relationship, while extramarital, was between two consenting adults, and therefore not deserving of reprimand or termination, or perhaps even investigation. Or that the company had no interest in getting involved, since there was no evidence of coercion or complaints of favouritism or violation of company policies. None of this is reflective of Canadian law today. First, all potential harassment must be investigated, whether there is a complaint or not. The fact that a relationship between a superior or subordinate is ostensibly 'consensual' does not end the issue legally. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted last month in a case involving Metrolinx: 'There are many reasons why a victim of harassment might choose not to pursue an official complaint, none of which erase the harassing behaviour or the employer's obligation to investigate it to protect the workplace from a hostile or demeaning environment. … (A lack of complaint) does not relieve an employer of its statutory duty (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of each province) to conduct an investigation' into harassment. The Court of Appeal in that case made clear that the obligation of an employer to investigate potential harassment is not just owed to the potential victim but to all employees in that workplace. But does the apparent affair between the CEO and HR head qualify as harassment, which therefore must be investigated? In 2001, there was a groundbreaking decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simpson v. Consumers Association of Canada, in which the court made clear that there should be no assumption that a relationship is consensual even if it might appear so. Instead, an evaluation of the imbalance of power must occur to see if there may be factors affecting the individual's consent (scared of losing job, afraid of reprisal, etc.). 'It is an error to ignore the supervisory role of the alleged harasser and to treat him as one of the employees. … Mr. Simpson may well have viewed all of his conduct as consensual and therefore as welcome. Because of the power imbalance in an employee's relationship with a supervisor, and the perceived consequences to objecting to a supervisor's behaviour, particularly when the behaviour is not directed specifically at that employee … an employee may go along with the conduct. In those circumstances, the employee will be effectively consenting to unwelcome conduct because she feels constrained from objecting' This 25-year-old case highlighted that claims of consensual conduct will be closely examined when the individual involved holds a position of power. It is important to monitor relationships involving power differentials, as they give rise to legal risk. The court noted that anyone in a position of authority — and Andy Byron, the CEO in the Coldplay imbroglio would no doubt qualify — 'owes duties to their employer … to protect employees from harassing behaviour and to safeguard the employer from potential civil liability arising from such complaints. Any CEO consorting with an employee risks that employee later saying that they only succumbed to the CEO's advances to protect their job. In the Simpson case, the court also noted it is 'a workplace reality that it is difficult for staff to disapprove of the conduct of a superior without feeling that their jobs may thereby be in jeopardy.' It further stated that Simpson 'failed to properly consider whether the reason Ms. X felt that she was obliged to go along with his behaviour was to ensure that she retained her job, which she needed, and to be part of Mr. Simpson's 'inner circle.' Perhaps most important and relevant to the Andy Byron affair, the court said that a having a relationship with a subordinate exposes the employer to the risk of civil suits, and that it the job of senior employees to ensure an employer carries out its duties to its workers, shareholders and the public so that the company is protected. 'If the supervisor creates the problem,' the court said, 'he is in breach of that duty.' The suggestion that privacy concerns prevail is also inconsistent with the development of sexual harassment law in this country. Privacy rights are generally dramatically overstated: in other words, in general, privacy rights have little protection under our law and they fall to the wayside next to an employer's duty to stop and investigate potential harassment in their workplace. There is a common misconception that employers must find that a relationship lacked consent or that there was differential treatment before management can act. This assumes that the subordinate employee will come forward willingly, which, as noted above, may not occur. Employers are obliged to deal with potential harassment prior to any escalation by complaining employees. Of course, if policies are violated, such as one prohibiting superior-subordinate relationships, which I encourage employers to adopt — or at least policies requiring disclosure of such relationships — the case against the violator is clearer. But superior-subordinate relationships are always problematic, even in the absence of such policies. Howard Levitt: How the Coldplay concert affair would have played out in Canada Howard Levitt: Even the most desultory employee can find favour with the courts In short, in Canada, employers cannot view relationships between superiors and subordinates with equanimity, nor as private affairs. They must investigate from the standpoint that any such relationship may be inherently coercive and, in any event, damaging to the organization and come with substantial liability risks. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.
