On a side note, I'll just mention that I looked up Avrillavigne.com on the same analysis service I saw my website on last night, and her website is worth only about 10x more than my site.
Considering she's a multimillionaire ----- if my website is only 1/10th the value of her site, you'd think I'd have made considerably more money.
Which brings me to this point:
Last Christmas I went to amazon.ca and noticed a used copy of The Eagle's Sore priced at 2.6 million Canadian Dollars.
Let's just assume this was a secret message to me telling me how much I actually made, but let's also assume the government took that money to recuperate the costs of the benefits they give me.
I calculated with medication and cost of benefit included ---- 2.6 million I made on my work or book basically PAYS for ALL my medication and benefits from the government FOR LIFE --- in fact, the amount of money from the "book sales" would be enough to pay for both my brother AND I, it would pay, for life, completely, all our benefits and medications, for the rest of our lives, at current rates.
So, if I sold a book or had sales worth 2.6 million, and these sales covered the price of our disability benefits, for both my brother and I ----
It would be real strange if the government continued to enforce non-exemptions on his and my incomes and assets.
Basically, in this benefit program, you are allowed to earn a certain amount of money each month or year, and after you've made that, anything more gets clawed back from your benefit.
I'm just saying that if my sales, as secret-messaged from amazon.ca, paid for our benefits, that it would be immoral and strange if the government enforced these non-exemptions on him and I.
If we already paid ~100% for our own benefits already, then morally you'd think the government wouldn't claw back on over-earnings anymore.
Every year, about this time of year, the government asks us to report las year's income, and not just in taxes.
If they ask again this year, then I'm not sure I can be too certain the government is making me repay my benefits --- unless the government is going to be immoral.
If I paid for my own lifetime of benefits, then what right do they have to keep me in poverty, not able to earn beyond the exemptions?
Another part of this is that nurses at the hospital were saying I should get an RSP and an RDSP ---- an RSP would be useless without taxable income, and I have nothing to put into an RDSP except my benefit, so that would be pointless ------
So I really do have to wonder what's going on here.
If Avril Lavigne made 20million, and her website is worth only 10x more than mine, then maybe I made 2million.
I don't see much income besides my benefit.
If I paid the sum total of my whole benefit for life from sales ---- then it would be immoral for the government to claw back on further employment and investment earnings.
Unless, of course I make 10 million dollars ----- would the government at that point then expect me to help pay the costs of other people's benefits? I don't know.
And this is only assuming that I actually sold 2.6million worth of entertainment, and only assuming the government is taking the money.
If the government still wants to claw back on my exemptions, then either the government is immoral, or the money I earned ISN'T going to the government.
I don't know
And why would nurses recommend RSPs and RDSPs when such are basically useless on my 99% benefit-only income?