Income trust investors, as I have said here many times, are emblematic. They stand for deception and betrayal. Whether you empathize with their losses, or think they are greedy old farts, that’s irrelevant. The issue is trust. They trusted Mr. Harper to do what he promised. He trashed them.
I, for one, won’t let Canadians forget this. Stephen Harper is not a Conservative, not a Liberal and not honest. He is a politician out for power and his code of ethics as a result is extremely malleable. He has let us all down in many ways, from blinkered MPs to a failed environmental plan, to abrogated provincial accords, to runaway government spending, to punitive corporate measures, to an income tax increase, to this erasing of $25 billion in the retirement savings of private Canadians.
So, enough moaning. Time to fight back. Here are two things you can do, if you choose to take action.
First, fill out this petition, and send it to me. Completed forms will be presented in the House of Commons by me and my colleagues every day until the next election. (Please include your email address for updates.)
Second, come to a meeting in your area (Ontario, for now) so we can talk about these issues and organize to change the group of people running the country. I’ll be hopping on the bike and cruising on over. Here’s a preliminary schedule. More meetings will be added shortly, and complete details will be published here.
If you would like me to come to your community and talk to people about these issues, then just give Esther a call: (905) 693-0166
Wednesday, May 23
Queensville, Ont. (York-Simcoe riding)
Thursday, May 24
Cambridge, Ont. (Cambridge riding)
Wednesday, May 30
St. Thomas (Elgin-Middlesex-London riding)
Thursday, June 7
Grimsby, Ont. (Niagara West-Glanbrook riding)
Thursday, June 14
Burlington, Ont. (Burlington riding)
147 comments ↓
I’ve printed the petition… gimme a few days and you’ll have some signatures. I have a few friends who feel strongly about this and would be glad to have this issue moved forward.
Garth: you’re the man…….Actully you’re the man that Harpster and Flathead aren’t….either alone or combined. Combined, they are known as the cojoined twins of capital decimation
Would love it if someone would please ask Flaherty exactly when did mutual funds become “tax loopholes� He constantly says that income trusts are tax loopholes. He fails to understand that income trusts are mutual fund trusts. And all mutual funds are “pass through†vehicles. Mutual fund trusts (mutual funds) are widely used structures in the investment world as we all know. It would be interesting to challenge his lack of understanding of even this basic finance concept.
Garth: you’re the man….actually you’re the man that neither Harpster or Flathead are…..either alone or combined. Combined they are known as the co-joined twins of capital decimation
Garth — I know you know that there is part of Ontario west of London…you were there not so long ago.
Any plans on meetings towards Windsor-Essex, Sarnia-Lambton or Chatham-Kent? (I’d love to see VanKesteren’s face!)
Notice of Meeting: (Tomorrow)
Canada-U.S. Trade and Investment Issues and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=205068&Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&COM=10801
Today’s session was exceedingly interesting. Can anyone provide the link for the transcripts?
Garth,
You realize that after Harper and Flaherty get the petition it will have all the signatures mysteriously BLACKED OUT?
Better have some backup copies hidden away.
Should I place a copy in each of ‘Two-Tier’ Tony Clement’s local offices?
Todays headlines: Government not encouraging sell-off of corporate Canada
Really? I think this is exactly what is happening and Jack Layton, you and the NDP encouraged it last year. It looks as though the additional tax on trust, which the NDP still support was the tip of the iceberg.
Caiti saw this coming but you didn’t Jack.
Today smilin’ Jack, ever willing to get in a good sound bite says: “What the government is doing is putting a great big sign on the lawn … ‘Canada for sale,’ †NDP leader Jack Layton charged in the Commons.
Explain this Jack: How come so many Income Trusts are ending up in the hands of US firms and how come the NDP support a tax plan that causes a decrease in Canadian Taxes?
Here is a summary of Income Trust Takeovers since the NDP supported ‘TFP’ plan was announced on October 31.
Look in the mirror Jack. You are the problem. You are causing head office jobs to go south. You are causing a tax drain.
Looks like your early meeting dates are there on the Caiti site also along with a handy map for the geographically challenged.
Do petitions really do anything? Are they brought forward by Members and then just hidden away?
I’ve heard them brought up and was wondering what happens after that.
I just wondered what the protocol was in this regard.
They are certified, tabled and sent to the government for a response. It is also a constant reminder in the House of Commons as to how Canadians feel. — Garth
“And all mutual funds are “pass through†vehicles.”
Geoffrey, I am hoping that Flaherty is a “pass through vehicle”. Do you think laxative would accelerate that outcome? It has to come to pass soon, or we will all be doomed by his gross incompetence, bombastic BS and flagrant economic negligence. Apart from that I am sure he is a swell guy….provided you don’t get to know him
What about the people who have made a good profit on their Income Trust holdings?
Many of the sound ones have increased in value and thousands now see their portfolios enriched.
Others are being sold and the values have increased to also servie up tidy profits.
So, is this all for those Income Trusts which were not sound or risky to begin with and therefore have not increased in value?
Or, is this for those who panic sold in the first few days following the announcement and now regret it?
Or, is this for the investment houses who no longer make big commissions selling IT’s to their clients?
Lorraine,
You made some solid points in your comment.
As to the bottom line cause I would take Door #3 Or, is this for the investment houses who no longer make big commissions selling IT’s to their clients?, but not by Garth’s intention. There were many people seriously hurt by Harper ‘saying one thing and doing another’, aka, LIEING!
The entire thing happened, as usual, because of corporate lawyers and the greed of huge companies like BCE and Telus who never should have been able to place money in such trusts to avoid taxation. I have to wonder how much Paul Martin had in them, hiding yet more profits from Revenue Canada? No partisanship protection on this from me, or for that matter most topics.
The never ending mantra of the ‘Sacred Stockholder’ must be extinguished, along with the totally assinine CEO/CFO Golden Parachutes.
By Lorraine on 05.09.07 8:00 pm
This is for seniors who were promised that a Conservative government would never tax income trusts and attack their savings. This is for preventing the current government from creating a playing field that would allow foreign private equity and other tax exempt entities such as the Public Sector Pension Board from purchasing valuable investment vehicles at low valuations and then receive pre-tax cash flows.
Does anyone know why most MPs (I noticed the PM wasn’t) were wearing red carnations in the House of Commons today? I tried googling but can’t find what the symbolism is. Was it for one of the WW I veterans, Dwight Wilson, passing away? The only non-educated guess I could make. Thanks
The carnations were purchased by MPs in support of MS research as they entered the House. — Garth
The never ending mantra of the ‘Sacred Stockholder’ must be extinguished, along with the totally assinine CEO/CFO Golden Parachutes. – Bill Muskoka
People forget but when it come to boards of directors they should have only one goal, to increase shareholder value. The question is how do they do that?
They can either take the us and them stance of North America, which as we all know the Unions love. Employee angst means a ripe recruiting ground.
Or they can take the Japanesse model where worker and manager wear the same uniform, managers are seen on the production line, they share the same executive bathroom and dining room and they solve problems together.
The automotive sector is not in difficulty, the unionised auto sector is! Unionised plants (the big 2 1/3 and declining) are closing, meanwhile the Japanesse are opening new plants and trying to hire some of the laid off workers from the closed plants. I just hope these workers can adjust to the new way of cooperative working, from the confrontational one of old.
As for the golden handshakes/parachutes (not to mention exhorbitant salaries, bonuses and options), I couldn’t agree with you more. These have got to go!
Garth, Hope you don’t mind but I sent a copy of the petition to Dean Allison, our CONservative MP asking if he would help solicit signatures like he when the Liberals were going after Trusts (but listened to people and reconsidered).
Hope you don’t mind us extending an invitation to him for the June 7th meeting. Tongue in cheek.
Lorraine:
I’ll tell you who it’s for. At least I can tell you who Flaherty had foremost in his mind….to quote from an upcoming CAITI ad:
“Clearly Canada’s New Government wasn’t without its its reasons for implementing this tax policy, because there are a large number of beneficiaries most notably Canada’s largest life insurance companies, entrenched CEOs of major Canadian corporations, pension plans and foreign private equity, as many of these parties benefitted from the elimination of income trust as an investment vehicle favoured by average Canadians, many who are seniors seeking to provide a prudent form of retirement in a protracted low interest rtae environment.”
Motives:
Life Companies: Their competing products like life annuities tanked in th epresence of the growinf income trust market…read: kill the competiton via Flaherty’s tax
CEO’s: Life is easy when you have stock options and aren’t accountable to the shareholders….income trusts….the equivalent of meeting a monthly payroll excdept its a monthly distribution payment
Private Equity: Would you stop to pick up a $20 bill off the sidewalk……multiply that by 1.75 billion and you have your answer….that’s right, the $35 billion in Canadians life savings didn’t evaporate as it will be effectively transferred to these private equity vultures…..Canadians courtesy of Flaherty are the road kill.
Bottom Line: Powerful Special Interests exploit naive and or corrupt Finance Minister/moron/monster/midget/mother
Lorraine:
Let’s suppose you live in house and you have a neighbour. The neighbour pays taxes at the rate of 6.2% because he painted his trim yellow. Now you decided to paint your trim green. Jim Flaherty says that the neighbourhood playing field has to be levelled in the name of tax fairness. So his solution is to tax your house at the rate of 31.5%, while your neighbour will continue to pay 6.2%. The real reason has nothing to do with tax fairness, its simply because Flaherty works for your neighbour and your neighbour hates the colour green..as in envy.
So whose house is worth more? Yours with green trim or your neighbours with yellow? The neighbour happens to be owned by all of Corporate Canada’s uber elite CEOs and pension plans and private equity. They plan to evict you within four years if not sooner, as they will soon make a hostile bid to acquire your house for 85 cents on the dollar, repaint the trim in any colour other than green and sell it for $1.00. Sounds like tax fairness to me. These guys could teach Conrad Black some new tricks om how to swindle rightful owners from their assets……its called expropriation, embezelment, fraud and outright deceit…..all the hallmarks of power corrupted absolutely….except now it’s called Canada’s New Government
Just an off topic comment. Who the heck is Harper throwing the ball at? It looks like he wants to kill him.
That would be me. — Garth
By Lorraine on 05.09.07 8:00 pm
To be perfectly safe, let’s suppose seniors put all their retirement money into GICs and Bonds, instead of taxable investments, or investments that yield tax on deregistration or payment from RRIF. The Department of Finance revenues would shrink. I suspect that they would decide that RRSP/RRIF accounts were a tax dodge and start demanding tax on bond income going into these accounts or the closure of these RRSP/RRIF tax loopholes!
Whether or not specific income trusts were sound or not is generally analyzed by investment analysts and investors themselves. How about Jim Flaherty shut down the stock market itself because stocks are too risky..
as if you can trust the liberals. excuse me while i go wretch.
when will canadians get a real choice from (hopefully) native politicians that can be trusted? not libs or conservatives. what a sick joke, so much energy wasted on absolute crap!
Kind of like your post, right? — Garth
By Lorraine on 05.09.07 8:00 pm
Don’t listen to all these fools here. Thye don’t give a flying f*** about seniors.
This is what Geoffrey Laxton wrote on an earlier blog:
I am merely protecting my own selfish interests
The same with politicians…merely for political purposes. Rather than deal with the real challenges and issues that face our country, they’d rather tour around and organize complainers – a sad preoccupation of our culture, many of whom know how to do otherwise. Unique to Canada.
You are wise and astute.
LOL, oh Garth, y’r gonna give Finley a coronary!
(yo Dougie F, na, na na na na)
Cousin It- you aren’t related to JCLH by any chance are ya?
old enough wrote…
The same with politicians…merely for political purposes. Rather than deal with the real challenges and issues that face our country, they’d rather tour around and organize complainers – a sad preoccupation of our culture, many of whom know how to do otherwise. Unique to Canada.
sadly those folks have legitimate complaints, in a country as rich as ours, but never addressed.
the problem is not so much the politicians but the mainstream media that promotes these phony scoundrels. a race to the third world with the likes of harper and flaherty and dionne.
By warren on 05.09.07 11:14 pm
sadly those folks have legitimate complaints, in a country as rich as ours, but never addressed.
the problem is not so much the politicians but the mainstream media that promotes these phony scoundrels. a race to the third world with the likes of harper and flaherty and dionne.
Maybe the solution might lie in having both the complaining electorate, as well as the politicians, travel to some of these “third world” (I think the p.c. word is developing) countries and see how the rest of the 5.970 billion in the world live – many on less than $2/day.
To put things into perspective. Which is lacking here.
Much complaining would end.
it is sad excuse when you say that we are too rich. what a cowardly stance! instead of working to bring us down to their level why don’t you endeavour to bring them up to ours? cowardly (or stupid) scoundrel.
let the third world look after itself. i am not against giving REAL aide. not pretend or phony aide which our government is so good at.
instead of striving for the bottom, wake up, and strive for good things.
Charles, and Ted if you are about, and anyone else who is interested.
Tom D’Aquino on CPAC on video on demand-Prime Time Politics
February 22 2007
http://www.cpac.ca
Because the world changed after 9/11 and who best to protect our borders and trade with our largest trading partner, the USA.
(I wrote that with a straight face, I did!)
NA Competitiveness Council because China and India are growing and becoming so strong economically, but only since last year. (BS!) 10 Businessmen from each county: cross-border facilitation, energy integration, regulatory harmonization (i.e.: transportation, agra, and more).
This was the one I was really looking for. Interview with Ken Rockburn in March. Tom D’aquino tells why (again) there is no plot to merge out three countries and of course no one wants our water!
A week later…they want our water!
Video on Demand-Talk Politics http://www.cpac.ca
March 11, 2007
This week on Talk Politics, Ken Rockburn speaks with Tom D’Aquino, the President and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives about his role in improving the relationship between Canada and the United States and Canada and Mexico. D’Aquino is also a member of the North American Competitiveness Council, a group of prominent business executives who prepared a report with a list of recommendations for last month’s Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Ottawa.
Much complaining would end.
By Old enough remember05.09.07 11:48 pm
Paraphrased:
“Be prepared to accept your LOT, which we just sold out from under you through title fraud or the devious claim that we’re protecting you from yourselves.”
Man, or woman, you have made a really serious attempt to pack 10 lbs. of crap into a 5-lb. bag. There is much malodourous HORSE[POOP]INGS in your pretentious sophistry. You won’t get that past any weighscale. Why not go somewhere else … try combining sex with travel. Who knows, it might brighten your day.
QUESTIONS FOR THE DAY …
Do/Does Diane Ablonczy and her group of misfits, gargle with TIDYBOWL, both BEFORE and AFTER, rising to speak in the H-o-C?
This is important to me because I’m embarking on market surveys for TIDYBOWL and chewing gum.*
*For the lady who formerly sat on Jay Hill’s right, behind his shoulder. Does she still stick her spent ‘wad’ behind Jay Hill’s right ear?
These surveys are important when anyone studies Pavlov and his beliefs about behavioural modification through various psychic control mechanisms.
By Old enough to remember on 05.09.07 10:44 pm
“I am merely protecting my own selfish interests”
When I said that, I was merely trying to speak in a language that you could undestand.. It is pretty selfish I know to support a family, you know a wife and newborn baby.
First, fill out this petition, and send it to me. Completed forms will be presented in the House of Commons by me and my colleagues every day until the next election. (Please include your email address for updates.)
Now have petition, will travel! It occurs to me, as I approach my seventies, RAGE, FURY,* and THE DESIRE FOR REVENGE are great motivators.
*FUR[R]Y, if you live in Beaverton.
INCOME TRUST TAX AND DOUBLE DIPPING?
Garth you must see Flaherty’s oped in the National Post today where Flaherty says ‘Double Dipping’ is unfair. A few quotes:
JF: “Last October, we took an historic step to improve the fairness of our tax system through the introduction of our Tax Fairness Plan. We levelled the playing field between corporations and income trusts, bringing Canada in line with other jurisdictions around the world.”
JF: “. . . It means closing a tax loophole so Canadian taxpayers no longer have to subsidize multinational corporations that use tax-avoidance structures such as “double dipping,” whereby companies claim tax deductions for interest expenses both in Canada and abroad.”
JF: “As Minister of Finance, I have an obligation to try to achieve tax fairness for all Canadians. I have an obligation to preserve confidence and integrity in our tax system. I have an obligation to further lift the tax burden on individuals, working families and businesses. The watchword for our government when it comes to taxes is fairness. Therefore, we will continue to close tax-avoidance loopholes, such as the use of tax havens and double dipping.”
Well folks this Finance Minister knows all about double dipping because that is exactly what he’s doing to OUR retirement pockets with his 31.5% tax on income trusts.
Talk about a tax windfall . . . this would be a potential 77.5% DOUBLE DIP from retirees in the highest marginal tax bracket if Trusts still existed in 2011.
The Problem with this government is that they are either too stupid and arrogant to understand what they are doing (unintended consquences) OR this is a well planned rape of Canadians Savings accounts! Take your pick.
This is what Geoffrey Laxton wrote on an earlier blog:
I am merely protecting my own selfish interests
What if I told you my own selfish interests include: myself, my wife, my child, Canadian seniors, the well-being of Canadians and Canada, world peace, conserving wild places. You see Old Enough, this system is based on “rational self-interest.” Fine, if that is all you understand, then I am expressing “rational self-interest” in the above context.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.10.07 7:07 am
By far, the vast majority here share your values.
I am, however, more than faintly surprised that you would feel the need to respond to the ‘old’ pretender of the priestly cloak.
My posterior is more ‘astute’ than the value he attempts to confer upon someone whom he acknowledges as ‘sharing’ his interest … whatever that might be. Two trolls on a joint assignment shedding nothing of value.
Tom D’Aquino,* the President and CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives …
By Georgine on 05.10.07 5:34 am
*Has always been deeply disturbed about the co-pay concept for E.I. and pension plans and does not care S.F.A. about worker contibutions to business success.
S.F.A. = Does not mean separated family allowance.
Thanks for the links. They’re goood ‘uns.
Perhaps Lorraine on 05.09.07 8:00 pm your questions reflect a genuine interest in advancing the dialogue. I doubt it. Sounds more like the musings of a Harper/Flaherty apologist, once again blaming the victims of an entirely unjustified and unsupported policy decision. The Petition speaks to these issues around their treachery. As for all of the other points you raise, when it is clear you truly understand investing, come back and try to make a meaningful contribution. Such as why it is so necessary to black out the data that supposedly presents evidence of leakage? Why are increasingly greater amounts of public Income Trusts “dangerous” for the economy? Why has the rate of increase in personal income taxes being collected over the past 4-5 years been so much greater than the rate of increase in personal incomes? Why do private equity funds and institutional investors get to benefit from the income trust model, but not individual investing Canadians?
It never ceases to amaze me how naive we must be.
Before the Council of Chief Executives, D’Aquino used to head the “Business Council on National Issues”, with his pronouncements featured prominently in the media. Wasn’t it obvious that this really was the “National Council on Business Issues”, and that the statements were serving business interests, not national ones, and that the two were not identical?
If such self-serving marketing did not work, business would not waste effort and money doing it. Which leads to the sad conclusion that we truly are naive and deserve every pup we buy from business and politicians.
Every time I see Harper wearing so much mascara I think of The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Maybe people should start throwing toast and squirting each other with water pistols at Harper’s next press conference.
While certainly NOT trying to deflect any of the blame from Mr. Harper and Mr. Flaherty, I now am curious about what may be asked of the people offering the trusts. See this article…
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070514_105177_105177
Seems there may be more people to blame other than the government. If the article is factual, and many trusts would not have been sustainable, how does one go about determining a fair dollar loss?
James-Chatham,
I agree with your analysis of the automotive sector.
Having noted how many individuals repeatedly come her to complain, and refuse to move forward, all I can say:
Misery loves company.
Wronged people also find power in numbers, can formulate a plan to move forward together and then take real action.
It all depends how you look at it, Old Enough to Remember!
(This is a re-post from French Kiss, as I feel it is applicable to this topic as well.)
Charles,
The SPP and NAU are part of the Global ‘New World Order’ G.H.W. Bush spoke of back in 1991.
They were preceeded by the Trilateral Commission, and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). All now fall under the directorship of the infamous Bilderberg Group.
There is only one real war ongoing on this planet, and has been for several millenia. It is the war between the Roman philosophy of Greed and Power, and the Ancient Druid belief of Communal Equity.
The former see everything as their’s to ‘take’, (by misinterpretation of Genesis And you shall have dominion over all the earth, and a philosphy that use it up and there will always be more to take. Such formed the basis of their conquests of the European and Asian Continents), and the latter who see all people as equally valuable (One human race, all sharing the planet’s resources as stewards, not owners. This philosphy spanned ancient times from the British Isles to India. It encompasses the beliefs of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples as well.). The rest is mere window dressing of different names, different times, and different members.
It is where we find the line between Conservative and Liberal, the distinction between Capitalist. and Sociallist.
The method is simple…assimilate the opposition, deprive them while handing them what they think they need, and have been carefully trained to believe those are real needs, and in the end a few gain the power, while the masses are used like expendable assets, i.e., cattle.
The sheep follow the Ram, and the Ram leads them astray to pastures near a cliff, and mindlessly they follow. Such is the nature of man and history.
A good reference on the subject is John Ralston Saul’s excellent book ‘The Collapse of Globalism and the reinvention of the world’ which shows quite clearly the game plan, how it has already failed, and what the proponents are doing to keep the corpse alive.
By Sal on 05.10.07 10:23 am
It all depends how you look at it, Old Enough to Remember!
I agree. The majority of people in the rest of the world would think, as a group, you’d won the lottery.
Based upon the tenor of discussion here on this specific issue, yeah, maybe you did pick the wrong country to be born in.
Tough.
Garth,
Thank you for all your work and persistence. As I write this I have ParlVU running in the background and I’m listening to that clever woman, Diane Ablonczy, from Calgary. She must be auditioning for the job of Finance Minister.
Ms. Ablonczy said two things that I feel are wrong (actually more than two but I want to check Hansard tomorrow). She said the income trust tax is good for seniors. How can inflicting $15 billion of losses on retirement saving in RSPs and RRIFs be good for seniors? That makes no sense. She must explain: how is the income trust tax good for seniors, especially those who did not invest until after the Primer Minister made his promise?
Ms. Ablonczy said income trusts are bad for the economy. She said nothing about tax fairness. Good thing because it is false to say that the trust tax is fair, and telling something that you know to be false is lying. Anyway she said that income trusts are bad for the economy. Why? And how can it be good for the economy to inflict $38 billion of losses on small investors? Who gets the benefit of buying those assets for cheap?
And if income trusts are so bad for the economy, why is the government exempting real estate income trusts? That makes no sense to me. What does make sense is that two MPs in Calgary, Diane and Steve, are making it easy for big oil companies to buy for cheap my small but precious (to me) investments in energy trusts. May be I’m being unreasonable but six months later we still don’t have a good and true explanation.
Hey, we have Garth claiming $25 billion. We have CAITI claiming $35 billion. Now we have Katie claiming $38 billion.
(All are b.s. to any objective financial analyst)
Who will be the first to cross the $40 billion marker?
Gas costs 15¢ too much: Report
Good thing we also get Petroleum Jelly from this Black Gold…it eases the pain we have been enduring because our government can’t find the courage to control this run amok industry.
“Granted, the tax on trusts hit many seniors and others hard. Markets reacted by wiping out $30 billion.”
Macleans.ca May 14 ’07 future issue.
By Reg on 05.10.07 9:50 am
The $30 Billion devaluation loss was directly precipitated by the Flaherty announcement Oct. 31 ’06. When faced with the [imponderable-uncertainties] of whether they would sustain even greater losses, inveators vacated their previous positions [holdings] en masse.
I refuse to believe reputable firms participated in the overselling or de facto misstatement of underpinned earnings potential. I have followed the Income Trust hearings closely, and I do find confirmation that Flaherty’s announcement was, in fact, a nuclear bomb, intended for no other purpose than to destroy Income Trusts as a potential investment. Seemingly, Flaherty was oblivious to the major damage his drastic action would cause.
During the Finance Committee hearings, I watched Diane Urquhart referring to the potential for misleading investors. I paid RAPT attention to her claims.
I am not aware that she received the same 18 blacked-out pages that Gordon Tait, BMO Nesbitt Burns, and others received, to support Flaherty’s claim of massive tax leakage. Many knowledgeable Bay Street analysts are STILL saying that Flaherty’s presentation deliberately set out to mislead people as to why he took such precipitous action.
If the Finance Committee, under the chairmanship of Pallister [Portage] and supported by lackeys Ablonczy, Del Mastro, Dykstra and Wallace, had got its way, Flaherty would not have appeared before it at all. Fortunately,
they were voted down by the opposition majority and Flaherty was compelled to appear.
Journals other than Macleans have been more willing to condemn Flaherty’s actions as amateurish, unprofessional and ill-considered. A ‘mea culpa’ admission by the elfin Flaherty is no comfort to anyone.
It would be of interest to all here, I am sure, to learn the date of Mr. Rosen’s letter to the RCMP.
CAITI has a petition in circulation requesting that Auditor General Sheila Fraser review the entire matter. I really have NO confidence in the RCMP.
maybe you did pick the wrong country to be born in. Tough.
Old enough on 05.10.07 10:45
Typical DUMB ASS comment.
I’m not a tenor, I’m a baritone!
Old enough explain how this is a ponzi scheme:
Yellow Pages turns 42% jump in profit
Canadian Press
May 10, 2007
MONTREAL — Higher revenue and income from operations prompted a 42-per-cent jump in Yellow Pages Income Fund’s first-quarter profit, the directory publisher says.
Profit for the three months ended March 31 totalled $121-million, up from $85.2 million in the year-earlier period. Adjusted revenue rose 29 per cent to $385.1-million, due both to acquisitions completed last year and to internal growth at the fund’s print and online directory businesses.
Verdun, Que.-based Yellow Pages distributed $144.6-million or 27 cents a unit to its unitholders in the quarter, up from $123.8-million or 25 cents in the first quarter of 2006.
In addition to its participation in Montreal-based Yellow Pages Group Co., which is active in printed directories and online, it also holds Trader Corp., which manages 200 publications and 20 Internet sites in the automotive, real estate, consumer and employment sector.
Hi Old enough to remember,
You say “Hey, we have Garth claiming $25 billion. We have CAITI claiming $35 billion. Now we have Katie claiming $38 billion.”
The $35 billion and $38 billion are both CAITI numbers; one at the time of the Meltdown, and the other to adjust for subsequent losses. Go spend some time at the CAITI site.
It could be that Garth has adjusted for net of tax–whatever. But even $25 billion is a lot of money. Much of it seniors could use to pay for living expenses, medical bills, contribute to scholarships for daft young people like yourself–whatever.
THE SECOND COMING
by: W. B. Yeats (1865-1939)
URNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
Pyotr,
Remember that OETR may remember, but has yet to learn from the experience. Wisdom comes with acceptance, not age.
BTW, The ‘Canadian Idiot Hour’ is on!
Old enough.. if energy trusts are such bad investments and “ponzi schemes” why is Thunder Energy being bought out by: “The Public Sector Pension Investment Board is a Crown corporation managing assets for the federal public service, the Canadian Forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension funds.”?
Apr 24, 2007 1:39:00 PM MST
Thunder Energy Trust to be acquired by Public Sector Pension, Overlord (Thunder-Energy)
CALGARY (CP) _ Thunder Energy Trust (TSX:THY.UN) has announced an agreement to be taken over for $4 per unit by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board and Overlord Financial Inc. (TSXV:OFI).
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.10.07 12:50 pm
Old enough explain how this is a ponzi scheme:
I made the reference when we were specifically referring to Energy Trusts – where the overall decline in oil and gas reserves in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin, and the need to constantly convert tax paying oil and gas companies to non paying trust units was unsustainable.
I don’t know enough about Yellow Pages to comment specifically, but I note in your clipping that some growth was in acquisitions (I presume pre Oct 31st – so that it converted a tax paying company to the IT).
If they can keep growing internaly while dist’ng payments and maintaining stock price – good for them. I suspect that maybe next yr the results won’t be as favourable (since they can’t convert acquisitions), but we’ll have to wait and see.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.10.07 2:22 pm
Old enough.. if energy trusts are such bad investments and “ponzi schemes†why is Thunder Energy being bought out by:
Perhaps they have plans to convert it back, and re-invest profits. Who knows.
Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way… you become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions.
Aristotle
Just actions are a foreign concept to the ruling party . They are guided by intolerance,bigotry and exclusiveness and have no clue what a ‘Just Society’ looks or feels like .
Their absurd attack on seniors savings accounts (Income Trusts ) is proof of their inability to feel empathy for anyone other than their own party and its members .
This is intemperate in the extreme, a law that could well have been crafted by Joseph Stalin or Bennito Mussolini .
As to bravery they are indeed a brave lot hiding behind stupid legislation and blaming the Liberals for all of their inabilities to govern in a proper and decent manner .
No logic or forethought impedes their mission to remake Canada into an intolerant society full of suspicion and hatred .Playing off one group against another .
Recognizing the rough beast that slouches towards Bethlehem is easy . It is the devil its hour come ’round at last .
Who knows.
Old enough to remember 05.10.07 2:43pm
My my my … what an insight!
Bill-Muskoka
I watched it … I also have been watching CPAC for the debate on the Liberal motion on corporate borrowings [interest deductibility for acquisitions] and reversal on Income Trusts. I can’t say how the issues will be voted … I can say there were ‘scripted’ writhings and double-speak on the CPC [CRAP] side of the house.
Canadian corporate taxes paid by Encana for the year ended December 31, 2005 was approx. 18%, not the 34% rate used by the Department of Finance in the analysis that was the basis for the trust taxation legislation. The rate so far for 2006 is in the same range. On December 14, 2006 EnCana released guidance (http://www.encana.com/pdfs/guidance.pdf) which included an update on their corporate income tax rates. The terminology they use to describe their income tax rate is…Effective Book Tax Rate, as a percentage of Operating Earnings from Continuing Operations…. and the amount is 36%. The wording of this description is no accident and it does not say this is the actual rate they will eventually pay. You have to dig through the footnotes to the financial statements to determine this number. EnCana issues financial statements only in $US, yet they earn 70% of their profit from Canada. Nowhere in their statements do they provide the taxable income amount for earnings in Canada. They always use Footnote #8 to list income taxes paid and this breaks out corporate taxes paid in Canada and the US. For the 2005 tax year, EnCana earned approx $4B in pre-tax income of which $2.9M is estimated to have been earned in Canada. Taxes paid to the Canadian government were $0.5B. Total after tax profits were approx. $2.8B once US taxes of $0.7B were paid. Dividends of $238M or 8.5% of after tax profits were paid to shareholders. They have spent $2.1B to buy back 60.7M common shares so far in 2006 which represents approx. 7% of the total shares outstanding. Their annual dividend is $0.40 per share. At December 31, 2005, there were 29.3 million common shares reserved for issuance under stock option plans (2004 – 16.0 million; 2003 – 15.6 million). The decision to spend $2.1B on stock buy backs was made at the board level which is the same level as the decision to issue stock options. They have allocated this capital to stock buy backs while paying out dividends of less than 1%. Had EnCana been structured as an income trust the $4B in earnings would have been available for distributions. The $4B is after deducting estimated depletion costs which are necessary to replace reserves so paying out some of all of the $4B would not cause depletion of capital. The $4B would be passed to unitholders who would have been a mixture of Canadian and US taxpayers and Canadian registered account holders. The registered account holders would have been either RRSPs or RRIFs. The RRSPs would have been tax deferred not tax exempt, and the RRIFs would have in turn paid out income depending on the age of the recipient. The combined tax collected by these sources would have had to exceed the $493M EnCana paid in taxes to the Canadian government in 2005. The government and Jack Mintz have only said there would be tax leakage if companies like EnCana converted, but we have never seen the numbers. The numbers are either too difficult for them to calculate or the don’t want us to know.
Hey Old enough to remember….are you old enough =to think: ”
Hey, we have Garth claiming $25 billion. We have CAITI claiming $35 billion. Now we have Katie claiming $38 billion.”
I am convinced by your unassailable logic…..they must have lost nothing….afterall that’s what’s behind the 18 pages of blacked out documents….no doubt they want them back so they can alter the analysis to prove that income trust investors actually made money from the introduction of a31.5% tax……just like our housed would double in value if property taxes were increased to 31.5% per annum based on the value of th ehouse. CAITI has to start lobbying for property tax increases or maybe you might want to head that initiative up…..seems you have a lot of time on your hands
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=0555ea65-44fe-4fbc-896c-2fbdd53d4cd7&p=2
But maybe Mr. Flaherty, even if he’s right, should give this and other immensely complicated corporate tax issues a full public airing before he rushes forward with some half-baked fixes. Canada’s international corporate tax regime hasn’t been reviewed in decades, while major changes are taking place all over the world. Denmark and Germany are both revising their foreign corporate income regimes. The Danes plan new thin-capitalization rules to prevent borrowing abuses and limits on interest deductibiliy, and new rules on income from foreign affiliates.
An easy and laudable exit for Mr. Flaherty would be to announce that, due to complexity and corporate concerns, a panel will be struck to make Canada’s international corporate tax regime as modern as possible and free of what appears to be serious tax-avoidance problems.
Nothing wrong with that. How else can we find out what’s really going on?
© National Post 2007
No mention of Flaherty’s precipitous action on Income Trusts. Diane Francis, in her column gave the issue full measure in terms of a ‘hasty pudding’ effort by Flaherty from within a very weak cabinet … i.e. business depth
Harper’s Bizarre will ‘pay’ everywhere!
They’re not soon going to forgive
http://www.thewesternstar.com/index.cfm?sid=28426&sc=30
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty flew there last week to discuss the same equalization changes but has yet to reply to a letter sent about a month ago from Tom Marshall, this province’s Finance minister, asking for some clarification.
Hearn may have good reasons for his decision on fish quotas but Flaherty has enough staff and department underlings to answer an inquiry for another level of government.
This nonsense may eventually blow over but there’s no saying how much damage will be done to intergovernmental relations, friendships and the future of this province before any hatchets are buried.
JCLH,
Aye, but the Devil lurks in the shadows, and the Light reveals its every move to those who have an eye to see!
It is like having an Intellectual Night Vision Goggle System at one’s disposal.
Perhaps they have plans to convert it back, and re-invest profits. Who knows.
By Old enough to remember on 05.10.07 2:43 pm
Ponzi schemes, by defition, have no profit, they are investments schemes that always require new investors to fund old investors payout.
Hi Garth,
I’ve just been reading about the lobbying group that is “co-sponsoring” at least some of your meetings. I’m curious about the arrangements. Are they paying all the costs of the meetings identified as co-sponsored or do you pay some portion from your own budget? Are all of the meetings being “co-sponsored?” Does this lobby group set the agenda or are they just getting a little exposure in exchange for their sponsorship. How much does a meeting cost? Can anyone sponsor a meeting and chose the theme?
They are paying nothing and providing only some expertise in the subject area. — Garth
Question:
If this spinoff was structured as an income trust, would it automatically be a “ponzi scheme”?
EnCana should consider selling its oilsands business: RBC Capital
Encana Corp. (ECA/TSX) should consider spinning off its oilsands business in order to unlock value that the market appears to be discounting, RBC Capital analyst Gordon Gee said.
In a note to clients, Mr. Gee estimated that EnCana’s oilsands business is worth about $17 a share, which implies hidden value of as much as $12 or more a share based on the company’s current share price, adding that with an estimated 6.9 billion barrels recoverable resource, EnCana’s 527,000 acres of oilsands represents a major position compared to others.
He believes Encana’s oilsands assets has less capital cost execution risk than most of its peers and increased his target price from $66 to $73 while maintaining his “outperform†rating on the stock.
Mr. Gee also said EnCana might consider spinning off some mature gas assets as well, but he doesn’t expect EnCana to break itself up completely.
David Pett
dpett@nationalpost.com
And now we know the rest of the story…kind of:
Busted bureaucrat slams Tories
Tories aim at ‘secrecy, intimidation and centralization,’ arrested civil servant charges>/b>
The key issue, from the criminal charges stand point seems to be Monaghan was arrested on an allegation of breach of trust under the Criminal Code for leaking secret draft legislation. The RCMP later clarified the statement, saying the leak involved a “regulatory framework,” and not actual legislation.
The complaint about the leak came from Michael Horgan, the department’s deputy minister, said Environment Canada spokeswoman Lynn Brunette. But critics say the government must have pressured Horgan to call in the police.
So, it would seem that this citizen felt a need to protect Canadians from the likes of Harper, Barid, and the rest the Goon Squad, not for partisan political purposes. I am sure we will learn more, but the real question becomes But critics say the government must have pressured Horgan to call in the police. and that would have been?
My, my what shock, eh? Standing up for Canada indeed!
The CBC, likewise, reports Government trying to ‘bully’ public servants, accused leaker says
Government the one breaking laws: Monaghan
Well, what a shock that is as well.
Thanks Garth.
CHECK THIS YOU TUBE OUT!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjD2KZbnFfg
Question:
If this spinoff was structured as an income trust, would it automatically be a “ponzi scheme�
Do you know anything about the industries that you constantly bring up? I don’t think so.
The oilsands is NOT conventional oil and gas. It is also a GROWTH industry.
You know not of what you speak.
Old enough
So then you would agree that this company is not a ponzi scheme:
Canadian Oil Sands Trust Nearly Triples Q1 Earnings
By The Canadian Press
25 Apr 2007 at 03:42 PM GMT-04:00
CALGARY (CP) — Canadian Oil Sands Trust [TSX:COS.UN], the biggest partner in the Syncrude oilsands project in northern Alberta, raised its distributions to investors by a third Wednesday as the company reported its net profits nearly tripled to C$262 million.
Canadian Oil Sands said it is increasing payments to investors by 33% 40 cents a trust unit from 30 cents, payable at the end of May.
The hike came after the company reported net profits in the first quarter rose to $262 million or 55 cents a unit, from $91 million, or 20 cents for the same period last year.
EnCana said it had asked Ottawa for an advance tax ruling on a proposed $20-billion income trust in the summer of 2005, when it was considering spinning out more than one-third of its assets into a separate publicly traded structure.
“Everyone in the Finance Department, whoever had access to it, would have known,” Randy Eresman, EnCana chief executive officer, said. “They had over a year to look at our application and understand the implications of it, actually through two governments.”
While EnCana’s plans may have been known to Ottawa for some time, it appears the matter did escalate recently. At a board meeting two weeks ago, EnCana’s directors agreed in principle on a plan to convert the entire company into a trust, according to one person attending the session. That would have easily created the biggest trust in the country, valued at more than $40-billion, based on the energy company’s current market value.
The board directed its legal and financial advisers to draft terms of the conversion, which was supposed to have been announced last week, but was shelved when Ottawa unveiled its clampdown on the sector, sources said.
The company’s former CEO, Gwyn Morgan, had been opposed to the company’s efforts to convert a portion of Encana’s assets into a trust, and remained silent after the agreement two weeks ago to pursue a full conversion, said one person who attended the meeting.
Mr. Eresman said there was no division at the board of directors about a trust.
Mr. Morgan, who wrote an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail last week supporting Ottawa’s move to slow down the rapid growth of the income-trust sector, left the board of EnCana shortly after the meeting. The firm announced his resignation the day after it took place.
The company said Mr. Morgan was stepping down from the board in accordance with a retirement plan outlined a year ago. He could not be reached for comment.
“Gwyn’s no longer on the board and when he wrote the piece for The Globe, he was speaking for himself,” Brian Ferguson, EnCana chief financial officer, said.
When the trust levy was announced, EnCana withdrew its application for an advance tax ruling.
Didn’t Morgan and Harper jet off to Mexico together before the plan to attack Income Trusts was announced?
Wasn’t Morgan going to have to pay millions of dollars in capital gains tax had Encana converted to a Trust?
hmmm
marte
Garth,
What can you do to help the unit holders of Thunder Energy Trust from being swindled in the short term? Big money is taking advantage of the situation.
Thanks.
Bill m,
Tories aim at ’secrecy, intimidation and centralization,’ arrested civil servant charges>/b>
I’m certain you didn’t intend to have ‘>/b>’ appear at the end of the sentence.
Please satisfy my curiousity and explain what you did and the intent.
Seems there may be more people to blame other than the government. If the article is factual, and many trusts would not have been sustainable, how does one go about determining a fair dollar loss?
By Reg on 05.10.07 9:50 am
Perhaps you deserve the benefit of the doubt by presenting an article which seeks to perpetuate the myth that Income Trust investors were going to lose their money anyway. Then again, you could be just another Harper/Flaherty apologist grasping at any straw to again deflect blame from their treachery. Al Rosen has had a hard on against Income Trust providers for a long time, and will stop at nothing to make his points. As for whether or not a given situation is sustainable, there are numerous examples of corporate entities under a givem set of circumstance where their situation would be unsustainable. Chrysler, Ford and GM are unsustainable in an environment in which quality built foreign vehicles are more attractive to the car buying public. Olympia & York was highly successful in an environment of relatively low interest rates, but became unsustainable in an environment of made in Canada high interest rates, intended to keep the Canadian dollar high and secure American agreement for the North American Free Trade Agreement. Encana would be unsustainable in an environment of persistently low gas prices. Many Income Trusts continue to be successful, despite the shive in the heart. But their ability to attract new capital has been severely impaired. A lack of sustainability will, for many, become a self-fullfilling prophecy. Rosen said it would happen, and you can be damned sure, in many instances, the Halloween massacre will drive the point home. The motives behind this abomination had nothing to do with what was best for the Canadian taxpayer, and everything to do with what was best for their Corporate friends.
By Irate Tolerant on 05.10.07 10:29 pm
Now we’ve got all cenobytes here.. quick, solve the cube!
Quick question to the income trust bashers:
How can you simultaneously argue that the income trusts are ponzi schemes worthy of lawsuits, but argue that they are tax leakages, which will cause Canadians to pay more to support our social programs, like health care and education?
Didn’t Morgan and Harper jet off to Mexico together before the plan to attack Income Trusts was announced?
Wasn’t Morgan going to have to pay millions of dollars in capital gains tax had Encana converted to a Trust?
hmmm
marte
Clearly Gwyn Morgan was a Benedict Arnold to his oilpatch brethren, when he strongly supported the Flaherty move as good public policy, and against the best long term interests of Encana. If shareholders had been given the opportunity to convert Encana to a trust and he disagreed, he could have sold his shares or trust units, which ever he deemed best for him, and of course would have paid taxes on a large capital gain. More significantly, however, I direct all of you to my discussion board at Canadian Business Online
http://forums.canadianbusiness.com/thread.jspa?threadID=8442&tstart=15
Read the post dated January 7, 2007.
The amount of taxes otherwise payable by Mr Morgan each and every year would have been staggering had Encana converted to a trust. Good public policy or strong personal interest in removing the threat of trust conversion?
Conservative Party’s Official Position
Conservative Party’s Official Position on losses sustained by income trust investors as a result of the Tax Fairness Plan: The price of “fairness†by Canada’s New Government (trademark registered):
Mr. Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, CPC):
The member spoke at length about the markets and so forth. I would hazard a guess he probably has not looked at the markets. Does the member know that the TSX is up over 17% since October 31, 2006? Does he know that? I doubt it. Additionally, does the member know that the TSX income trusts index is up over 5% since October 1, 2006? Does the member know that? I doubt it.
Let me tell the House something else the member does not know anything about. It is about a government with the guts to make a decision that has to be made because we know when the Liberals were in government they did not do it. The Auditor General pointed out problems to them in 2003. They did nothing. They did not care about tax fairness at all.
I will tell the House something else. They also did not care that the gap between rich and poor was getting so wide under its government that it was absolutely despicable. I ask the member this. Why does he not support tax fairness?
Let’s evaluate the price associated with supporting the notion of so called “fairnessâ€. According to official Conservative party statements above in the House of Commons by Dena Del Mastro of the House Standing Committee of Finance:
Broad market up 17%, income trust market up 5% from the lows, would mean at least a 12% loss sustained by the $200 billion income trust market for a total loss of $24 billion. Thank you Mr Del Mastro. Will you be providing daily updates in the House of Commons or was yesterday’s statement a less frequent occurrence?
Irate Intolerant,
Please satisfy my curiousity and explain what you did and the intent.
I simply made an HTML typo and did not close the bold command. No hidden mystery involved.
By Cousin It on 05.11.07 9:58 am
Broad market up 17%, income trust market up 5% from the lows, would mean at least a 12% loss sustained by the $200 billion income trust market for a total loss of $24 billion.
Nice try Cousin IT.
S&P/TSX Income Trust – RTCM-I
Open May 11, 2007 157.050
52 week low 134.950
Income trust market up 16.4% from the lows.
What’s next? Will you be blaming Jim Flaherty because he didn’t advise you to buy RIM stock?
Maybe you should learn to do so math first.
Hey Old Enough to Remember, maybe you’re corrupt enough to be a CONservative yourself, since this mental arithmetic isn’t mine but rather it is the brain child of that used car salesman from Peterborough who considers himself qualified to sit on the Finance Committee. Obviously he isn’t qualified to open his mouth in public…….I guess that’s why he foments this nonsense in the House of Commons, that way he is protected by diplomatic immunity or some other equally lame excuse. This particular moron goes by the name of Dean Del Mastro….or aren’t you old enough to remember that was who was being quoted? Or maybe you are the used car salesman from Peterborough yourself? As for me I am old enough to not even care, because based on your line of reasoning, you may as well be the used car salesman from Peterborough. Do you think your father will let you go back to work for him after your disgraced performance as an MP?
By Cousin It on 05.11.07 11:40 am
or aren’t you old enough to remember that was who was being quoted?
Well, to be honest, I had trouble figuring out what was a quote and what were your musings. Perhaps quotation marks would help in the future.
As written, I took them to be yours. Go back and read your original entry.
Either way, the $24 b is bogus.
Flawed assumptions legion:
Double-dipping taxes
Jim Flaherty assumes that banning ‘double dipping’ on interest deductions would increase tax revenue, but in fact it would drop
Nathan Boidman, Financial Post
Published: Friday, May 11, 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=928b61e0-8195-41d4-a533-3b9751f045d5
Double-dipping taxes
How’s this for double dipstick logic: Double dipping is considered by Flaherty and all of civilized society as being a sin beyond all possible sins and yet retroactive double taxation of income trusts in RRSPs is Tax Fairness?………try gross injustice, gross inequity and gross incompetence wrapped up in one tight little concept called the Minister of Gross Economic Negligence and Mismanagement, The Honourable James M. Flaherty.
Strange that 82% of Canadians polled by Angus Reid thought double taxation of RRSPs wasn’t fair. I guess the CONservatives and the NDP are going to have to fight over which party can lay claim to the remaining 18% of Canadians who are thrilled by the idea of double taxing their retirement, since no doubt income splitting will more than make up for it…provided you are one of the 14% of seniors for whom this concept will apply. Sounds like the law of diminishing returns at play here……….now we have evolved to that higher plane called pretzel logic.
By Old enough to remember on 05.11.07 11:57 am
So you are saying that a 31.5% tax added to RRSP/RRIF accounts on income trust distributions, including return on capital, which is not taxable to begin with had neutral effect on valuations of income trusts, and played no part in them being bought out by foreign equity? So, Jim Flaherty’s plan to shut down income trusts is a bust?
Old Enough To Remember proudly proclaims:
“Either way, the $24 b is bogus.”
To which I have three responses:
(1) good, so go tell Del Mastro that he’s full of it
(2) Hi my name is old enough to remember and my mind is made up….I prefer to be unencumbered by the facts…that way I sleep better at night….and throughout my waking hours as well
(3) Pleasant dreams
By Cousin It on 05.11.07 1:00 pm
You forgot the quotation marks on item #2
Do petitions really do anything? Are they brought forward by Members and then just hidden away?
I’ve heard them brought up and was wondering what happens after that.
I just wondered what the protocol was in this regard.
They are certified, tabled and sent to the government for a response. It is also a constant reminder in the House of Commons as to how Canadians feel. — Garth
By slg on 05.09.07 6:45 pm
SLG, they don’t do anything. Look at the thousands of people who sent petitions in to keep the definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Did the government listen? Nope. Notice that Garth didn’t say actually answer your question? He could have said yes or no. You asked a question and deserve a straight-forward answer. The answer is no. Just look at how many MPs leave right after QP which is before petitions are presented. That alone speaks volumes.
Just actions are a foreign concept to the ruling party . They are guided by intolerance,bigotry and exclusiveness and have no clue what a ‘Just Society’ looks or feels like .
Their absurd attack on seniors savings accounts (Income Trusts ) is proof of their inability to feel empathy for anyone other than their own party and its members .
This is intemperate in the extreme, a law that could well have been crafted by Joseph Stalin or Bennito Mussolini .
Its posts like this one that demonstrates how ridiculously partisan you are. Your words have no place in a decent, respectful society. Upon reading such tripe, people would look at you as they do when they drive by an accident scene. In horror!
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.11.07 12:54 pm
On August 9th, 2006 the S&P/TSX Income Trust – RTCM-I peaked at 177.310
On October 4th, 2006, the index bottomed out at 149.73
This represents a gradual 15.6% decline in value over two months, and well before the Flaherty announcement.
So, where were all the IT investors and politicians screaming bloody murder then?
They were nowhere, because on the stock market, s**t happens.
Today, the index closed at 157.310, getting pretty close to the pre-Oct 31st announcement close of 164.860 (down just 4.6%).
And in the interim, the distn’s keep coming, and will for another four years.
So, get over it. You didn’t complain before Oct 4th. Your constant whining grates.
“Senior’s life savings wiped out. $25 b,$35 b,$38 b wiped out, blah blah blah”
Tiresome.
By Old enough to remember on 05.11.07 4:07 pm
Do you really think that your CONservative war room comments will help?
Again, how does the Minister of Finance justify “double dipping” RRSP/RRIF accounts on income trust distributions, since he can’t stand “double dipping”. This is the problem with the CONservative “Tax Fairness Plan”. You can keep making assumptions about valuations on this day or that, but the fact of the matter is, seniors with RRIF accounts want to know why they will be penalized with a 31.5% tax on monthly income trust distributions, when they pay the full marginal tax rate on their monthly RRIF withdrawals already.
When I told my conservative MP David Sweet this on the telephone, he said that he didn’t realize that RRSP/RRIF accounts were the target of this tax and would talk to Jim Flaherty about it. I can only imagine what he was told, but he has since told me that he is following my commentary closely, heck his office even congratulated me on the birth of my child recently.
What I don’t understand is why has every other conservative MP that I have tried to communicate with circled the wagons around the PMO.
Jack Mintz, whose policies Flaherty seems to adopt, has repeatedly called for a tax credit for RRSP/RRIF accounts. You can obfuscate the truth, but the truth is that Jim Flaherty didn’t do his homework, and his assumptions of tax leakage are flawed.
Hey old enough to remember…..you seen to be young enough to engage in “data mining” I hate to be the first one to tell you but with respect to:
On October 4th, 2006, the index bottomed out at 149.73
That was pre Halloween and pre-announcement…….or are you trying to build a case that Flaherty leaked his upcoming tax measure…….maybe you’re not Dean Del Mastro afterall….maybe you’re Serge Nadeau….that explains all the free time that you have on your hands as you await trial for your alleged insider trading……not conduct becoming of a Director General of Tax Policy at the DoF…….you’re not supposed to get caught ripping off your fellow Canadians…..that is best left to the tax code to execute and the Minister of Finance himself.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.11.07 4:31 pm
Hey Geoffrey, suppose you had an IT that was only down, the average, of 4.6%.
And a foreign company made a hostile offer for the company, because, as you claim, Flaherty’s tax change made hem ripe for takeover.
Would you be happy selling them at a typical 20%-30% premium?
Or would you curse Flaherty and wish you could still hold onto them, at a lower value, for sentimental or nationalistic reasons?
Pray tell.
Would you be happy selling them at a typical 20%-30% premium?
Or would you curse Flaherty and wish you could still hold onto them, at a lower value, for sentimental or nationalistic reasons?
Pray tell.
By Old enough to remember on 05.11.07 6:02 pm
Well first of all, I would say that Flaherty screwed up, as he has just lost tax revenue.
Second, I am loathe to take the capital gain hit, as I purchased the trust for income.
Third, I would find it that much more difficult to realocate my money that paid a similar monthly income stream.
By Old enough to remember on 05.11.07 6:02 pm
I would add that the average Canadian tax payer would curse Flaherty, because he has shifted the tax burden for the income trust from the unitholder, who accepted the tax liability of receiving income trust distributions in exchange for a predictable monthly income, to the average Canadian taxpayer, as the taxes are lost due to the leveraged buyout.
The argument that income trusts are shifting the tax burden to individuals could be applied to anyone working for a corporation. After all, the corporation pays out part of it’s profits to employees as income, then the government taxes it. What a scandal, the tax burden has been shifted from the corporation to the individual.
So, would it be fair to conclude then, the whole issue for you, boils down to the bottom line?
If one approach is better economically for you, personally, you’d support it, but if it costs you money, personally, you’d reject it?
Isn’t that what your bottom line is? Your own personal gain?
Sean
Just look at how many MPs leave right after QP which is before petitions are presented.
You really are ignorant aren’t you? Why don’t you just shut up about things you know nothing about rather than spewing out BS?
Old Enough To Remember, you are a real piece of work. Your pseudonym would suggest you are old enough to be wise, when it is clearly evident you are anything but. Just another Harper/Flaherty apologist seeking to defend the indefensible. Read the petition! These people claimed they knew what they were doing when they made clear, unequivocle promises to get into power. They lied. Get it? They lied. They used bluster, over the top rhetoric, hyperbole (“Clear and Present Danger”), nationalism and fear-mongering to support their treachery, and then failed in all respects over the succeeding 6 months to provide any modicum of tangible evidence to justify the treachery. Trusting income trust investors paid the price in the form of tens of billions of dollars in lost market values in 2 days. What has happened in the interim in the markets has no bearing on these events, other than the fact that income trusts have had to operate in an arena where their hands are virtually tied behind their backs. You would suggest that trust investors should welcome a 20-30% premium to market price under those conditions, when the inherent value of these entities might well be even 20-30% higher, all other factors being equal. And by the way Mr. Wiseman, the broader TSX is up over 20% since the massacre, while as you say, the S&P/TSX Income Trust index is down 4.6%. I will take your word for it. Talk about tiresome. Seeking to add objectivity to the discourse, my ass!
Flaherty caught in the act
Flaherty doing a flip flop?………not humanly possible.
For a man who prides himself on absolute bull headed intractability, Flaherty sure leaves himself exposed. Here Stephane Dion has cornered Flaherty on what his true intent was with respect to interest deductibility, namely all interest on foreign acquisition debt and not the safe retreat that Flaherty has tried to seek solace in, namely that he only ever intended to deal with double dipping. Well, as I have said all along. Flaherty is the Minister of Unintended Consequences as he implemented the equally rash and panicked Tax Fairness Plan with the stated intention of stemming non existent tax leakage……..now we have tax hemorrhaging instead, as all these trusts redirect their $16 billion in annual pre tax cash flow to foreign private equity players as opposed to taxable investors, 80% of whom are Canadians who pay average tax rates of 38% and the rest who pay withholding tax at the rate of 15%. Not so in the future because these pre tax cash flows will be reinvented as interest and Flaherty has assured that no taxes will be paid because he eliminated withholding tax on leverage buyout loans in the budget to induce this “it’s no my fault†of $6 billion in tax hemorrhaging. Throw in BCE and Telus and we’re talking about $7.5 billion per year in tax hemorrhage.
It’s a good thing that the Liberals are exposing this incompetent for who he is. It’s only a matter of time before his fraud of tax leakage is exposed for what it is. The flip flop on interest deductibility will be good practice for him. Maybe Canadians (read Tom D’Aquino and his bleeding hearts at CCCE) will come to the realization that support for interest deductibility is just an argument for not taxing income trusts since interest payments, like income trust distributions come from the same place……..pre tax earnings. The only difference being Income trust distributions get taxed in Canada whereas interest on foreign acquisition debt seldom do, since they are foreign lenders and not domestic lenders typically…………….Flaherty does believe in tax fairness doesn’t he?…………or is he only interested in creating new tax loopholes for foreigners?
This is from yesterday’s House of Commons debate. It is clear that Flaherty is backtracking to the safe ground of “double dipping†as being his original focus, eventhough he intended to eliminate all interest deductibility on foreign acquisition debt, as revealed by Stephane Dion:
Hon. Stéphane Dion:
Mr. Speaker, I much prefer the comments made by my hon. colleague over what I have heard from the government and the NDP. In fact, that is precisely what we must try to do. The government is bringing in an atomic bomb, when all that is needed is a little surgery. That is what we want to work on.
Our problem is what is written in the budget. We are working with what the budget says. The minister was not obligated to write that. Here is the sentence:
Budget 2007 will eliminate the deductibility of interest on debt incurred by corporations to finance foreign affiliates.
This has to do with the entire deductibility. This would mean that our companies could no longer do business in the global economy with the same tools as the Americans, Japanese and Europeans. We must tell the government—
Here’s something for anyone old enough to accept reality:
The BMO Index (which excludes REITs) was at 200.59 on October 31, 2006 and reached a low point of 160.26 on November 14, 2006 and on Friday May 11, 2007 closed at 188.78 representing an overall loss of 5.89%. Meanwhile the TSX itself was at 12,344.55 on October 31, 2006 and closed on Friday at 14,004.35 representing a gain of 13.45%. There is every reason to believe that, absent Flaherty’s reckless and unsubstantiated intervention, the index trust market would have moved in sympathy with the broad market as it has for each of the preceding 6 years. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that the BMO Index would today be at 227.56 which means that investors have lost 20.55% in value and will be using deflated assets (deflated in value by 5.89%) to purchase inflated assets (inflated by 13.45%). This is a tangible loss in purchasing parity for the asset class they are most likely to be forced to own, as the trusts are bought out by the civil servant’s pension plans, other pension plans and foreign private equity which equals 20.55% for a total loss in purchasing parity of $40 billion
By Bill Dingee, Calgary on 05.11.07 10:03 pm
Bill, I was going to say something about your cheap attack on Gwyn Morgan earlier, but I refrained. I don’t agree with the guy on a number of things, actually, I think he’s a bit naive, but I do believe he acted in the best interest of Canada (from his perspective) in speaking out against ITs. He wrote a letter to the G&M after he was attacked by their columnist, I’ll post it next.
You, and others, place a great deal upon a promise that Harper made. Can you tell me honestly that his “promise” induced you into buying ITs? Or are you pissed because his gov’t closed a loophole, that you had taken advantage of up to that time? (I suspect it’s the latter – please give details otherwise).
You are in Alberta, so you probably are not aware of this. But, prior to the last provincial election in Ontario, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation had a press conference with Dalton McGuinty, where he publicly signed a pledge to not raise taxes and to balance the budget.
Subsequently, he did neither, and was taken to court by the CTF. Guess what? It was dismissed by the court. Election promises carry no legal weight.
So, I ask you. If you in fact have a lgal case where you can emonstrate actual losses, why don’t you and all the other complainers sue the gov’t for misleading you, and quit wasting question period and all other activities you and others have pre-occupied our elected officials with your special interests?
Canada has much more important issues to deal with.
Get it?
By Bill Dingee, Calgary on 05.11.07 8:51 am
In reply to his cheap shots against Gwyn Morgan, this letter to the editor, G&M, replying to similar attacks.
Morgan replies
GWYN MORGAN
November 15, 2006
Victoria — Report on Business columnist Deborah Yedlin chose to attack me in a recent column (How Morgan Went From Hero To Pariah — Nov. 8), accusing me of everything from possibly having been consulted in advance on the government’s plan to tax income trusts to (horror of horrors) being on a first-name basis with the Prime Minister.
Her reliable sources were rumours and her method was innuendo.
I confess to being a person with strong views about the importance of Canadian-headquartered companies. To me, there need be no compromise between the good of a company and its shareholders and the good of the country and its citizens.
As a passionate Canadian, I have taken a strong interest in matters of public policy. I have spoken out on many issues, including economic policies, ethics in business and government, and education.
Most recently I spoke out in this newspaper on the difficult and sensitive issue of income trusts.
Clearly, expressing my thoughts and ideas on public issues isn’t meant to win a popularity contest. But when a columnist impugns a reputation that has taken a lifetime to build, rather than engage in a discussion about the ideas presented in my column, it does little to foster the kind of constructive dialogue and debate necessary to develop the best solutions for our country.
Old enough to remember said:
Get it?
Yes, actually we do get it. We get transparency. We get accountability. We get democracy. However, we first need to get rid of Harper to get it.
Got it?
old enough to remember said:
“Election promises carry no legal weight”
Okay, now I get it. Old enough to remember is on the research staff of the CPC. That’s what all the “analysis” consisted of that was ostensibly being done in advance of the Halloween betrayal. Old enough to remember was researching the legal precedents to breaking stated election promises.
Please let us know what your research showed about McGuinty’s chances of getting re-elected. I am an equal opportunity voter. Liberal lies, he loses. Conservative lies, he loses. Although when it comes to this fall’s Ontario election, I am sorry to report that John Tory will be collateral damage for the acts of his federal brethren. There have to be exceptions for special acts of betrayal. Hope you’ll understand.
Commentary
In the long term, Ottawa is right to move on income trusts
Governments, particularly minority governments, just don’t do such things, do they? Yes, they do, businessman Gwynn Morgan opines. Stephen Harper already has demonstrated that his government will put principle ahead of politics.
GWYN MORGAN
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061102.wcotrust02/BNStory/specialComment
From Thursday’s Globe and Mail
When I was asked to write about Tuesday’s income-trust announcement, my first reaction was that there is much more downside than upside in wading into these financially and emotionally roiling waters.
If doing so requires just an ounce of courage on my part, then the courage required by Jim Flaherty must be measured in tonnes. And this goes for his boss, Stephen Harper, as well.
In one decisive move, the Conservative government has riled trust investors, fund managers, trust executives and employees, along with the investment bankers, lawyers and others who have made a lot of money facilitating a huge shift from the corporate model to the trust structures. Their reaction is bound to be both immediate and visceral. (I guess Mr. Morgan hates the income trust model!)
On the other hand, it’s hard to think of many whose immediate reaction will be greatly positive. (Except Conservative bloggers, Jim Flaherty, and the NDP party who don’t realize who is behind all of this!)
The reason, of course, is that the first group will immediately lose money, while the rest of Canadians will see no direct impact on their lives. (Mr. Morgan surmises)
So the Harper government has unleashed a torrent of criticism, including that of the opposition Liberals, who can correctly accuse the Conservatives of reversing course from their election rhetoric.
Governments, particularly minority governments, just don’t do such things, do they?
But, then, Mr. Harper already has demonstrated that his government will put principle ahead of politics.
So what is the principle that he believes is important enough to upset quite a number of the people who voted for his party?
Mr. Flaherty says that, were Canada to move to an “income-trust economy,” three negative consequences would result:
1. Tax leakage, reducing overall government revenues. (Flaherty has no studies to prove this, and their are many to disprove this)
2. Tax imbalance, shifting more and more of this burden to individual taxpayers. (A conflation of which individual tax payers: those who pay tax on income trust distributions, or individual tax payers in general?
3. Lowered national competitiveness, with income trusts’ cash payouts reducing R & D and reinvestments in new technologies. (Does he mean BCE who is using R&D tax credits to pay no corporate tax until at least 2011?)
Is he correct?
On tax leakage, the answer is yes, but not in the way you might think.
Individual Canadian investors would largely have made up for tax avoided in the trust structure by paying tax on cash distributions. Even those holding trust units in tax-deferred accounts would, sooner or later, pay the piper. Very little long-term leakage here. (Mr. Morgan admits that there is no tax leakage from Canadian investors)
But, for foreign investors, Canadian trusts have been a tax bonanza. This is because, except for a minimal withholding tax, the cash payouts are pretty much tax free. This is where the real leakage is occurring, with foreigners getting a free ride from Canadian taxpayers. (An unbelievable statement after reading this article reproduced below! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061122.wftax1122/BNStory/Business/home )
At the federal level, most of this leakage is made up by higher capital gains tax inflows from trust conversion; the real leakage occurs at the provincial level. (Mr. Morgan doesn’t talk about the benefits to the Province of Alberta other than provincial level taxation)
As for the second point, tax imbalance, most Canadians don’t understand that, whether it’s a corporation or a trust, business income taxes are eventually paid by the owners of the business. In the case of publicly traded corporations, that’s the shareholders.
The more highly taxed the corporation, the lower the dividends and capital gains for the shareholder, and the less tax paid by the shareholder. In other words, they pay the tax indirectly, rather than directly. In principle, the trust structure makes a lot of sense, because it places the tax burden on real people, the owners. (A point in support of income trust structure!)
The third possible consequence, national competitiveness, is the most important concern.
Canadian business drives economic wealth through employment, economic development and investor value creation. The shareholders and employees of Canadian businesses provide the funds needed to run government programs and services. Therefore, research, reinvestment and growth are crucial to the future living standards of all Canadians. To the extent that trusts may have limited these things, the government had reason to be concerned. (This is Mr. Morgan’s unsupported opinion)
Of course, the trust phenomenon would never have gained such momentum if Canada’s corporate tax rates were competitive with those of other countries. (A long shot at lowering corporate taxes!)
The government’s sense of urgency, no doubt, was brought to a head by proposals to convert Canada’s two largest telecom icons, but it is fair to say that Canadian directors and management teams have increasingly been faced with shareholders who are demanding to know why their corporations were not converting to a trust. (I would love to know what Mr. Morgan and Mr. Flaherty have to say about BCE and Telus paying no corporate tax until at least 2011!)
If, as Mr. Flaherty predicts, inaction would have resulted in “an income-trust economy,” then taking action is certainly in the longer term interest of Canadians. (I am sorry, but Mr. Morgan did not support this thesis.)
Grade: F
Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of EnCana Corp.
*****
Which leads me to:
Flaherty considers tax cut for foreigners
HEATHER SCOFFIELD AND STEVEN CHASE
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061122.wftax1122/BNStory/Business/home
Globe and Mail Update
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is contemplating elimination of a key tax on foreign investors as a way to ease access to capital and assuage the energy sector after his move to tax income trusts. (Please explain how this statement squares and supports Mr. Morgan’s statement in the article above: “But, for foreign investors, Canadian trusts have been a tax bonanza. This is because, except for a minimal withholding tax, the cash payouts are pretty much tax free. This is where the real leakage is occurring, with foreigners getting a free ride from Canadian taxpayers.”)
Withholding-tax rates vary according to the type of investment and the country, but the 10-per-cent tax on Canadian interest that U.S. investors pay is in Mr. Flaherty’s sights, several sources say.
Negotiations with the United States have been on-again-off-again to have both countries lower their withholding tax on cross-border investments for years, but Mr. Flaherty is looking for ways to revive the talks, three well-connected Bay Street sources say.
“I know for some time the minister has been looking to get the job done,†one source said.
The federal government’s attempts kicked in to high gear this month, after complaints from the energy sector that the tax on income trusts would drive away foreign investment.
There is no evidence that an announcement is imminent, but Bay Street has been cheering him along.
“These withholding taxes are probably an impediment to investment flows,†says Finn Poschmann, director of research at the C.D. Howe Institute.
In the short term, Ottawa gives up some tax revenue, but in the long term, improved investment flows and better access to financing for Canadian companies make up for the loss, he argues. Access to venture capital in particular could be improved, he says, mainly because Americans would bring capital and managerial skills by taking larger stakes in Canadian companies. (Here is the refutation that lower taxation of US investors in Canadian income trusts or corporations is a tax leakage)
While it’s unclear whether withholding taxes will show up in Mr. Flaherty’s long-term economic plan Thursday, it would make sense to include a reference, Mr. Poschmann said.
“It would be natural to see a move on withholding taxes as part of a prosperity agenda.â€
As a general rule, Canada slaps a 25-per-cent tax on disbursements to foreigners — dividends, interest and royalties. But like many other countries, Canada has bilateral treaties that lower that tax for individual countries.
With the United States, Canada generally levies a 15-per-cent withholding tax on dividends and a 10-per-cent tax on interest payments of various kinds. In turn, the United States taxes interest paid to Canadians at a rate of 10 per cent. Although taxpayers on both sides of the border get tax credits from their own country for tax withheld by other countries, the credits don’t come close to making up investors’ losses.
As a result, the withholding taxes have acted as a deterrent to Americans investing in Canada and to U.S. financiers underwriting Canadian firms and projects, analysts say. (Obviously, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Flaherty are inconsistent with their statements concerning tax leakage to US investors. Which is it: Are US investors a tax leakage or an important source of capital whose returns should be taxed lower as an investment incentive. Mr. Morgan and Mr. Flaherty have forked tongues!)
Canada’s share of the world’s foreign direct investment has slowly declined over the past year, and the elimination of withholding taxes could help reverse the trend, analysts argue. The move would make it easier for Canadian companies to expand beyond Canada, and encourage foreign firms to invest here.
The private sector has estimated that the short-term net loss to government revenue is small, about $100-million a year. However, federal government estimates suggest the number could be more than double that.
Ottawa will probably not move to reduce or eliminate any withholding tax until the Americans agree to reciprocate, several insiders said, but that’s not beyond the realm of possibility.
“It would only be done in the context of a bilateral treaty,†one source said. “You’d also have to have agreement with the Americans, which I don’t think would be a problem because the United States has eliminated withholding taxes on every treaty it has signed in recent years.â€
A coalition of dozens of companies on both sides of the border has long lobbied for action on withholding taxes. And in a recent submission to Mr. Flaherty, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce put the issue near the top of its list of things the federal government should tackle to improve capital flows and investment.
It called on Ottawa to negotiate with major tax treaty partners the elimination of withholding taxes on dividends, royalties and interest payments.
It also asked Ottawa to immediately revive negotiations for tax changes under bilateral treaties with the United States and other major trading partners.
“The imposition of withholding taxes on interest, dividends and royalties has an immediate, negative impact on productivity,†the chamber argues.
The taxes impede cross-border capital flows, act as a tariff on the importation of capital and knowledge, and raise the cost to Canadian business of accessing foreign technology, the submission says.
“It’s not a good tax, and it’s not bringing in billions, so you should get rid of it,†said one Bay Street source.
He believes that the country’s economy as a whole would benefit from the elimination of the withholding tax, with or without reciprocity from the United States, since Canadian companies would benefit from lower borrowing costs through more foreign competition to finance Canadian business.
Canadian lenders, such as the chartered banks, may not immediately appreciate the foreign competition, he conceded.
“But if you look at it broadly, it would be beneficial to Canada.â€
The downside of the elimination of withholding taxes is mainly political.
The move would likely prompt critics to say Canada is giving away money to foreign companies and foreign governments.
(All in all, the only underlying rationale against income trusts is that Mr. Morgan don’t like them. But what does he care, Mr. Morgan can probably donate whatever executive stock options he has left, capital gains tax free, and writeoff his taxable income for years to come! He doesn’t need to rely on income trusts for his retirement)
Well Old Enough To Remember, you put me in my place didn’t you?
My cheap shot was to point out to those who may choose to accept the Harper/Flaherty treachery as just another political lie to be accepted as a fact of life, that perhaps some of the strongest advocates for the BIG LIE, might just have hidden agendas.
It may very well be that Mr. Morgan is just what he claims to be, “…a passionate Canadian, (with) a strong interest in matters of public policy.”
On the other hand, as I discuss in my forum at
http://forums.canadianbusiness.com/thread.jspa?threadID=8442&tstart=15
under date of Jan 7, 2007, a tax advantage of at least $1.7 million each and every year might tend to cloud one’s objectivity as relates to formulation of public policy where it affects them.
As for more important issues, lying politicians of all stripes, but particularly those with hidden agendas, should be held to account, and thrown out of office as quickly as the Canadian voter can be given the opportinity to do it.
Your distain of the Income Trust investor is clearly evident OETR, so your contributions will be valued in that light. In essence deeply discounted, like Income Trusts in the market place from the day the treachery was exposed.
Oh, and by the way OETR. there you go with that word “loophole” that Flaherty insisted upon using, along with all of his other verbal tactics, to improve the lot of his corporate friends.
I will admit to needing help understanding exactly how Income Trusts were “loopholes”. Perhaps you can put it into terms that simpletons such as myself can understand.
That will be very much appreciated.
By Cousin It on 05.11.07 10:35 pm
Thank you all, the complaining troika, for your objective views.
So what this really boils down to is that, because none of you heeded the warnings in the media, the analysis by financial experts, nor read and understood the dislaimers on the trust units (or your broker didn’t), you were cheated.
So, you are entitled to the same returns as someone who did not invest in trusts, or not as heavily.
It’s not that you have lost money, but rather the guy next door who didn’t invest in ITs made 20% more, and you also are entitled to the same.
Well, I was thinking of taking out a mortgage on my house and investing in in the stock market. But once Nov 1st came around, and all the IT investors started complaining, I didn’t invest.
By your logic, I too am entitled to 20% return that I could have made. Where’s my money?
“Revenge is a dish best served cold”.
Now that Duceppe is leaving the Bloc, it could be a very long time before you get your chances.
The dish will be very cold, indeed.
But, if you think this is a productive way to spend your golden years (or in one case your employer’s time)…We are far too rich a rich country.
By Bill Dingee, Calgary on 05.11.07 11:33 pm
My cheap shot was to point out to those who may choose to accept the Harper/Flaherty treachery…
I guess we have differences in opinion on what is a cheap shot. These words certainly are within my definition: “Clearly Gwyn Morgan was a Benedict Arnold to his oilpatch brethren”
Classy.
Btw, your financial analysis you refer to is overly simplistic. You have to compare two scenarios – status quo where the company (EnCana) continues to re-invest its cash flow, and his stock continues to appreciate (the business model he used successfully at its helm), or the IT model where the cash is not re-invested, and the unit basically winds down as production declines (or certainly doesn’t grow organically).
Also, I’m not sure the option being considered for EnCana was to convert the whole company to ITs, just a portion. That being the case, you’d need to factor that into your calculations.
So, not only a cheap shot, but perhaps defamatory due to the possible error in your calculations.
Old enough stay focused!
Again please explain why RRSP/RRIF account holders will be double taxed with a punitive 31.5% and taxed again on the withdrawal of such funds. Not even Gwyn Morgan agrees that this was the tax leakage.
Hey old enough to remember, here’s a novel thought. Nest time you’re talking to of the two co-joined twins of capital decimation. why don’t you just get them to reveal the 18 pages of blacked out documents…….I for one appreciate being told that I am wrong……correction, I for one appreciate being proven that I am wrong
I am sorry to report that your words of wisdom are about as worthless as Harper has proven his to be.
Prove the case or drop the tax, better yet prove the case or drop the writ.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.12.07 6:37 pm
I think Gwyn Morgan’s principle argument was that ITs are bad for Canada in the longterm – to maintain our competitiveness, points Reguly had made and which I subscribe.
I could see him pissed, however, after building up the company for so many years, to have his successor immediately convert it to an IT, soon after he departed. Conversions usually see an immediate jump in stock price – because you no longer pay taxes. So, if you were a successor, and had stock options, what easier way to make a few quick bucks than start dismantling that which took so long to build. Very short term thinking, investor driven.
I haven’t focused on the tax leakage argument myself. I don’t know, maybe you have a point. Having done financial analysis and pro formas in the past, it all depends upon what assumptions you use. And you could quibble about the assumptions until the cows come home and still never agree.
So, while Cousin It and others look for the contents of the blacked out sections to further argue their case, as an individual concerned about Canada’s competitive place in the world, I’d rather we’d all move on, and deal with more substantive issues.
ITs may have served a useful purpose at one time – but too many companies got too greedy and ruined it for all.
Back to the real world, to the time before some clever lawyers and accountants discovered and popularized this “structure” (Bill doesn’t like the term loophole).
News Flash for Old Enough To Remember: Maybe you need to re-evaluate your idolatry for Steve, since its never a good thing to place too much faith in politicians or the political landscape for that matter. Further to your earlier serving of hot porridge:
“Now that Duceppe is leaving the Bloc, it could be a very long time before you get your chances.
The dish will be very cold, indeed”
“Duceppe drops from race for PQ leadership to back ex-cabinet minister Marois”
That concept of yours had a shelf life of about three hours. Next on the chopping block will be harpster the hamster
Hey Old Enough to Be Mislead: Now we’re getting somewhere:
“I haven’t focused on the tax leakage argument myself. I don’t know, maybe you have a point. Having done financial analysis and pro formas in the past, it all depends upon what assumptions you use. And you could quibble about the assumptions until the cows come home and still never agree.”
As a member of the human species, do you possess a fill complement of instincts? Assuming you do, perhaps your instincts might trigger a sliver of suspicion about why these documents are not being released. In fact they’ve been recalled. One thing we know for certain is that an anlaysis was done. Can you work your mind around to the point where you acknowledge that much? Good. Well the next part is easier. Do you suppose that leaving out the 38% of taxes that are paid by income trusts held in RRSPs might possibly bias the outcome in favour of tax leakage?
Are you old enough to figure that one out? Or do you have to check in with Gwynn Morgan before responding?
By Cousin It on 05.12.07 8:42 pm
Maybe you need to re-evaluate your idolatry for Steve
Well, I hope when I am retired, many will respect my opinion (as I do of yours), and realize our seniors are a source of great untapped knowledge, and recognize their contributions – a resource to be exploited, rather than consider them a group of cranky nit pickers, through unfounded whining and complaining.
Either way, you seem to enjoy the banter, so I’ll play along, as best I can.
New Department of Finance Website
With about 235 more income trusts to be picked over by foreign private equity and Flaherty getting a little annoyed at hearing “its not my fault†every time one of these trust gets picked off by the Civil Servants’ in-house pension plan, or some other “pools of capital†that are aimlessly roaming the world, many of which no one has ever heard of before, the Department of Finance is hoping to speed up the process by putting it on line. You’ll find this site really user friendly as it has all the trusts arranged by industry type and market capitalization and discount to intrinsic value. For example if you’re looking for an Alberta oil pipeline, just click on “energy giveaway†next click on “infrastructure†and then select from the drop down menu to select market capitalization and enter the desired level of leveraged buyout to determine how much money you actually need at the end of the day to waltz of with one of these give away assets.
Once you go to the shopping basket check out, you will be asked to sign a statement certifying that “It’s not Flaherty’s faultâ€.
Its really quite easy, and equally insane. In Canada they call it Tax Fairness and Leveling the Playing Field.
Remember to check for the weekly specials. Next week is telecom week and we expect to have a few in-house specials.
Please visit http://www.picknsave.com/modules/specials/
By Cousin It on 05.12.07 9:33 pm
As a member of the human species, do you possess a fill complement of instincts?
Perhaps, before I bother answering any more of your “effluent” I should ask a question.
What is your agenda?
Are you just cranky at everyone?
Do you have anything other than your own personal financial interest of concern?
Have you ever run for public office or done anything for the public good; or has everything lately been for your own selfish personal gain?
Thx
lets see.. if you are against the government “double dipping” seniors accounts, one must be selfish according to old enough
Not that this question is even relevant since the merit of one’s arguments is determined by the merit’s of one’s arguments. Old enough to remember seems to think a person needs to be important enough to count, and therefore he engages in idolatry of greater beings like Steve who ran the NCC for about 5 years. I understand the NCC was founded by someone with rascist tendencies. I digress. As to your comment:
“Have you ever run for public office or done anything for the public good; or has everything lately been for your own selfish personal gain?”
No I haven’t, as I se at as my role to educate morons like you, one at a time. How am I doing?
Thx
By Cousin It on 05.13.07 12:01 pm
No I haven’t, as I se at as my role to educate morons like you, one at a time. How am I doing?
I’d suggest cutting the prunes out of your diet. It may improve your disposition, and allow you to spend some time down off of your “throne”, where most of your ideas end up anyway.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.13.07 7:52 am
lets see.. if you are against the government “double dipping†seniors accounts, one must be selfish according to old enough
Knowing your personal situation and your opposition to Jim Flaherty, and that of your father’s through your earlier postings, I’m not sure I’d classify this as completely altruistic.
Old enough to remember seems incapable of answering a direct question. Maybe there is a future for you in that loftiest of pursuits or as you put it ““Have you ever run for public office or done anything for the public good?”
So back to question you are attempting to evade, as you retreat to children’s toilet talk to defend your vacuuos arguments, which was:
“No I haven’t, as I see at as my role to educate morons like you, one at a time. How am I doing?”
While I am at please covey my Mothers’ Day wishes to Flaherty, as he is claerly the biggest mother of all.
By Cousin It on 05.13.07 2:36 pm
So back to question you are attempting to evade, as you retreat to children’s toilet talk to defend your vacuuos arguments, which was:
“No I haven’t, as I see at as my role to educate morons like you, one at a time. How am I doing?â€
Oh, I just assumed you were talking to yourself in the bathroom mirror. Old people tend to do this – senility and all, you know (or maybe you do know but you really don’t).
As an outside observer, I’d say you’re both doing well to teach each other, moron style than substance, which is no reflection upon me.
I’m not sure I’d classify this as completely altruistic.
By Old enough to remember on 05.13.07 12:29 pm
And Jim Flaherty is altruistic? Again, stay focused.. Is is fair to “double dip” senior’s RRIF accounts 31.5% and then tax them again at their marginal rate?
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.13.07 10:35 pm
Is is fair to “double dip†senior’s RRIF accounts 31.5% and then tax them again at their marginal rate?
Ok, I’ll play along, as best I can without having spent as much time on this issue as you obviously have.
The long term objective of Flaherty’s plan, as I understand it, is to level the playing field.
In 4 yrs time (now 3 1/2) the majority of ITs will probably revert back to their original corporate structure.
So, in as much as capital gains, or dividends of Corporations are “double taxed” in RRIFs by your def’n, converted (or unconverted) ITs should be treated the same.
Am I missing something here?
The long term objective of Flaherty’s plan, as I understand it, is to level the playing field.
In 4 yrs time (now 3 1/2) the majority of ITs will probably revert back to their original corporate structure.
So, in as much as capital gains, or dividends of Corporations are “double taxed†in RRIFs by your def’n, converted (or unconverted) ITs should be treated the same.
Am I missing something here?
By Old enough to remember on 05.13.07 10:51 pm
Yes, the part you are missing is that the Department of Finance started to level the playing field by removing double dipping of corporate dividends in taxable accounts by enhancing the dividend tax credit. The implication of this for further leveling of the playing field by removing double taxation of corporate dividends, combined with Stephen Harper’s promise not to impose a tax on income trust distributions in seniors RRSP/RRIF accounts led voters to believe that the Conservatives would level the playing field even further by allowing a dividend tax credit for RRSP/RRIF accounts. Instead, Jim Flaherty went ahead and broke an election campaign platform promise and double taxed income trust distributions in these accounts to the shock and consternation of seniors who voted for Harper and his promise not to do this. This is the issue in a nutshell.
Flaherty’s choice: The Finance Minister must come up with a tax-cut agenda to improve productivity and competitiveness
excerpt…
“Besides capital gains tax relief, other measures are needed to help boost the incentive for Canadians to save. One measure that would do much to generate wealth for retirement purposes would be to eliminate the current corporate tax imposed on corporations and future trust distributions paid to pension plans and RRSP account holders. These tax-exempt investments do not pay tax on income to allow investors to accumulate wealth more quickly for retirement purposes, yet corporate tax is deducted from dividends they receive. A full or partial refundable dividend tax credit that reimbursed pension and RRSP holders for corporate tax would significantly improve the yield on securities within the plan.”
Jack Mintz
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=fdb98a55-ce7b-4ac7-98d4-dd422ce90c0a&k=18696&p=2
Why hasn’t Flaherty followed this?
“…The final proposal would be to make the dividend tax credit “refundable,” meaning that the government would issue a cheque to reimburse investors for corporate tax paid that has reduced their dividends or trust distributions. Making the dividend tax credit refundable for pension plans and RRSP account holders would fill up the coffers of investors trying to save for their retirement years, an issue important to Canada and its aging society. The idea is not new; for example, it was used in the United Kingdom for many years to remove the corporate tax on income paid to pension plans. Certainly, many Canadians hurt by the trust tax would welcome the change.”
Jack Mintz
Flashback:
Finally, Terence Corcoran is discussing double taxation.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Terence Corcoran: TIME FOR COMPROMISE ON TRUSTS
END TRUST WARS
BY Terence Corcoran
Financial Post
Published: Thursday, January 25, 2007
Eventually we may get to a rational point in the income trust debate, some higher plain where we can no longer hear the juvenile caterwauling that currently drowns out sensible discussion. We got a glimpse of what that point might look like in Jack Mintz’s commentary on this page yesterday reiterating his proposal to end the double taxation of corporate dividends.
Prof. Mintz’s ideas and views on trusts, published in detail in the Canadian Tax Journal last year, are a good start, but maybe there’s more to be done. An RBC Capital Markets analyst has done just that, taking up the Mintz plan and merging it with another to create a tax regime for both corporations and income trusts that would resolve the current cause of the clash between the systems.
The Mintz plan aims to end the core corporate tax problem that still exists in the Canadian system. Corporations are taxed on their income, but dividends paid to investors in RRSPs and pension plans are subject to tax again when the dividends are distributed as retirement income. To end that double taxation, Prof. Mintz proposes that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty introduce a refundable dividend tax credit for all Canadians.
An example: If a corporation earns $100 in profit, it pays $32 in tax at the corporate level. If it pays a dividend of $68 with the remaining cash, the $68 will eventually become taxable again in the hands of a retired person. If we assume a top tax rate of 43%, that leaves only $38 in the hands of pensioners. That’s not fair.
To fix that double taxation problem, Prof. Mintz proposes a dividend tax credit that would refund the original $32 paid by the corporation to the pension fund or RRSP holder. The pensioner would then effectively receive $100 and pay tax only after the money is distributed as retirement income some time in the future. All investors would be in the same after-tax position.
The Mintz plan, thus oversimplified, ends there. The expectation is that the plan, which effectively standardizes the corporate tax rate across all Canadian taxpayers, would end the demand for income trusts since there would be no tax advantages to the trust structure.
Dirk Lever, at RBC Capital Markets, takes the Mintz plan further by incorporating another idea, first suggested in December by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The PWC proposal was aimed at neutralizing the double taxation effect of Mr. Flaherty’s new tax on income trusts. It follows the same track as the Mintz plan. The tax paid by an income trust under the Flaherty plan would be reimbursed to pension funds and RRSPs on distribution. The income therefore enters a pension fund tax free and would then only be taxable when it is paid to the final recipient of retirement income.
The PWC proposal, therefore, only aims to fix the double taxation of income trust distributions, while the Mintz proposal aims to fix the same problem on corporate dividend payouts. The RBC Capital Market plan joins the two proposals, creating many benefits for the whole Canadian corporate tax system.
First, the RBC plan puts income trusts and corporations on the same tax footing. Second, it means that existing income trusts may not have to go through costly conversions from the income trust structure back to corporate structure. Best of all, the plan ends what has long been a source of distortion in the Canadian corporate tax system, the double taxation of corporate profits that are distributed to Canadian investors.
As Mr. Lever puts it, a merger of the Mintz and PWC plans “will eloquently solve both issues.” All Canadians can come out of the trust policy fiasco as winners.
Trusts and corporations could then exist side by side as far as the tax rates are concerned, all other things being equal. There may, of course, be other reasons for investors and corporate managers to favour one structure over another, but at least the investment and structural decisions will not be dictated by distortions in the tax system.
To download the RBC Capital Market research papers on corporate taxation, check the online “extras” at http://www.nationalpost.com. As the government and the Commons finance committee review the income trust issue, they should know that they have a solution at hand that transcends the political grandstanding and hysteria-mongering that now dominate the debate.
© National Post 2007
As for Al Rosen and Diane Urquhart, two of the most rabid anti-income trust analysts:
Take a look at the report at http://www.sipa.ca/library/Documents/ARC-Report-WorstYet-FullReport-20051123.pdf
The report is written by Mark Rosen, Al Rosen and Diane Urquhart and released November 16, 2005.
Those names sound familiar?
Anyway at that time their recommendation on page 6 was “…full tax parity objectives could be mitigated by taking a blended approach of imposing a 10% federal and provincial combined tax on business trusts and improving the dividend tax credit for public corporationsâ€
So if Al Rosen and Diane Urquhart liked this idea in 2005, how could they not like it now?
The Liberal proposal combines this with Dirk Lever’s blended approach of dividend tax credit proposals of Jack Mintz and PWC.
So why is Flaherty so hellbent against this?
My speculation is that Flaherty has an agenda other than “Tax Fairness”.
Although I don’t agree with Mr. Morgan on the government’s approach to leveling the playing field between income trusts and corporations as outlined above, I agree that the real issue is the high corporate tax rates in Canada as delineated below:
Head offices can locate anywhere, so make Canada competitive
GWYN MORGAN
Read Bio | Latest Columns
May 14, 2007
The smouldering debate about the “hollowing out” of Canadian business burst into flames last week with news of a hostile takeover offer for Alcan, one of Canada’s oldest, largest, and most international corporate citizens.
By coincidence, it was also the week in which my mentor, Dick Haskayne, launched his book entitled Northern Tigers. Dick is a builder and we have a shared passion for the importance of Canadian-based companies that exemplify Canadian technical knowledge, business acumen and ethical values. When considering the merger to create EnCana, I sought his counsel, both as a director and as a friend.
So it was no surprise to hear him lament the news that Alcan may join the departed. I share the feeling. As a great Canadian success story, Alcan’s root name, Aluminium Canada, influenced my choice of EnCana from the root words Energy Canada.
Other notable Canadians also expressed concern about the week’s events.
More Report on Business Stories
Magna loses bid for Chrysler
MySpace targets Canadian growth
Boxed beds awaken rivalry in a sleepy market
Flaherty tries to turn spotlight on tax havens
CPR braces for work stoppage
TIP SHEET
Go to the Report on Business section
The builder of another northern tiger, Manulife’s Dominic D’Alessandro, said: “I sometimes worry that we may all wake up one day and find that we have lost control of our affairs.”
Meanwhile, in the House of Commons, the Liberals were arguing it was the government’s tax policy on income trusts and interest on foreign investment loans that is causing the problem. The Prime Minister countered that Canadians are in fact continuing to make acquisitions abroad, and the Finance Minister debunked the notion that his two tax measures had anything to do with the takeovers.
This raises two key questions: How important are Canadian-headquartered companies? And, if they are important, what should we do about it?
It’s hard to overestimate their importance. While foreign-controlled branch operations are significant contributors to our economy, Canadian head offices employ greater numbers of high-value professional services and support firms. Working for a Canadian-based company means making decisions at home and being able to reach for the top, without moving to a different country. This is eloquently summarized by Tom d’Aquino, head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives: “Canadian corporate champions create a disproportionate share of wealth and play vital roles in spawning new ventures and attracting and retaining people, ideas and capital within an increasingly dynamic global economy.”
So what should we do to build and retain Canadian-based companies?
Canadian ultranationalists (remember Maude Barlow and Mel Hurtig?) had their heyday in the “Trudeauvian” interventionist period of the 1970s, when the Foreign Investment Review Agency was a fearsome force. Indeed, takeovers of Canadian companies were largely prevented. But so much capital was driven away that there wasn’t much left to take over anyway.
Some have suggested the government should impose ownership restrictions, as in the banking sector. While this has prevented takeovers, it has also seen our banking sector left in the global backwater as banks from the U.S., Britain and even little Netherlands become global forces.
Perhaps the biggest negative for ownership restrictions is that any artificial constraint reduces share valuations. As CEO of one of Canada’s biggest market capitalization companies, I spent a lot of time in the U.S. and Europe telling our story to investors. Paradoxically, one of the keys to keeping independent Canadian-headquartered status is to have strong foreign investor support.
So much for government intervention, but what is the best course of action?
Sports fans know that you can’t win a game unless you play sound offence. For government, playing offence means creating an environment that fosters the building and retaining of strong enterprises.
In the new global economy, companies can locate their head office anywhere.The Irish have shown the way. Only a few years ago, Ireland was an economic backwater. What changed? They decided to play offence – taxes were slashed, regulations were streamlined, entrepreneurship was unleashed. Ireland has been transformed into a place where business wants to be. Growth, employment and living standards have moved way up world rankings.
What is it that prevents Canada from being one of the best places to headquarter and build a business?
The biggest negative is our tax rates. In most provinces, the Fraser Institute’s measure of “tax freedom day,” the date after which the average person’s income is actually theirs to keep, comes more than halfway through the year.
And Canadian corporate tax policy is simply uncompetitive with other desirable head office locations.
Income trust advocates blame takeovers on the government’s trust tax changes. Companies with international holdings blame the change in foreign investment interest deductibility. But these are merely symptoms of the real disease – high tax rates.
Lower the tax rates and these issues become less important. I’ve supported Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s steps to level the playing field between trusts and corporations and to plug tax loopholes, on the expectation that overall tax take would be significantly reduced. So far, all we’ve seen is the pain.
There are other things that need to be done to foster Canada’s competitive position in the global headquarters game, such as replacing 13 securities regulators with one national regulator, but what it really comes down to is attitude.
Do we really care enough to try?
Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of EnCana Corp. His column appears every other Monday in the ROB
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070514.RMORGAN14/TPStory/Business
I also don’t agree with Mr. Morgan that imposing an income trust tax and negating interest deductibility are not a cause for the buyout of corporations and income trusts by foreign equity and other tax exempt entities. Mr. Flaherty is un-leveling the playing field between Canadian ownership and foreign and tax exempt ownership even more than it would be with our overly high tax rates compared to other countries.
Eventually we may get to a rational point in the income trust debate, some higher plain where we can no longer hear the juvenile caterwauling that currently drowns out sensible discussion.
I think Terrence Corcoran is right on this point. I don’t think we’re there yet, based upon what I’ve seen here and elsewhere.
Eventually we may get to a rational point in the income trust debate, some higher plain where we can no longer hear the juvenile caterwauling that currently drowns out sensible discussion.
I think Terrence Corcoran is right on this point. I don’t think we’re there yet, based upon what I’ve seen here and elsewhere.
By Old enough to remember on 05.14.07 11:22 am
I chose to quote Terence Corcoran not because I agree with everything he said, but because in this article he quotes Dirk Lever’s solution to the double taxation issue. Again, Old Enough, stay focused. I don’t want to engage in juvenile caterwauling, I would like sensible discussion.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.14.07 12:20 pm
/I don’t want to engage in juvenile caterwauling, I would like sensible discussion.
Well, to do so, I think the pro-IT crowd has to accept, as fact, that Flaherty is not going to change his policy to tax ITs in four years time, and that it will no longer allow these types of conversions, irrespective of whether or not a promise was broken, and for what reason.
If one can accept that fact, then the debate could move to the next level, how to address whatever inequities may have been created (not what promises are left unfulfilled).
Otherwise, you don’t move forward. I don’t support the CPC, but Jim Flaherty comes across to me as a reasonable person who would respond to a rational calm argument, without the name calling etc. Frankly, I, and perhaps many others, just tune out.
If you can accept the first part as fact, I will endeavour to spend some further time trying to understand the specifics of your argument.
And keep in mind, I don’t believe he has suggested further tax reforms are in store for future budgets, just not affordable now, including perhaps some of Garth’s pet projects.
I meant to say:
And keep in mind, I believe he has suggested further tax reforms are in store for future budgets, just not affordable now, including perhaps some of Garth’s pet projects.
By Old enough to remember on 05.14.07 3:29 pm
Sounds like a deal with the Devil. Can you accept the fact that Jim Flaherty may not be a member of parliament in four years?
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.15.07 9:54 am
Thanks. You have confirmed once again your true intentions – your own selfish personal gain, however you care to package it.
Time for me to move on.
Old enough.. come back and play! It could be fun..
Let’s pretend your assumptions are true.. let’s pretend income trusts will get hit with a 31.5% in 2011.. and we won’t talk about Stephen Harper’s broken promise..
..let’s continue…
…for the sake of exploring where this will go, I will accept your assumptions…
…now how would I fine tune this?
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.15.07 8:41 pm
…now how would I fine tune this?
Geoffrey, I cannot tell you this any stronger than I have in the past. You have absolutely no credibility with me when you try to suggest you are looking for solutions, and two minutes later, start making these comments.
And if you are going to undertake these type of mindless attacks, pick another name. This will come back to haunt you in the future. Things on the internet last forever.
You are hurting no one but yourself.
I have realized that Harper and Flaherty are reptile aliens, come to Canada to impose an tax income trusts.. for no good reason.. that is just what reptile aliens do.
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.15.07 8:43 pm
I shall now play the devil’s advocate. What can we tax next?
Come on folks play along!
Let’s impose a 31.5% tax on baby formula..and diapers..and baby clothes..car seats..teddy bears..after all we can’t wait for these babies to pay tax in the future.. we need the revenues now for important social programs..
By Geoffrey Laxton on 05.15.07 9:19 pm
Old enough.. again.. Let’s pretend your assumptions are true.. let’s pretend income trusts will get hit with a 31.5% in 2011.. and we won’t talk about Stephen Harper’s broken promise..
..let’s continue…
…for the sake of exploring where this will go, I will accept your assumptions…
…now how would I fine tune this?
I will focus on this thread awaiting your reply..
Geoffrey, I cannot tell you this any stronger than I have in the past. You have absolutely no credibility with me when you try to suggest you are looking for solutions, and two minutes later, start making these comments.
And if you are going to undertake these type of mindless attacks, pick another name. This will come back to haunt you in the future. Things on the internet last forever.
You are hurting no one but yourself.
*****
I will let you pick another name as you feel necessary. You have never revealed to me why I should even care to have credibility with you. Leasa seemed to feel that taxing items that are necessities of life for babies is a topic worth pursuing. I am now going to take up this issue with Jim Flaherty. What kind of government taxes the necessities for life for babies?
*****
Moving right along. Old enough takes issue with the revalation that Harper and Flaherty may be reptile aliens. I hereby apologize that they are reptile aliens, but you are right that I should keep this under my hat. Your secret is secure with me now.
*****
Old enough, stay focused. Let’s resume our discussion of the punitive 31.5% tax in senior’s retirement accounts on monthly income trust distributions that Harper, Flaherty, Layton et al are hellbent on passing as law. Let’s discuss this.