PING!
Posted on 01/07/2007 8:37:34 PM PST by GMMAC
PING!
reassuring
Harper -- himself, his own order -- just killed off something on the order of 30% of Canadian seniors' pensions, by guaranteeing to rewrite the tax treatment of 'CanRoys', Canadian mineral royalty trusts.
The exact evolution of Harper's statism in this matter is unknown to me; however, and for whatever reason, he by his action kissed off fully 15% or more of his former supporters.
I'll wait to see Ladbroke's or tradesports.com's line on his re-election. Absent other input, I do believe I'll have a small punt against.
That did it! We must go to war with Canada, even if it DOES bring about hell on earth! Blame Canada! Blame Canada! Only this time it ain't about Terrence and Philips' fart jokes. They're adopting Reaganomics! What will the children say?
That, somehow, ordinary business enterprises were allowed to tap into the tax advantaged structure of mineral trusts says to me nothing other than 1) your Parliament are at least as idiotic as our Regress, in that they are unable (obviously) to draft statutes in a coherent manner and with regard to the consequences of their drafting, and 2) your Parliament, evidently, exceed our Regress in utter venality and stupidity (and, believe me, that proposition is exceptionally hard to believe at all !).
To correct the lawyer-class predatory raid on legitimate mineral trusts, all that Poofyment needed to do was to write a bill saying expressly that, lawyers aside, Nortel and whomever else couldn't play, that only legitimate mineral/gas/oil producers could play. Too simple a notion for the simpletons in Ottawa, eh?
In short, you've begged the question entirely. The original statute -- YOUR nation's statute -- was entirely clear about which enterprises were to benefit from favourable tax treatment. Look up the language of the blasted statute, I've nothing to sell you at all here.
Subsequently, YOUR nation's corporate attorneys, over about 12 years near as I can tell, perverted the statute to the point where, effectively, EVERY (or damned nearly) large corporate enterprise might claim the same tax treatment as the mineral trusts.
And, now, quite arrogantly, you call pensioners ''coupon-clippers'', as if the typical Canadian retiree were or ever had been involved in the machinations of lawyers and this faux-populist taxgrab misadventure. They, to a man, to a woman, invested their funds on the basis of statute as stated, and had not a single thing to do with corporate attorneys perverting the clear language of the original statute. Yet, it's fine with you -- let gov't change the rules ad libidem on any citizen, any time that gov't finds convenient.
Quite the charmer, you are. I assume you'll not be running for office in Canada anytime soon. Or, perhaps I'm wrong, and you simply represent the advance wave of even more broken promises by the Canadian gov't.
If that's your view of government, and from your comment, this inarguably is the case, then I have just four words for you.
Sod off. Join DU.
Canada's improving. Can we say the same about Western Europe?
GMMAC, do you know if Khan crossed over or is suppose to do it on Monday?
Already happened (last week)
Thanks canuck_conservative. Nice pictures of BC too!
Looks to me like Canada is headed in the right direction.
Dead on, you have clearly set out the framework for this debate. It does not matter how they try to slice it, they are lying through their teeth. What kind of government tries to blame pensioners by saying "was it wise to believe us in the first place?" I don't know what you call it but it is not conservative.
Oh, I'm well acquainted with the machinations of non-mineral companies in this affair. See post 7.
By any name you choose, this ex post facto recission of statute is nothing other than arbitrary state confiscation of private wealth.
The author list a number of reasons why he believes Canada has taken a conservative turn.
SAJ doesn't respond to any of them but instead brings up the issue of income trusts.
He's an investor, maybe he lost some money?
Maybe he believes that tax laws are written in stone?
Who is lying through their teeth? What exactly are they lying about?
Where is the source for your quote?...
or are you putting words into people's mouths to bolster your preconceptions?
Typical spatso post...pick an isolated issue and use it to disparage the whole of the governing party and the country.
Under Flaherty's new rules, existing trusts will begin paying taxes in 2011 and can raise as much as 100 percent of their market value by selling new units or shares over the next four years. The measure was necessary to ``restore balance and fairness to Canada's tax system,'' he told reporters on Oct. 31.I don't know what you'd call your post but it isn't fair and balanced.The U.S. and Australia shut down similar structures when their governments determined the securities were draining tax revenue, Flaherty said. In 1987, the U.S. House of Representatives clamped down on publicly traded master limited partnerships. Australia made a similar move in 1981 to halt a surge in trust conversions.
`Buyer Beware'
Such moves should serve as a warning to investors who buy securities that are driven by tax advantages, said Mintz, who's currently a visiting professor at New York University. ``It's buyer beware,'' Mintz said. ``Tax-motivated transactions are always risky.''
Since the US and Australia did much the same thing,
I guess conservativism doesn't exist anywhere on the planet.
How does this differ from any taxation?
Meanwhile the Conservatives have dropped the national sales tax by a percentage point
with another point to follow.
Yippee for me!, more money in my pocket.
As for:
"Subsequently, YOUR nation's corporate attorneys, over about 12 years near as I can tell, perverted the statute to the point where, effectively, EVERY (or damned nearly) large corporate enterprise might claim the same tax treatment as the mineral trusts." - SAJ
Why, aside from your other self-serving omissions, not also note these 12 years correspond precisely with the Librano$ Chretien-Martin regime?
Bottom line:
The Harper government inherited a situation where, thanks to the Liberals, a significant portion of the nation's corporate sector was about to legally dump its share of the tax burden onto the tax-paying public as a whole thus - to say the least - making NUMEROUS promised tax cuts impossible.
Accordingly, Stephen Harper acted decisively by breaking a small promise to assure he could keep several much larger & far more nationally beneficial ones.
Up here, we call that LEADERSHIP.
And what, pray tell, was so difficult about Mr. Harper approaching Parliament and saying, ''OK, folks, we're changing the statute back to its original intent'', which policy would keep essentially everyone happy (bar the NDP and some number of large companies) AND not cost himself a whole flock of votes into the bargain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.