Perhaps Stephen Harper was too preoccupied about his own political well being to be concerned about Canadians' well being?
That would also explain why so much money was wasted advertising the Economic Action Plan and so little money was spent informing Canadians about the risks of H1N1. Might also explain these dismal polling results:
Have the Harper Conservatives potentially put Canadian lives in danger with their handling of the H1N1 flu pandemic?
Friday, November 27, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
The media blog shows archived articles of interest to July 2009. For up to date articles of interest to Income Trust Investors go to CAITI ONLINE at caiti-online.blogspot.com or the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors at www.caiti.info
Monday, July 6, 2009
74% of Canadians think the Liberals need to pick up the ball and run on the income trust issue. This is an issue that effects thousands of Canadians, many of them depending on their income trust distributions to pay their bills in their retirement years. Stephen Harper's Conservatives need to know that their policy of "Lie. Conceal. Fabricate." has no place in Canada
Poll question and results:
I will support that federal political party, based on their "Income Trust taxation" policy:
Provided the party provides a clear and public statement in favour of returning the taxation to pre-October 31, 2006 levels AND seeks to expose Harper’s policy lie about tax leakage. 62%
Although a clear and public statement is not required on this issue for me to support a federal party. I do believe returning the taxation to the pre-October 31, 2006 level is required. 12%
I support Stephen Harpers "Income Trust taxation" policy which mandates an additional tax of 31.5% on Jan 1, 2011 and the double taxation of RRSPs, but not pension plans. I plan to vote Conservative. 27%
The Income Trust Issue is ranked # 2 on the Liberal OnProbation website. Review the Tax Fairness Plan and tax on Income Trusts - OnProbation.ca
Saturday, May 16, 2009
"Notwithstanding Ignatieff's poll numbers, where he's seen as competent and popular, what our polling and focus group testing shows is that people really don't have a solid impression about him. They generally like the guy, but they don't really know anything about him. According to our polling, he's an unknown quantity in the eyes of Canadians. So, since people don't have a locked in, fixed impression about him, there's still a tremendous amount of opportunity to influence what people think about the guy," the Conservative source told The Hill Times in a not-for-attribution based interview last week. The Hill Times, April 6, 2009
After observing 3+ years of Harper Conservative minority government, in your opinion:
I have learned enough about Harper and the Conservatives and do not trust their leadership.
I have learned enough about Harper and the Conservatives and continue to trust their leadership.
PollingReport.ca/ - Latest Poll Results
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Which party leader has performed in the most competent and trustworthy way during the post October 2008 election period?
Stephen Harper 16%
Michael Ignatieff 76%
Jack Layton 8%
Flaherty on the recession - Youtube
Friday, March 13, 2009
In an interview with journalist Tom Zytaruk, Stephen Harper stated:
"But the, uh, of the offer to Chuck [Cadman] was that it was only to replace, uh, financial, uh, considerations, he might lose due to an election."
In your opinion, do you believe the offer that Stephen Harper was describing, constitutes an attempt to bribe an elected Member of Parliament, Chuck Cadman?
Articles related to Chuck Cadman, bribery and Stephen Harper - CAITI
Photo by Rick /Flickr
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Posted by Viewer response on February 4, 2009
Michael Kane's piece on income trusts -- Trust youself? -- received some strong responses from readers. Here are three that are representative:
Harper used an ICBM to kill the trusts when only a hammer was sufficient. All he had to do was halt the formation of business trusts thereby grandfathering the existing ones. He allowed the continuance of REITs but not the energy trusts, which form a key segment of the energy sector just like REIT's do in the real estate sector. His decision was flawed at the time he made it and remains flawed today.
The facts are:
So you can easily see where we would be much better off today if Harper had not imposed the trust tax.
I'm astounded (but not entirely surprised) at your comments re income trusts. You show a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. You continue to foster the false notion that trusts enjoyed some tax advantage.
"WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, MICHAEL" There was no tax leakage. A couple of years ago Flaherty mused that he didn't know where all the tax money was coming from!! Let me tell you, I paid in excess of 30K taxes in '05, '06 and '07. This fiscal year I will probably get a refund.
The mental midget ripped 200K out of my retirement portfolio and thinks this will have no impact on the Canadian economy.
Yes, I'm properly diversified and, yes, I understand the risks of investing. What I fail to understand is a change in regulations that results in no net benefit for anyone, not the Income trusts, not other companies, not the Canadian taxpayer. Absolutely no one is better off as a result of this ridiculous policy.
If there was a concern that large companies would convert to the trust structure why not just put a moratorium on new conversions until the problem was properly studied. Never mind the fact that our illustrious PM clearly stated that he would not TOUCH income trusts.
This has been the most unfair legislation that has ever been passed in the history of the financial world. I know I'm not alone. Thousands of people just like me have lost billions out of their portfolio, have had their lifestyle severely impaired.
We need an advocate to champion our cause. HOW ABOUT IT? Speak up for the powerless, maligned investors.
Many companies flourished and created thousands of tax paying jobs as a result of the income trust structure. Look around at the many successful businesses built up under the trust model. The cash flow passed on to investors was largely taxed at higher rates than corporations pay.
Many of these trusts have now gone into the ownership of pension funds. Perhaps the government needed to do something to clarify the "rules." Perhaps "ordinary" small Canadian investors shouldn't be entitled to own companies without being subject to double taxation.
But I doubt very much that putting a stop to income trusts has done anything to keep the federal budget from going into a deeper deficit. Harper and his toy bulldog finance minister can take that blame themselves. But don't fret for them. Their golden parachute pensions will be safe and will guarantee they'll never have to risk a penny on the "markets."
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
What a farce this budget is. Flaherty taking credit for increases that were already there and items that had been promised before. Lets look at the claim of increasing the Basic Exemption from $9,600 to $10,320 - NO! this credit has already been established at $10,100 for 2009 and is in all published tax tables for 2009 as a cost of living adjustment. What the budget does is increase it by an extra $220 or 2.2%
What about the increase in the upper limitstes for the 15% and 22% tax brackets up by 7.5%? NO!!!. these upper limits were already established through the "NORMAL" cost of living increase of 2.5% to be $38,832 and $77,664 anyway. The added benefit is about $2,000 on each rate and the tax savings will be a maximum of about $140 until you exceed the $77,000 amount, i.e., $2,000 * 7% (22%-15%). On a weekly basis, this amounts to about $2.69.
The Age Credit will amount to $150 for those with incomes up to $33,000. At that point the lovely CLAWBACK of Age credit kicks in and will wipe it out at the $70,000 level.
Nothing in the budget for RRSP / RRIF or Trusts other than the item related to the 25% reduction in 2008 RRIF amounts.
What an insult to a taxpayers intelligence!!!!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Published: January 23, 2009 4:00 PM
Updated: January 23, 2009 5:44 PM
With increasing job and stock market losses and decreasing home values, Canada needs positive and sustainable economic changes. I’ll gladly accept the interest rate cut you’re going to hand out next week but can’t help but think of other measures that could be taken that would provide Canadians with economic benefits that are more sustainable.
It seems almost all ideas about how to best stimulate our economy have been focused around the creation of new monies.
We all know that it was artificially low interest rates, and therefore excess new money creation (read: inflation), were one of the main reasons we are in the economic mess in the first place.
Creating even more new money to solve the problem of excess money creation will only be a band aid fix at best. The cocaine addict feels better moving to heroin but still has to pay the ultimate price sometime, ie: it’s not a sustainable fix.
I feel very strongly that eliminating the proposed new tax on income trusts would go a long way towards sustainable and positive economic growth.
Aside from putting more money in the pockets of Canada’s largest demographic, allowing income trusts to operate as they did would allow the small to mid-sized companies that make up the majority of the income trust space to grow and create new jobs.
It is very tempting at this point to go over all the sketchy details surrounding the proposed income trust tax that don't make sense.
I won’t go into detail here but, these are just a few of the concerns:
BMO Capital Markets study showing income trusts create more than twice the tax revenues compared to corporations
Lost capital gains, increased capital losses and lost distributed income taxes not reported
Most of the 18 pages of the government document showing apparent tax leakage being blacked out even though the document was requested under the Freedom of Information Act
The misrepresentation that Stephen Harper gave in his campaign to not tax income trusts
Regardless of those facts and many others, the question becomes: what can we do here and now to stimulate our economy, while preferably not creating even more inflation?
Providing Canadian retirees and pre-retirees with a sustainable source of monthly income that is generated from Canadian companies, that in turn would create more jobs and therefore an economic circle that would allow Canadians to take care of Canadians makes nothing but sense.
On behalf of all our clients and all investors across Canada I implore you to eliminate the proposed ‘Tax Fairness Plan’.
Canada is still one of the best countries in the world but I’m sure many around the world have joined Canadians recently in scratching their heads over decisions made over the last few years with our income trust debacle, Alberta royalty taxes and proposed coalition government etc.
Dramatic changes can only happen under dramatic circumstances.
These are dramatic times and I therefore propose a challenge to all Canadians: Write your local MLA’s, write your party leaders as well as the Finance Minister and Prime Minister.
Income trusts should never have been taxed in the first place but, unless we the people do something about it by taking action, nothing will change.
Trevor J. Perepolkin
Thursday, December 18, 2008
CAITI Online Poll On Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP) Bailouts.
Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney:
The response to the recent turbulence in financial markets should reaffirm that market participants are fundamentally responsible for their actions. For example, investors must understand the price dynamics and liquidity risks of the products they buy, rather than relying solely on credit-rating agencies. The market is beginning to lead many of the necessary changes, as institutions are improving their liquidity management and credit discipline and as originators and distributors of new loans are beginning to adjust their products to standardize terms and, importantly, align incentives. At the same time, accurate and timely information about underlying risks is essential for the market to differentiate and properly price risk. Thus, as Governor Dodge highlighted in September, enhanced disclosure and transparency remain crucial. Standing Committee on Finance December 5, 2007
In comments following an address to a business luncheon in Toronto on Wednesday, Mark Carney said the Canadian economy is strong enough to withstand the collapse of the massive restructuring, which has come under huge pressure as a result of the financial crisis. National Post December 17, 2008
Conservative Finance Minister Jim Flaherty:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in Saskatoon that he and some of his provincial counterparts are discussing a plea from the investor committee overseeing the restructuring for as much as $9.5-billion in backstop credit lines, but no decision had been made.
The fact that Mr. Flaherty is even considering the request is a significant development, given that until recently his position was hands-off. Globe and Mail December 18, 2008
BoC Governor Mark Carney said "There was not going to be any public money put behind any of this [ABCP rescue plan] because these are decisions of financial market participants." Jim Flaherty now proposes to rescue these same financial market participants.