Conservatives Plans News Tax on Trusts

[Ricki Bobbi]

Misleading drivel! The lowest personal tax rate was 15% in ALL of 2005 and the first six months of 2006. It went to 15.5% in July, 2006. The 15% proposed rate was already in effect when the Conservatives stupidly raised it to 15.5%.

How absurd to raise the only income tax rate which most affects the poor and least affects the rich.

Yes, you are correct.

Oops.

[B. Max]

According to the news this morning this is not affecting Harper's popularity ratings at all. Jus goes to show how much clout the rich have.

It's not the rich who will foot the bill on this one. The real damage hasn't even hit yet.

[Ricki Bobbi]

It's not the rich who will foot the bill on this one. The real damage hasn't even hit yet.

Who will foot the bill on this one? With the gains in the trust index on Friday it appears the dramatic losses about the announce have been reversed in large measure.

The lowest 50% of income earning seniors are better off due to income splitting and raising the age credit.

After that point there's a large chunk of seniors that break even. Maybe the top 5% of income earning seniors are truly hurt by this...

[normanchateau]

Misleading drivel! The lowest personal tax rate was 15% in ALL of 2005 and the first six months of 2006. It went to 15.5% in July, 2006. The 15% proposed rate was already in effect when the Conservatives stupidly raised it to 15.5%.

How absurd to raise the only income tax rate which most affects the poor and least affects the rich.

Yes, you are correct.

Oops.

Thank you.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Misleading drivel! The lowest personal tax rate was 15% in ALL of 2005 and the first six months of 2006. It went to 15.5% in July, 2006. The 15% proposed rate was already in effect when the Conservatives stupidly raised it to 15.5%.

How absurd to raise the only income tax rate which most affects the poor and least affects the rich.

Yes, you are correct.

Oops.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

[B. Max]

It's not the rich who will foot the bill on this one. The real damage hasn't even hit yet.

Who will foot the bill on this one? With the gains in the trust index on Friday it appears the dramatic losses about the announce have been reversed in large measure.

The lowest 50% of income earning seniors are better off due to income splitting and raising the age credit.

After that point there's a large chunk of seniors that break even. Maybe the top 5% of income earning seniors are truly hurt by this...

What income are they going to split. Harper just grabbed that At least the income from the trusts. In fact what Harper has done is tax money twice. Once in the hands of the company, and then again in the hands of the investor. A short term gain for long term pain. This isn't about seniors it's about jobs. The people who depend on pay cheques. Who don't even qualify for income splitting. Even if they did, splitting zero in two is still zero.

[scribblet]

According to the news this morning this is not affecting Harper's popularity ratings at all. Jus goes to show how much clout the rich have.

Huh!!! what clout, and exactly how does this 'clout' affect these ratings, are you suggesting that they are somehow manipulating the polls?

Its the rich corporations who will mainly have to pay, not the poorer people, the NDP like it

Over the years it has been the Liberal party which received most of the money from big business, way more than the PCs and the Canadian Alliance combined. www.daifallah.com/rcr.htm

In the decade after 1993, when the Liberals first formed the federal government, they collected a total of $91,436,281 in corporate donations. Compare that to $39,253,276 for the old Progressive Conservatives and just $18,089,629 for the Canadian Alliance.

Corporations were making conversion decision only because they weren't taxable, this loophole had to be closed - so I'm assuming those who disagree with this decision believe in what they otherwise, would call corporate welfare. Have to decide where you stand.

Most people appear to be seeing this strictly through ideological lenses, they hate it and attack it simply because it was Harper/CPC and perpetutate the argument simply to keep the attacks rolling.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What income are they going to split. Harper just grabbed that At least the income from the trusts. In fact what Harper has done is tax money twice. Once in the hands of the company, and then again in the hands of the investor. A short term gain for long term pain. This isn't about seniors it's about jobs. The people who depend on pay cheques. Who don't even qualify for income splitting. Even if they did, splitting zero in two is still zero.

These people depend on their paycheques, but have enough excess cash lying around to invest in risky income trusts? Then depend on the income they get from them? Who is losing their job because of this decision?

wtf are you talking about?

[Riverwind]

What income are they going to split. Harper just grabbed that At least the income from the trusts. In fact what Harper has done is tax money twice. Once in the hands of the company, and then again in the hands of the investor.

This statement is likely false. Income from trusts will be treated like dividend income which means there will be a tax credit to address this double taxation issue. This means the after tax income for people receiving trust distributions could stay the same.

[Figleaf]

This is the stupidest move an economist can make. But then Harpo is no economist.

Hmmm, actually he IS an economist.

He's got a master's degree in economics, but he never worked as an economist.

Look, even I, who never paid a lot of attention to income trusts, who was not invested in income trusts, knew from cursury attention paid to the business news, that something had to be done.

Exactly. A trained economist would surely have realized that many months ago and if he were honest would not have promised to leave them alone.

An intelligent economist would also have realized that a precipitous about-face would burn a lot of people and would have considered grandfathering existing trusts to prevent slaughter in the markets.

People can rail against the Tories, but it was their own fault.

Typical. Blame the victims.

The market isn't for amateurs. And if you can't afford to lose it you shouldn't be putting it on the table.

What you shouldn't do is ever, EVER trust a tory.

[Figleaf]

His political dishonesty has been exposed at the cost of $30billion of innocent investors money, including retirees and pension funds.

I hear numbers of between $20-30 billion being knocked off the market capitalization because of this decision. People seem to think Harper took billions from people. That's not true.

He didn't take it. He destroyed it.

Let's be plain. If you buy a house at $200,000 and then over time, you watch as prices on your street rise to $300,000 only to fall back to $290,000, did you lose 10,000?

Yes.

And housing is an imperfectly comparable example. Stock market investments are more liquid, and they are often bought and used as security for margin.

[Renegade]

So you think it's a good economic move that people give their hard-earned money to the government rather than spend it on goods and services?

No, I think it was an insignificant economic move. The dollar amount was so small it had no economic impact. You have yet to explain why you think it was a bad economic move.

[Ricki Bobbi]

He didn't take it. He destroyed it.

Did he *undestroy* the billions in market value that were created when the trust index rebounded on Friday?

[Figleaf]

Who will foot the bill on this one? With the gains in the trust index on Friday it appears the dramatic losses about the announce have been reversed in large measure.

Did he *undestroy* the billions in market value that were created when the trust index rebounded on Friday?

What an utterly uniformed thing to say! The index fell from 165 to 140 overnight. On Friday it rose back to 144.

[Ricki Bobbi]

What an utterly uniformed thing to say! The index fell from 165 to 140 overnight. On Friday it rose back to 144.

What an utterly sanctimonious response.

If the announcement truly *destroyed* $20 to $30 billion overnight than wasn't $3 to $4 billion *undestroyed* on Friday?

[Figleaf]

What an utterly uniformed thing to say! The index fell from 165 to 140 overnight. On Friday it rose back to 144.

What an utterly sanctimonious response.

Sorry, Precious.

Facts too much for you to take? If you don't want to be corrected, try not spewing utter drivel.

BTW, do you know what 'sanctimonious' means?

If the announcement truly *destroyed* $20 to $30 billion overnight than wasn't $3 to $4 billion *undestroyed* on Friday?

It's more appropriate to look at it over the whole time period and say (starting from the 30 bil. figure) that $26 billion was destroyed.

[August1991]

He didn't take it. He destroyed it.

Destroyed as in earthquake, hurricane destroyed? Huh?

I didn't know that Harper now has the power to topple buildings with his breath.

Let's be plain. If you buy a house at $200,000 and then over time, you watch as prices on your street rise to $300,000 only to fall back to $290,000, did you lose 10,000?

Yes.

If you lost, then who gained?

And housing is an imperfectly comparable example. Stock market investments are more liquid, and they are often bought and used as security for margin.

Irrelevant.

[Figleaf]

He didn't take it. He destroyed it.

Destroyed as in earthquake, hurricane destroyed? Huh?

I'm sorry you're not familiar with the terminology of capital markets.

Let's be plain. If you buy a house at $200,000 and then over time, you watch as prices on your street rise to $300,000 only to fall back to $290,000, did you lose 10,000?

Yes.

If you lost, then who gained?

No-one, hence 'destroyed'.

And housing is an imperfectly comparable example. Stock market investments are more liquid, and they are often bought and used as security for margin.

Irrelevant.

How so?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Sorry, Precious.

Pretty tough hiding behind that computer screen Figs.

It's more appropriate to look at it over the whole time period and say (starting from the 30 bil. figure) that $26 billion was destroyed.

Convenient how you chose the higher figure. What if we look at the index from election day. Isn't it fair to say that the government has still 'created' wealth on the income trust index?

No, destroyed isn't standard terminology for the industry.

[B. Max]

Who is losing their job because of this decision?

wtf are you talking about?

Probably about half the people involved in the drilling industry and that is thousands who are directly involved, and those that supply all the materials. Then on the production side, wells that aren't drilled are never brought into production. So now that goes into the area of pipeline and those who do the pipeline work, those who make the pipe and those who build the sub stations and all those who make the electrical pannels the pumps, the valves and gages and those who operate them. Investment creates jobs, and this will result in lost investment. The income trust were created to spur investment in the larger risk side of the oil business. That side of the business has grown in leaps and bounds as a result of the income trusts.

[Figleaf]

Sorry, Precious.

Pretty tough hiding behind that computer screen Figs.

Likewise.

It's more appropriate to look at it over the whole time period and say (starting from the 30 bil. figure) that $26 billion was destroyed.

...What if we look at the index from election day. Isn't it fair to say that the government has still 'created' wealth on the income trust index?

Actually, no. The tories were not responsible for the existence or nature of income trusts. They merely promised to leave them alone.

No, destroyed isn't standard terminology for the industry.

Yes, it is.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Likewise.

Anytime any place.

Actually, no. The tories were not responsible for the existence or nature of income trusts. They merely promised to leave them alone.

So that promise didn't do anything? But why is breaking the promise such a big deal?

No, destroyed isn't standard terminology for the industry.

Yes, it is.

Supporting evidence? I can't support the negative but if it is standard industry terminology it should take you about two minutes to find support. Don't think you will though...

[Figleaf]

Likewise.

Anytime any place.

I'm not surprised that you'd want to resort to violence, given your deficiencies in discourse. But okay, you name a time and place in southern Ontario and I'm your huckleberry.

Actually, no. The tories were not responsible for the existence or nature of income trusts. They merely promised to leave them alone.

So that promise didn't do anything? But why is breaking the promise such a big deal?

The promise was to maintain a status quo.

No, destroyed isn't standard terminology for the industry.

Yes, it is.

Supporting evidence? I can't support the negative but if it is standard industry terminology it should take you about two minutes to find support. Don't think you will though...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search

Now can you please stop challenging my knowledge with your ignorance?

[normanchateau]

I haven't seen the Friday figures but at the end of the day Thursday, $36 billion was lost. This was because the government was worried about losing $500 million in tax revenues from the income trusts.

Another way of putting it, the Harper government was willing to allow income trust investors to lose, on average , $72 for each tax dollar the government gains in return.

If we simply take the $36 billion loss figure and work out the capital gains that would have been due, the Harper government is out, theoreticaly, $8 billion in tax. Suppose by the time the dust settles, the government is out only $1 billion in potential taxes on capital gains. That's still losing twice as much as they're gaining by taxing the trusts.

If the Harper government is worried about future conversions of corporations to trusts, why not have a grandfather clause so that only future conversions are affected? Had this happened, all current trusts would have maintained their value. And Harper would not be accused of breaking an election promise.

[Ricki Bobbi]

The promise was to maintain a status quo.

When the status quo didn't involve Encana, BCE and Telus converting to income trusts. The situation changed, there was no status quo to protect.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=...amp;btnG=Search

Now can you please stop challenging my knowledge with your ignorance?

The first five links on your google search are from:

1. A philosohpy message board.

2. A translation from a French university Web site.

3. The blog of a self-described artist and punk musician.

4. A web site dedicated to the making the world better off for the New Millennium.

5. An article on providing "what every debater should know about economics".

You would think a standard finance industry term would return some links to finance industry pages.

Now can you please stop showing your lack of knowledge and highlighting it with such an ignorant and condescending response!