Harper's stunning reversal on income trusts

[gerryhatrick]

Harper's stunning reversal on income trusts

Ottawa

How much is Stephen Harper's word worth? In the wake of the Prime Minister's stunning reversal on income trusts this week, many voters will understandably be wary of taking anything he promises at face value in the future. After all, it is the second time in less than a year that Harper broke his word in a spectacular fashion.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentSe...ol=968350116795

A lot of people are fuming over this.

It might have been necessary, but you cannot escape that a promise was made and broken. Perhaps Harper shouldn't have been so impudent to make the promise in the election.

If anyone made money during this sell-off it should be investigated.

[geoffrey]

We all lost on this gerry. But why the new thread, there is two discussing it already?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Because the other two threads didn't have titles that were anti-Harper enough for Gerry.

[August1991]

We all lost on this gerry. But why the new thread, there is two discussing it already?

Agreed.

I'll go with the Chantal Hebert angle.

Chantal Hebert has a political view of this - sadly, she doesn't understand money.

Harper's decision? In political terms:

Last spring the Prime Minister stunned the country by appointing a Liberal defector and a non-elected senator to his cabinet.

...

Looking down the fiscal road, this week's decision was undoubtedly the responsible one. The alternative was to let billions of tax revenue dollars get sucked out of the system. The government's move was also a strikingly courageous one and not only because it involved the embarrassment of breaking a promise.

This wasn't a tax hemorrhage. This was a dumb way to collect corporate tax.

If he had wanted to play short-term politics, especially in light of a probable spring election, the Prime Minister would have left income trusts alone. From all indications, he antagonized more Conservative supporters than NDP, Liberal and Bloc voters this week.

With that, I think Hebert's out of the loop. She has turned into a Toronto Star Liberal/PR agent. I hope I'm wrong. English Canada needs a good French Canada commentator. Hebert's fallen flat too much for too long.

She's no longer in the loop and her claim to fame - a franco - is now weak. English Canadians need an original French Canadian who says what she/he thinks. Hebert was good, but too Liberal and too ignorant of economics.

Jean Chrétien paid no political price for forsaking his 1993 promise to get rid of the GST. He endured more flak for trying to pretend he was not breaking his word than for actually doing so.

GST? Income trust? Hein?

Where is Pierre Fortin in English when you need him? I'd love to see Henri-Paul go public in English about his opinion!

[Ricki Bobbi]

If he had wanted to play short-term politics, especially in light of a probable spring election, the Prime Minister would have left income trusts alone. From all indications, he antagonized more Conservative supporters than NDP, Liberal and Bloc voters this week.

With that, I think Hebert's out of the loop. She has turned into a Toronto Star Liberal/PR agent. I hope I'm wrong. English Canada needs a good French Canada commentator. Hebert's fallen flat too much for too long.

I don't really get the attack on Hebert here?

Harper did take a longer term view with the income trust announcement. Definitely does't help him in the short term.

He probably did antagonize more Conservative supproters than NDP, Liberal or Bloc. The anti-Harper set here is just going on about the 'broken promise' ... whatever. The truly angry posts about the economic effects of the change and who will be hurt by them is cominng from your more Conservative posters.

What was wrong with what Hebert said on the National tonight?

[betsy]

So he broke a promise.

Didn't the Liberals break a promise over the GST? That got one of their MPs to resign?

At least, Harper delivered partly on that!

Didn't McGuinty break a promise over medicare?

Laghi from Globe and Mail was saying at MDuffy Live yesterday...he doesn't think this is the one that will break the Conservatives. It may crop up during election time as an ammunition for the other parties to use in their campaign, though.

The Liberals should stop asking for apologies....because if we ask for an apology for each and every wrongdoing, promise broken or undelivered, among other things....there'll be no time left to discuss other things. The Liberals will be hogging the floor...and will fill the time apologizing.

Everyone else will be napping.

[Argus]

Because the other two threads didn't have titles that were anti-Harper enough for Gerry.

Maybe he just likes to see his name up there.

[scribblet]

So he broke a promise.

Didn't the Liberals break a promise over the GST? That got one of their MPs to resign?

At least, Harper delivered partly on that!

Didn't McGuinty break a promise over medicare?

Laghi from Globe and Mail was saying at MDuffy Live yesterday...he doesn't think this is the one that will break the Conservatives. It may crop up during election time as an ammunition for the other parties to use in their campaign, though.

The Liberals should stop asking for apologies....because if we ask for an apology for each and every wrongdoing, promise broken or undelivered, among other things....there'll be no time left to discuss other things. The Liberals will be hogging the floor...and will fill the time apologizing.

Everyone else will be napping.

Did the Liberals apologize over their broken promises, particularly the GST and I doubt it will break them in the long run.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Because the other two threads didn't have titles that were anti-Harper enough for Gerry.

Maybe he just likes to see his name up there.

A little from column A and a little from column B maybe?

[normanchateau]

So he broke a promise.

Didn't the Liberals break a promise over the GST?

Best reason I've heard yet to vote for the Cons. They're like the Liberals.

Not only do they break promises, they steal ideas from Ralph Goodale.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Best reason I've heard yet to vote for the Cons. They're like the Liberals.

Not only do they break promises, they steal ideas from Ralph Goodale.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea....

[normanchateau]

Best reason I've heard yet to vote for the Cons. They're like the Liberals.

Not only do they break promises, they steal ideas from Ralph Goodale.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea....

Uhhh, in case you didn't notice this thread is about income trusts. And in case you hadn't heard, Ralph Goodale

had ideas about them last year which the Cons promised not to impose.

[White Doors]

Best reason I've heard yet to vote for the Cons. They're like the Liberals.

Not only do they break promises, they steal ideas from Ralph Goodale.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea....

Uhhh, in case you didn't notice this thread is about income trusts. And in case you hadn't heard, Ralph Goodale

had ideas about them last year which the Cons promised not to impose.

Well I for one am glad that The Conservative party decided to do what is best for the country instead of doing what is best for the Conservative party. It has been so long since we have had a government that did not govern by opinion polls. No matter how you feel about this particular issue, you have to admit that. And here is a piece of advice: If something looks and feels to be 'too good to be true' it almost always is.

[scribblet]

As I said in another post in I think one of the other threads on the same issue; I would rather see Harper doing what is best for the country, then what is best for the party, they must have known how much heat they would take over this, they don't make these decisions in a vacuum. I can only believe that they (CPC) believes that in the long term the economic gains outweigh the political backlash.

Maybe this is all a reality check for the opportunists who rushed out and unwisely stashed too much of their portfolio in one basket. Does anyone have any idea how many individuals actually did gamble heavily on income trusts?

[watching&waiting]

Does anyone really believe that the government could just sit by and let these huge corporations become income trusts, so as to flaunt the taxes they would have under normal conditions, to have to pay. When you get the companies like Telus and BCE doing this, there would be a huge drop in the tax coffers and the only ones benefiting from it would be the large companies and their investors.

The writing was on the wall and what these compnies had hoped for was that while CPC was in the minority position, they could then make use of this and get at least a good run for their efforts knowing that it will have to end sooner or later. I find it a good thing that Harper did this now, which not only was the right thing to do, but for me it shows to me that the CPC, will do the right thing over the politically expedient thing. That says a lot for me right there.

[normanchateau]

Best reason I've heard yet to vote for the Cons. They're like the Liberals.

Not only do they break promises, they steal ideas from Ralph Goodale.

Uhhh, I believe breaking the GST pledge would have been Chretien's and or Martin's idea....

Uhhh, in case you didn't notice this thread is about income trusts. And in case you hadn't heard, Ralph Goodale

had ideas about them last year which the Cons promised not to impose.

Well I for one am glad that The Conservative party decided to do what is best for the country instead of doing what is best for the Conservative party.

Yes, I too am glad that the Conservative party finally decided to do what is best for the country. What a shame that this very same party vehemently attacked Ralph Goodale last year when he suggested exactly the same thing. And what a shame that this party campaigned on a promise not to do so.

And of course we all know that come the next election, Harper will not make any promises that will benefit the Conservative party but only ones which will benefit the country. Like encouraging Emerson to switch parties in return for a cabinet post. Like appointing an unelected Quebecer to the Senate and then putting him in cabinet. Like approving the firing of Garth Turner.

But the best evidence to date that Harper cares more about his country than the Conservative party was the appointment of Darrel Reid as Chief of Staff to Rona Ambrose. Only a true patriot like Harper would appoint someone with Reid's qualifications to the environment portfolio.

[scribblet]

Does anyone really believe that the government could just sit by and let these huge corporations become income trusts, so as to flaunt the taxes they would have under normal conditions, to have to pay. When you get the companies like Telus and BCE doing this, there would be a huge drop in the tax coffers and the only ones benefiting from it would be the large companies and their investors.

The writing was on the wall and what these compnies had hoped for was that while CPC was in the minority position, they could then make use of this and get at least a good run for their efforts knowing that it will have to end sooner or later. I find it a good thing that Harper did this now, which not only was the right thing to do, but for me it shows to me that the CPC, will do the right thing over the politically expedient thing. That says a lot for me right there.

Agreed.... and all these threads on the same issue are getting pretty repetitious - obviously the people who hate Harper will never see the forest for trees, or remember that it was Liberal malfeasance in the first place that caused this - but that doesn't count. For some, it wouldn't matter what Harper did, it would never be right under any circumstances.

cheers

[Wilber]

Lets face it, parties say what they think they need to say to get elected. Hopefully they do the right thing after they are elected. Didn't hear a lot of people from any side saying getting rid of the trusts was such a great thing during the election.

[normanchateau]

Does anyone really believe that the government could just sit by and let these huge corporations become income trusts, so as to flaunt the taxes they would have under normal conditions, to have to pay. When you get the companies like Telus and BCE doing this, there would be a huge drop in the tax coffers and the only ones benefiting from it would be the large companies and their investors.

The writing was on the wall and what these compnies had hoped for was that while CPC was in the minority position, they could then make use of this and get at least a good run for their efforts knowing that it will have to end sooner or later. I find it a good thing that Harper did this now, which not only was the right thing to do, but for me it shows to me that the CPC, will do the right thing over the politically expedient thing. That says a lot for me right there.

For some, it wouldn't matter what Harper did, it would never be right under any circumstances.

cheers

There are a few things Harper has done right but certainly not enough to justify his re-election. Harper won the last election because of anger at the Liberals, not because the majority of Canadians had any confidence in Harper. Inconceivable that a majority of Canadians would ever elect a social conservative like Harper.

[Figleaf]

This broken promise is worse than most broken promises.

The tories are pretending that changing conditions drove them to flip-flop, but any halfway intelligent economic observer should not have been taken by surprise that corporations were likely to adopt the trust model. That writing was clearly on the wall when the tories made their self-serving false promises.

What makes this even worse than other political lying is that the liars' induced people to invest in reliance on their false promise. While other broken political promises are bad because they're lies, this one is worse because it's a lie that caused direct out-of-pocket financial damage to individuals.

[normanchateau]

Lets face it, parties say what they think they need to say to get elected.

Really? Why did Harper state that he would re-visit the same-sex marriage issue if elected? Did he need to say this to get elected? Who would the religious nuts, social conservatives and homophobes have voted for otherwise?

[scribblet]

Lets face it, parties say what they think they need to say to get elected. Hopefully they do the right thing after they are elected. Didn't hear a lot of people from any side saying getting rid of the trusts was such a great thing during the election.

I nearly fell off the chair when I read this from the Red Star...

Editorial: Flaherty correct to close loophole

Nov. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM

But Finance Minister Jim Flaherty nevertheless deserves much credit for doing the right thing by plugging a tax-avoidance loophole that he rightly described as "a very bad thing for Canada."

Despite protests from some investors, Flaherty's move is good for Canada because it plugs a major leakage in government tax revenue, levels the playing field for businesses, and removes a perversity in the tax system that actually encouraged companies to underinvest in their own future.

-snip-

At the same time, he tried to make amends with pensioners who have invested in income trusts by giving them about $1 billion in new tax breaks.

Still, disgruntled investors may always charge the Tories broke an election promise. However, it was a vow they should not have made. Income trusts were tax-avoidance schemes that never should have been allowed in the first place. Flaherty deserves praise for acting as quickly as he did.

[jdobbin]

Still, disgruntled investors may always charge the Tories broke an election promise. However, it was a vow they should not have made. Income trusts were tax-avoidance schemes that never should have been allowed in the first place. Flaherty deserves praise for acting as quickly as he did.

An eastern paper telling the west to suck it up?