|
New rules for income trusts (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
off-setting provisions (corporate tax reduction, etc.).
|
0.5 % reduction in corporate taxes offset this?? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
One major difference is that the Liberals tipped their Bay Street friends to the change, resulting in dubious after-hours trades (a criminal act). In contrast, Flaherty's announcement was very professional and (rightly) took everyone off-guard. Another major difference is that Flaherty announced off-setting provisions (corporate tax reduction, etc.).
If anything, the original CPC position was based on brokerage politics, being tailored to big corporations and seniors. The new position is more broad and doesn't target a specific group per se. |
Oh lord... again with the unproven allegations. I do agree regarding the manner in which this was announced though.... anything that has the ability to sway markets should be done after the close of trading with no warning.
Regarding "brokerage politics".... whether it was pandering for votes then or it's pandering for votes now it's still pandering.... which if I recall was one of your major points of contension with the past government. I'm not arguing one is better then the other but at least be honest and admit that they are employing the same tactics and that other then ideology of the government nothing has changed. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Did you not read my previous post? They are raising the tax on income trusts AND lowering an assortment of other taxes. The intent is to be as revenue neutral as possible. The problem is that after BCE converted, the big banks seriously started looking at converting as well. That would have meant that no large existing corporation (future trust) would pay any tax, and that individuals would shoulder almost the entire tax burden of the state. |
exactly... so it means that people have to make a few financial moves but it also means that large corperations wont find a tax haven and not pay taxes.
I think its a fair and balanced approach myself. And now the NDP cant whine on about how the conservatives only give tax breaks to the big corperations instead of the individual. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
exactly... so it means that people have to make a few financial moves but it also means that large corperations wont find a tax haven and not pay taxes.
I think its a fair and balanced approach myself. And now the NDP cant whine on about how the conservatives only give tax breaks to the big corperations instead of the individual. |
I think you've got it backwards. The individuals will suffer as their distributions from income trusts will be significantly lowered (then taxed again). |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
This also applies to the post justifying the flip-flop. Personally, I see nothing wrong with this, however, it really goes to show that the new government is just the same as the old government. Both are typical brokerage politics parties, neither can play the rightousness card. |
hmmm lets see.. so far the conservatives have kept all their promises and moved on more matters in 8 months than the liberals did in 13 years. They break one small promise and suddenly they are on par with the money theiving promise breaking liberals??
Sorry i dont buy that one |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by TO guy
I think you've got it backwards. The individuals will suffer as their distributions from income trusts will be significantly lowered (then taxed again). |
unless people divest their income trusts and seek other forms of investment
For example, the government plans to lower capital gains tax early next year which is a good move for everyone. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
unless people divest their income trusts and seek other forms of investment
For example, the government plans to lower capital gains tax early next year which is a good move for everyone. |
Yes it is. But it seems like doing this is the opposite of doing that. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| i see it as stopping large corperations from using it to avoid paying tax. Which is a good thing |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i see it as stopping large corperations from using it to avoid paying tax. Which is a good thing |
But the taxes get paid upon distributions. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
hmmm lets see.. so far the conservatives have kept all their promises and moved on more matters in 8 months than the liberals did in 13 years. They break one small promise and suddenly they are on par with the money theiving promise breaking liberals??
Sorry i dont buy that one |
Of course you don't buy it.:rolleyes:
The difference is time, my friend. Give them time. All I'm pointing out is that they behave the same way as every other brokerage party to ever hold the seat of power.
BTW, taxing income trusts is, in fact, a breaking of a promise so please don't give me this "kept all their promises" . Really, people need to be intellectually honest here... were the liberals morally bankrupt public opinion directed scoundrals: YES, are the Conservatives morally bankrupt public opinion directed coundrals: YES. For Christ's sake, this blind support of one party or another just illustrates complete ignorance. Since when did having a nuanced position and employing a little critical thinking become so looked down upon? Have we really gotten that lazy? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Of course you don't buy it.:rolleyes:
The difference is time, my friend. Give them time. All I'm pointing out is that they behave the same way as every other brokerage party to ever hold the seat of power.
BTW, taxing income trusts is, in fact, a breaking of a promise so please don't give me this "kept all their promises" . Really, people need to be intellectually honest here... were the liberals morally bankrupt public opinion directed scoundrals: YES, are the Conservatives morally bankrupt public opinion directed coundrals: YES. For Christ's sake, this blind support of one party or another just illustrates complete ignorance. Since when did having a nuanced position and employing a little critical thinking become so looked down upon? Have we really gotten that lazy? |
You're the one that's not employing critical thinking by painting both parties with the same brush. "They'll all the same" is not a "nuanced position." Despite being a flip-flop, you cannot equate the CPC to the Liberal party on this issue. The RCMP, the OSC and the SEC are currently investigating the Liberal Party over their behaviour on this file. More info: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/archives/000493.html http://angrygwn.mu.nu/archives/142350.php |
|
|
| MarkT |
awwwwwww, I was waiting for Shadowolf's not-so-clever "lieberal" equivalent phrase for the CPC now...but instead there are simply excuses and attempts at explanation.
I find it amusing, though not surprising, that the CPC isn't being held to the same basic standard of honesty as the previous gov't by some people around here.
while there is positive in their announcement (income-splitting for seniors), the FACT remains that this gov't explicitly LIED.
"one small promise", Jay? Are you kidding? This is a huge flip flop (LIE is more accurate) which has significant ramifications for both industry and individuals.
Again I will ask...When will the CPC be held to a standard that doesn't seem to always refer back to the actions of the previous gov't? How long can people say "but the Liberals..."
:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
