Monday, August 27, 2007

The cheque's in the mail

Evidently Harper is an advocate of enshrining property rights into the Constitution and compensating individuals who may have suffered property losses as a result of government legislation. This commitment was contained in the Conservative’s 2006 Campaign Platform (see below). Harper also advocated that compensation would be made on a timely basis. Does this mean that the $35 billion cheque is in the mail? Actually if the cheque hasn’t been sent yet, please understand it’s not money we want, just the future cash flow stream you stole from us. Believe it or not, but our retirement needs are no different than the MPs and civil servants in Ottawa or the Ontario teachers who Jim Leech manages retirement assets for and for which his challenge is "We must find long-term investments that provide good cash flow into the future," Jim Leech, senior vice-president of Teachers'.

I really like the part below that talks about due process of law. Do you suppose 18 pages of blacked out documents would constitute definitive proof of tax leakage in a court of law? This matter would be a two day trial, that would be terminated because of the abundant lack of evidence in support of the government’s punitive and capricious actions. Mssrs. Harper/Flaherty: See you in court, just after you’re finished with Lorne Calvert. Court is a venue that Flaherty is very familiar with, unfortunately none of his background career in ambulance chasing will be of much help to him on this one, as he is the accused and not the plaintiff. Perhaps he will wow the courtroom and borrow that stock phrase form the lawyers in DoF who at the Public Hearngs boldly reasoned in their defense: “I guess if we were incompetent, we wouldn’t admit to it”. Not to worry, since the charge is not one of incompetence but rather property theft through fraudulent practices and attempted cover-up.

The 1960 Bill of Rights, introduced by the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, confers the protection of property rights on Canadians. However, property rights are not mentioned in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The plan

A Conservative government will:

• Propose an amendment to the Constitution to include the right to own property, as well as guarantee that no person shall be deprived of their just right without the due process of law and full, just, and timely compensation.

• Enact legislation to ensure that full, just, and timely compensation will be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property as a result of any federal government initiative, policy, process, regulation, or legislation.

By the way this was also part of Harper’s alleged Plan that got considerable air time in the election. It was very effective in achieving it’s sole intended purpose:

Security for seniors

"The Liberal track record for Canadian seniors is a sad story of unfair taxation, poor government services, and now an inexcusable policy blunder that has destroyed the retirement savings of Canadians invested in income trusts.It is time for a government that respects those who have spent their lives raising families, saving for their retirement, and building this country.

A Conservative government will stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them."


Dr Mike said...

"It is time for a government that respects those who have spent their lives raising families, saving for their retirement, and building this country.

A Conservative government will stop the Liberal attack on retirement savings and preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them."

Ok , so where did this plan go wrong--or maybe, I just missed something & all is right with the world as it is today for seniors who worked so hard to save for their retirement.

Could it be that the Conservatives actually kept their promise & did not impose a new tax on income trusts & i just somehow missed this along the way.

It is shamefull when we cannot believe the people we elect & trust with our well-being--it is shamefull when they are willing to give the little guy the shaft to appease some outside interests--it is shameful when peoples savings are taken away from them thru no fault of their own--it is shameful when people who are trying to get by without any governmnet handouts are forced to go "hat in hand" to these same government officials hoping that they will see the light & do the right thing.

I don`t know about everyone else in this fine country , but I am sick & tired of being made out to be some greedy citizen who is out only for himself without a thought for others.

We are hard working folks who earned our money the old fashioned way with hard work & perseverence--we did not earn it to have our own governmnet take it right out from our own wallets without a thought to the consequences.

I just wish that this governnmet would have implemented the things that they had said they would--the checks & balances would have been in place to protect us from those in power who would do us wrong.

Dr Mike.

Anonymous said...


Great post as always.

When you read these election promises that you have cited in retrospect you realize the three step democratic process under Harper is pander, elect, shaft.

He will soon be unveiling his new menu of pandering policies this fall. They just need a little time to transpose them from the back of an envelope into a throne speech.

Brent Fullard

Anonymous said...

Here's a question: What made us think that we thought that these ex Conservative/Reform/Alliance Party (CRAP) members could ever fly as a democratic concept in Canada?

Won't be making that mistake a second time. Just shows you the real cost to Canadians associated with the Sponsorship Scandal, as these clowns would never have been in power if it weren't for the fact that wind was in their sails from Gommery.

How much wind do you suppose will be in their sails from the income trust betrayal? Keep in mind 40% of people who actually show up to vote are over the age of 60. What percent of the 2.5 million Canadians who were betrayed do you think will show up to vote?

Anonymous said...

This week Lloyd Tiller goes to court in Shreveport, Louisiana. Harper’s broken promise and Flaherty’s lies cost him $250,000. I’ve talked to a few fellows here in Canada and I’ve heard $50,000, $80,000 and $150,000 as their cost of the broken promise and lies. So, Lloyd takes the bitter top prize.

But we’re not the people who will be most hurt. We’ve been cheated out of money. Young people will be hurt a lot more. Take a few minutes in Excel and compare investing $1,000 per month starting at age 40, going forward to 60 or 65 or 70. Use 5% yield for debt and 10% yield for equity.

As you will see, the young person who saves for retirement using just debt will have to work until his or her late 60s or early 70s. Flaherty will cost the 40-something investor more than $300,000 in lost savings over the next 20 years. It’s not just the money. It’s years of their life. Young people will be forced to continue working. Or do we count going into poverty as a viable option?

Meanwhile down in the cauldron-room of the Sorcerer’s apprentices, they’re boiling up deals to do pension fund takeovers of income trusts that are yielding or appreciating at 10% per year. From that we can see the Sorcerer wants higher yield equity to feed the maws of his graying civil servants. To get his equity, he is forcing the pweebles to live on a gruel of low yield debt.

I sure hope Lloyd’s judge in Louisiana understands that here in Canada politicians can lie and cheat and get away with it. If the judge understands that, he might be sympathetic to Lloyd’s terrible anger.

Anonymous said...

Love the picture of pigs flying. Detest the policy. I think those pigs are more represenative of my piggy bank taking fight.

This pig headed Minister of Fraud stole about $300,000 of my retirement savings. The greater loss was the loss of the investment vehicle that I had premised my retirement on.

Who cares about the $300,000 except that this loss will be precipitated by events beyond my control. Them I am faced with reinvestment risk and no hope of replicating the income stream that was expropriated. We were condemned by these Fraudsters with gold plated pensions that we couldn't become a nation of coupon clippers. Better a nation of day traders? Better a nation of stock speculators. Whose interest does that serve? What about your election promise. Is it okay to become a nation of corrupt politicians?

Unlike the issuers who have been hurt as well, they all have a Plan B, a Plan C or even a Plan D.

Flaherty: What's my Plan B pray tell?

Dr Mike said...

$300,00.00--holy crap!!!!--I was only dinged for just over 100 grand--obviously , I was more diversified!!!!

Don`t you just love it when the Tories yap about trust investors not being properly diversified--all the "eggs in one basket" rhetoric--"should have known better than to invest in ponzi schemes that were wrecking the economy" bull crap.

Supposedly we are blockheads with not 2 neurons to rub together--give me a break!!!!

Anyone who did not invest in income trusts was a poor investor indeed--could Seymour Schulick be wrong--he is one of the smartest investors I know & he has been very vocal in his oposition to the governments trust tax--"mad as hell" as he has stated.

Since Oct 31st I have had the pleasure of talking to many trust investors & they are a well-informed group in general--in any group there is always someone who sees a "get rich "scheme & is quick to invest without any foresight.

As in any facet of investing , trusts are entities that require a great deal of research to determine the best of the group & your investments are made accordingly--good trusts with a fine return are an excellent investment vehicle--so good are they , that they turned out to be a far superior investment to such things as Manulife`s Income plus among others.

Therein, lies the basis of the Tax Fairness plan--talk the government into removing the competition for you & all will be right with the world.

It is not because we were poor investors--far from it--our vehicle was superior because of their great yields--the great yields only occured because the trust were well-run companies--this is evidenced by their latest inclusion into several pension funds run by the government.

People, do not give up hope--as I see it one of two scenarios will play itself out here--either trusts will morph into an new investment vehicle that will continue to pay high returns or secondly , we will be successful in removing the Cons from office & the Liberals will take up our cause to overturn the Tax Fairness Plan.

Either way , we will continue to rake in good returns as long as we remain patient & stay focused on our goal.

Good luck to us all!!

Dr Mike

Kephalos said...

We have to deal with the Lisa and Sean factors. We have to deal with the jealous and don’t give a damn factors. Lisa is a nasty piece of work. She needs to put somebody down to feel better about herself. If somebody loses $300,000 because of a broken election promise, her attitude is “They still have more than me or my Grandma. I hate them, and I love my Grandma because my Grandma gives me money.”
Lisa Jones of the Anglo-Celtic nation within a nation from Canada writes: Little Stevie....regarding your plea for those oh-so-desperate seniors who were oh-so-hurt by the income trust matter. If they can afford income trust investments in the first place then, they ARE NOT POOR. MOST OF THEM ARE SPOILED GREEDY FILTHY RICH PARIS HILTON TYPES. I, for one, have no sympathy for them...Good for Harper for doing the right thing. It's the poor seniors living on fixed income state pensions who need the help that will come from properly taxing the trusts.
Posted 10/06/07 at 6:56 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
(Globe & Mail Comment, June 10, 2007)
I don’t think there’s any helping Lisa. May be I’m wrong.

Sean, alias James Patrick, is a guy who has two hard and fast rules: he’s always right and he’s never wrong. Sean is the rock of the Tory support. If you look at the age and sex demographics of how Canadians vote, Liberals lead in “Male and female under 35” and “Female over 35”. The Tories lead in “Male over 35”. I think we can help the guys over 35. While Harper looks manly and sounds great, as we know, he wants the middle-class guy to pay more and work longer.

Here’s Harper’s deal for the middle-class guy. “The government is going to give you $5000 per year on Old Age Security, but you’re going to pay for it by locking into low-yield savings and working until your 71. The government will give you $75,000 starting 25 years from now, and starting 2007 you will give the government $300,000+ in you’re your savings and another 6 years as a taxpayer. Sign here.”

For the middle-class family, Harper is hell on wheels. Hopefully, Sean and all his friends at the aging rink will realize this before it’s too late.

Dr Mike said...

It`s the Lisa`s of the world that bug me--I have encountered them directly many times since Oct 31st--they are everywhere & they are counterproductive in every way.

Their attitude iillustrates one of the biggest problems with a democratic society today--they want everyone brought down to a common denominator--the Flaherty "level playing field" in a way--they want to develop one large middle class where hard work is not rewarded & mediocre efforts are--this is ridiculous & flies in the face of a truly democratic existence.

Don`t get me wrong , I am all for helping out the less fortunate as long as they are less fortunate thru no fault of their own--I do not appreciate throwing open my wallet involuntarily just to pay for people who are unwilling to help themselves.

I worked hard throughout my life & invested 22 years in school & countless dollars to ensure that i would do well & be able to support my family & also provide a safe & comfortable retirement.

If this is spoiled & greedy then so be it--I got there on my own , not relying on someone else to do it for me.

I resent being told that I was collateral damage in a fight for mediocrity--this country is better than that.

I say if you work hard , you get ahead--if not, well..........

Dr Mike--still a tad burned-off!!!!!!!!!!!!

PS--good post Katie as always--well thought out & well written.

Anonymous said...

Income trusts are not dead because :

1) energy trust can go south and become Master Limited Partnership in the USA.

2) business trust are going private.

In both cases B$ in taxes are lost for canada but in both case we can benefit from that. The only thing Conservative government has archived is losing money and selling our country to foreign interests.

nineofiveland said...

Lloyd Tiller for Finance Minister!

Anonymous said...

The income trust sector, once written off as dead, rebounded in the second quarter with 62 deals valued at $12.2-billion, up from 32 deals in the first quarter and an average of 45 deals per quarter in 2006.

Anonymous said...

An M&A shopping spree before the calm

Anonymous said...

Primed for voter infidelity

Print Edition 30/08/07 Page A21

Not since 1992, when Don Getty's Progressive Conservative government was polling in the 15-per-cent range, have Alberta Tories been so nervous.They're accustomed to periods of anxiety only when polls dip Tory support below 50 per cent; Premier Ed Stelmach's government is now wandering in the low to mid-30s. Catastrophic? Maybe. Irretrievable? Not yet. Recall that when Mr. Getty's government was at its lowest point, at least one famous poll indicated the New Democrats were approaching the cusp of power in this bastion of libertarian/neo-/paleo-con enterprise. A human gestation period later, the Ralph Klein Revolution swept into office by re-energizing the Tories and outrighting Laurence Decore's Liberals