Here’s today’s lesson in why citizens need transparency in government: Mark Carney.
Mark Carney’s intellectual capacities know no boundaries. Correction. Make that, Mark Carney’s zealousness knows no boundaries. Mark Carney brings new meaning to the term multiplier effect. Mark was probably working hand in hand with Flaherty’s communications director Dan Miles when they made the decision to “pump up the volume” on tax leakage. Given that they had abandoned all reason and logic in the methodology they used to fabricate tax leakage, by leaving out the 38% of taxes paid by income trusts held in RRSPs, they probably felt no hesitation to “really make their case” by further falsifying matters.
Here is the enormous weight gain that the tax leakage numbers took on in the space of about one year, as between the Goodale consultative round and the Flaherty drive-by shooting round (source of all numbers: Globe and Mail, corroborated by testimony):
Goodale Round:
Size of trust market: $180 billion
Mark Carney’s annual tax leakage: $300 million
Harper/Flaherty/Dan Miles Round
Size of trust market: $200 billion
Mark Carney’s annual tax leakage: $600 million
Mark Carney’s Zealous Multipliers:
Size of trust market multiplier: 111%
Mark Carney’s leakage multiplier: 200%
Mark Carney’s inherent Pump Up the Volume Bold Face Lie: 80% (200/111)
Well, that’s very comforting to know that our Bank of Canada Governor-elect has no intellectual or ehical boundaries when it come to presenting his case to Canadians, in which he freely thinks he can manufacture numbers in support of his fraudulent case. And to think that there are those in the press (Jonathan Chevreau) who have written articles entitled: “Earth to Trust Investors, Ottawa is not responsible for your losses. Stop your Manufactured Rage”
Yeah right.
I wonder who helped write that nifty article?. Dan Miles or Mark Carney?
Maybe Dan Miles is more qualified to be the next Governor of the Bank of Canada. Or is he slated to head up the Access to Information as Disinformation Commissioner.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Pump it Up!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
There’s a definite career progression happening for Mr. Carney. Having done his stint at the Department of Finance where he was instrumental in enabling legislation that makes it more difficult for Canadians to invest in their own country, and easier for foreign investors to takeover Canadian businesses, his next job involves getting Canadian money with a cheap cost of capital into the hands of his foreign friends so they can borrow from Canadians to takeover Canada.
Boy, he’ll have some resume in a few years. I wonder if Mr. Carney will be applying for Icarus’s old job.
My question is , how do these guys get away with this & manage to get themselves promoted in the process.
Sounds like the ideal job for a greedy old fart trust investor like myself--we have been told that we are incompetent investors along the lines of "Coupon Clippers".
It appears that being greedy & incompetent are two of the main prerequisites of the job--being an old fart is just a bonus--a 7 year term means that I will probably have the job for life.
Are there any perks with this job or do you have to derive all your satisfaction from shafting old people--if the shafting is it , then Mark Carney must be one happy SOB.
Mike.
IT For Income Trusts
Remember, Remember
The 1st Of November
The Conservative's Income Trust Treason And Plot
I Know Of No Reason
Why The Income Trust Treason
Should Ever Be Forgot
Brent,
Good blog. The whole basis of the 31.5% tax is so intellectually corrupt, so full of inconsistencies and incoherencies, that we really have to ask “Who is Mark Carney working for?”
Not for Canada. Not for the fair and equal treatment of investors in a free and efficient equity market. Not for the Canadian governments whose tax revenue and economic bases have been eroded (“corroded” is a better word.) So who? Who is Mark Carney really working for?
“…under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all.” Ecclesiastes 9:11
There is a story in the NY Times about an American private security company being sued in the U.S. for injury and deaths caused in Iraqi. Is it bad luck, or is the world grinding away as it should? See “Blackwater USA Is Sued by Iraqis” at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/middleeast/12blackwater.html?th&emc=th
So I wonder, will the Board and senior officers of BCE get sued in the U.S. for collusion with Ontario Teachers Pension Fund and senior government officials for manipulating the markets, including the NYSE? Bad things happen to the swift, strong and intelligent. Sometimes bad luck happens to topnotch people. Sometimes people cause their own luck.
Harper & Flaherty have publicly stated that they plan on lowering the corporate tax rate to 18.5% by the year 2011.
Is this not the year (as if I would forget) that these same dorks are to raise the tax on trust distributions to 31.5% to level the playing field with corporations.
On one hand we will have corporations at the new 18.5% & on the other , we have trusts at 31.5%.
Ummmmmm--have I missed the boat somehow here--maybe my mental capacities have been dulled by a year of pain & suffering & mental anguish .
Do these numbers not add up to a level playing field or is it just me.
Of course , maybe they used calculus to do their cyphering--that stuff was always beyond me!!
mike.
Since this Mark Carney is supposed to have been instrumental in the idea of taxing income trusts, why the hell wasn't he brought before the Finance Committe Hearings as a witness and questioned on it?
Paul asks "Since this Mark Carney is supposed to have been instrumental in the idea of taxing income trusts, why the hell wasn't he brought before the Finance Committe Hearings as a witness and questioned on it?"
Mr. Carney was there. If you check the testimony given, you'll find that he spoke once and said very little. But what the transcriber could not catch were his hand- and eye-signals to Flaherty.
Thanks, Anonymous.
I watched the Hearings on CPAC and missed it when they must have merely panned the camera across him; instead they had that jerk of a lawyer on who said, "If we were incompetent, we wouldn't admit it!"
That drove me nuts.
Post a Comment