Wednesday, February 13, 2008

"Meanwhile, the trusts may yet come back."...... Jonathan: we're still waiting?

Earth to investors: Don't blame Ottawa for your investing blunders
It's only a real loss if you sell
Jonathan Chevreau, Financial Post
November 25, 2006

This National Post piece is one of those classics, along with the equally nonsensical piece from the Globe entitled "Trust Investors: Stop your gnawing"

I think these reporters all need a remedial course in ecognawmics or a lesson in Transparency 101

These folks were pleading with is to stop our "manufactured rage" in the third week of November 2006. And here it is February 2008. And to think, their tactic was to shift the blame to the aggrieved and not the aggriever?

Manufactured rage? How about manufactured tax leakage?

Then there's the Neanderthal argument that "it's only a real loss if you sell".

Maybe Jonathan Chevreau (or was it Hugh MacPhie?) can use that line of logic with the holders of Asset Backed Commercial Paper (ABCP). Do you want Purdy Crawford's phone number? I understand he could use some help.

As for your notion of November 25, 2006 that the "trusts may come back":

Let's suppose I were to tax your home at 31.5% as Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty did with income trusts. How long do you suppose it would take for the "value to come back"?

Never. Right, since it's a permanent impairment in value. Goodbye 31.5% of the income stream. It will now always be worth 68.5% of what it otherwise have been worth. Anyone who thought otherwise would have to be an idiot.....or a shill for the CONs in office.

What if I taxed your home at 31.5%, but didn't tax your neighbour's home whatsoever, because his house is a private home that is owned by a pension fund? Do you suppose I could get away with calling that a Tax Fairness Plan, because that's exactly what Harper and Flaherty did?

Try Tax Inequity Plan or Tax Arbitrary Plan, but most certainly not a Tax Fairness Plan. One thing is looking quite possible however. And that is the this betrayal of Canadians "may yet come back"...... to haunt this CON government in quite a significant and most deserved way.


Anonymous said...

I wonder if he feels the same way about Hugo Chavez and the Venezualan government. Actually Hugo should defend his actions by pointing out it is no different than what Harper did in Canada


Anonymous said...

ohnathon,you are a sad excuse for an elitist apologist.

The game was to eliminate the vbility of trusts so that they would be driven into the hands of foreign and Canadian private equity.

Meanwhile,Johnathon,the smaller trusts could no longer borrow so they were exiled to oblivion.

I owned Thunder Energy,Vault Energy and other small junior natgas trusts.

They cut their dividends and then were bought out by Candian gov't private equity funds.

They will never again pay tax to the Federal Govt and the American purchases were done on borrowed equity that will also never pay tax to Canada and now they own IT Canadian oil and gas infrastructure/energy..

I owned senior natgas trusts that lost 50% of their values.They cut their dividends.

What a success story -for everyone but Canada.

Way to go,Johnathon.It is only a loss if you sell,huh?

No credibility being an elitist apologist ,Johnathon.

"Meanwhile, the trusts may yet come back. Remember -- it's only a real loss if you sell".

Max Bentley

Robert Gibbs said...

Income Trust Analogy 101

To any Harper, Flaherty or CON Party cronies, cheerleaders or sycophants, I add the following analogy:

A little while ago you bought a home in Alberta for $300,000.
Perhaps you even had to take out a mortgage, or perhaps you used the equity in your home for a reverse mortgage or a homeowner's line of credit.
Maybe you thought you could sell it in a few years at a small profit to purchase a slightly better home elsewhere or to sock away the money for retirement.

A number of months earlier, there were political rumblings about taxing people's large gains on the value or sale of their principal residences in the Canadian West.
After all, why should these large gains not attract tax. That would be unfair, since virtually all other gains and profits are taxed.
But this was contrary to years of precedence, where gains in the value of owner's principal residences were basically tax-free (unlike profits and distributions that were always taxed in the hands of owners of businesses such as limited partnerships or income trusts).

Anyway, there was an election, and the party that promised to keep the status quo and to never tax people's gains on the value or sale of their principal residences in the West won to form the government.

Then only months later - and after you felt comfortable purchasing or keeping your home in Alberta - the government breaks its word and institutes the very tax that it promised to never bring about.

As a result, the home you purchased in Alberta for $300,000 drops in value overnight to $250,000, for a loss in value of $50,000 or 16-2/3%.

But in the Canadian East, where the new tax does not apply, homes keep rising in value by 15%.

Are you mad as hell?
Do you feel betrayed?
Do you feel you were lied to?
Do you feel something is wholeheartedly wrong?

Anonymous said...

Anyone know what is happening to the case of two Americans who are suing the Govt. regarding the IT's they purchased?

Anonymous said...

Anyone know what is happening to the case of two Americans who are suing the Govt. regarding the IT's they purchased?

Get an update at:

Dr Mike said...

Maybe we could ask Terry Corcoran for a comment-he is another journalist with a lot to say.

Wonder if he still wants Brent "vaporized" for his views--was certainly a lot of "yap' out of a guy too lazy to do the research.

Just one more case of completely unbiased journalism I guess.