Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Dion owes you




David:

You shouldn’t be at all shy about approaching Stephane Dion at lunch today in Cornwall, as he hopes to some day be working for you. Plus I have found that he is an infinitely approachable person by nature.

Furthermore he owes you. If I am not mistaken you participated at their request with Stephane Dion and John McCallum in their February 13, 2007 press conference on the Liberal’s 10% policy on income trusts.

Plus you were the one who organized the highly successful Halloween rally on Parliament Hill on October 31, 2007. (pictured above)

You and the others were explicitly referenced by several prominent Liberals that day in Question Period, including Stephane himself, if I am not mistaken.

You also were one of four individuals who testified before the Finance Committee on Income Trusts

Perhaps you can share with Dion your personal first hand account about how the Parliamentary Committees are an utter disgrace to our democracy or how it was that Chairthingy Brian Pallister couldn’t have cared a wit when William Barrowclough informed him that Diane Urquhart had attempted to tamper with his testimony with an unsolicited one hour phone call/rant the evening before and sought out the home phone numbers of you and the other two witnesses.

Bottom line: Dion owes you. Remind him who he works for. We don’t accept broken promises.

All the best,

Brent

On 7/23/08 9:32 AM, "David Marshall" wrote

Dion is in Cornwall today at noon.

If I get a chance I will ask him why the trust issue is being neglected.

Dave

44 comments:

Dr Mike said...

Dave Marshall is our man in Cornwall & definitely the right guy for the job.

He is one of those people who worked tirelessly for the cause & received little notice.

My wife & I met Dave & his wife over dinner in London last summer--I was impressed with his honesty & integrity.

Dion should be honored to meet him today--I know I was.

Dr Mike Popovich.

Mary P said...

Ditto for me!!

Mary P.

Anonymous said...

"There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Stephen Harper as quoted by Premier Danny Williams

Johnathon said...

"There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Are you talking about the liberals and the Kyoto Accord.

Or the "promise" from Chretien to get rid of the GST.

Dion, don't think this Dave clown likes you at all. Dave voted CON every time he voted. He is using you to get your income trust money back.

That's all he's doing.

Cliff said...

Well...lets talk about honesty...and no I won't go back over all the old Liberals lies like Kyoto...adscam, the gun registry, GST, Free trade...I'll leave these alone.
Lets talk about the GreenShaft...the infamous tax grab.
Dion claims he is NOT raising the taxes on gas....THIS SIMPLY UNTRUE...the Dion trick like Liberals often do...is that it is a DIRECT HIDDEN TAX...if a $40.00 per ton carbon tax is implemented, it will be applied directly by the producers to gasoline prices...the scary part is this hidden tax can be increased at any time without the taxpayer being fully aware...
Now that is political dishonesty at its worst...all under the pretention of the Environment, when clearly the Greenshaft has nothing to do with the environment.
If Dion was truly serious and HONEST about the Environment...he would not have spent his many years in cabinet ignoring it.

Robert Gibbs said...

I think this quote aptly describes the Zeitgeist of Conservative party supporters:

“Ah, but that’s the [Conservative] wingers for you. They’re all about “fairness” as long as they get their way on their terms. If not, then like spoiled, willful brats who can’t deal with their selfish desires being frustrated, it’s time to launch into a hellacious emotional tantrum, keening and wailing about how they’re being repressed by the big bad [Liberals and] “liberal” media. Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo! How utterly pathetic.”

By Red Tory On July 22, 2008

Cliff said...

Well...well Robert;
Again, when the FACTS don't align with your wishes...revert to name calling...the old Liberal trick of distraction...

Dr Mike said...

johnathon said...
"There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept."

Are you talking about the liberals and the Kyoto Accord.

Or the "promise" from Chretien to get rid of the GST.

Dion, don't think this Dave clown likes you at all. Dave voted CON every time he voted. He is using you to get your income trust money back.

That's all he's doing.

July 23, 2008 11:24 AM

We are specifically talking about the income trust promise--no other promises.

I don`t give a rat`s rear about any broken Liberal promises since I have been a Conservative voter for over 30 years--never voted Liberal once.

I am just concerned about our party lying --we are the one`s responsible for that.

Harper made his solemn promise not to tax trusts all over this country from one city to another.

Jonathan , does this not concern you --well , it does me--if we cannot trust the man who was about to become Prime Minister , then who can we trust as party members.

They said conditions changed----Please , give me a break--the only thing that changed was the corporate lobbying that occurred between election day & Oct 31st 2006.

As far as you making a comment about my friend Dave , what do you know of him---you talk like you know him personally & have information that very few know.

Who in the hell are you anyway??

If you were only man or woman enough to use your real name , then maybe we could get to the bottom of your hostility.

Anonymity is for cowards with out the cojones to stand & be accountable.

Ataully , accountability is not the trademark of the new Conservatives , so why should we expect any more from you.

Dr mike Popovich

Cliff said...

Dr. Mike...
"They said conditions changed----Please , give me a break--the only thing that changed was the corporate lobbying that occurred between election day & Oct 31st 2006."
Mike...we had this conversation last week...things did change...tax fairness and integrity had to be assured...
If anything the Corporate lobby you refer to resisted this chage.
This was a principled change in direction against the wishes on the corporate establishment in favour of the middle class.
These again are FACTS...and deep down you know this...and I would suggest the name calling in not the direction that you should take...and you probably know that also...

Dr Mike said...

cliff said...
Dr. Mike...
"They said conditions changed----Please , give me a break--the only thing that changed was the corporate lobbying that occurred between election day & Oct 31st 2006."
Mike...we had this conversation last week...things did change...tax fairness and integrity had to be assured...
If anything the Corporate lobby you refer to resisted this chage.
This was a principled change in direction against the wishes on the corporate establishment in favour of the middle class.
These again are FACTS...and deep down you know this...and I would suggest the name calling in not the direction that you should take...and you probably know that also...

Cliff

Pressure came from corporations like Manulife , Power Corp & assorted others to stop the conversions to income trusts---great amounts of pressure were being put on them to convert to a trust format & thus become more accountable--as you will know , accountability is not in the nature of large corporations--they are rife with poor decision making & wasted dollars.

You say that things did change & Tax fairness & integrity had to be assured--I assume you are referring to tax leakage--can you show me the figures that prove the existence of this leakage--can you show me the figures on the infamous 18 blacked-out pages supplied under the AI Act--can you tell me why they were recalled a short time later.

If this is integrity , I am floored by it`s inadequacy.

Name calling??--the reference to cowards??

I will not apologize for that--anyone who does not stand up behind their own name deserves no respect & their arguments cannot & should not be taken seriously.

Not using your name is like supplying your proof in 18 Blacked-out pages---a cowards way out.

Dr Mike Popovich

Cliff said...

I don't care what was in the blacked out pages...not changing this policy was going to cost the Canadians Billions in tax revenue at the expense of the middle class.
To quote a small number of corporate elites that may or may not have been favaour of this policy change is relevant. I'm sure there was some pressure from both sides although I would suspect the majority came from those who DID NOT want this change.
A failure to not act in the face of quickly changing circumstances would have been irresponsible and a disservice to Canadians at large.
This was about the integrity of our tax system and about faorness to Canadian taxpayers.

Dr Mike said...

cliff said...
I don't care what was in the blacked out pages...not changing this policy was going to cost the Canadians Billions in tax revenue at the expense of the middle class.

Cliff,

The information on the blacked-out pages is the proof for the so-called billions of lost tax revenue --how do we know what Flaherty said was true if he is not willing to prove it.

Many financial institutions as well as those advising the tax department (HBL) said that his figures were incorrect--even Jack Mintz said that it was wrong to say that RRSPs were tax exempt.

Can you tell me how RRSPs are tax exempt as Flaherty assumed in coming to his conclusions---I am sure I will have to pay tax when the time comes.

He used BCE as one of his prime trust conversion targets & said that tax would be lost---BCE had not & was not going to be paying any tax for the foreseeable future--as a trust it would have passed enough cash to it`s owners to supply Rev Canada with nearly 800 million per year

Since BCE will be moving to the property of the Ontario Teacher`s Pension fund by way of 34 billion dollars in leverage , no tax will be forthcoming.

The trust model sounds better & better.

But to say that the blacked-out pages mean nothing is inappropriate because those same pages are at the heart of Flaherty`s argument.

Dr Mike Popovich

Robert Gibbs said...

Liberals Propose New Income Trust Policy to Counter Conservative Mismanagement

February 13, 2007

Ottawa – The Liberal Opposition has a plan that could return as much as two thirds of the losses suffered by investors in the wake of the Conservatives’ broken promise on income trusts, Liberal Opposition Leader StĂ©phane Dion and Finance Critic John McCallum said today.

“When this minority Conservative government undertook what it knew would be a harmful action to Canadians, it should have taken the utmost care to minimize the damage it would cause its citizens,” said Mr. Dion. “The government broke a promise and imposed a radically higher tax that resulted in a $25-billion blow to the savings of hard-working Canadians.”

After hearing from numerous witnesses at the Standing Committee on Finance, the Liberal Opposition has a plan. It is proposing that the government repeal its planned 31.5 per cent tax regime and replace it with a modest 10 per cent tax, to be paid by the companies, that would be refundable to Canadian residents. The tax would be imposed immediately with the revenue shared equitably with provincial governments.

“Rather than considering what is best for Canadians, the Prime Minister simply decided that he was going to put an end to the income trust sector,” said Mr. McCallum. “After hearing from dozens of expert witnesses we have developed a proposal that is fair to Canadian investors, to corporations and the income trust sector as well as federal and provincial governments.”

Underpinning the Liberal proposals are four main policy objectives that should have been considered by the government:

• minimizing the loss of savings for Canadians who invested in income trusts;
• preserving the strengths of the income trust sector, notably a high-yield instrument for savers and for the energy sector;
• creating tax fairness by eliminating any tax leakage caused by the income trust sector; and,
• creating tax neutrality by eliminating any incentive to convert from a corporation to an income trust purely for tax purposes.

The Liberal Opposition also proposes that the ban on new trust formations be continued, but that the government should commit to considering representations from sectors which can conform to the policy objectives listed above.

The proposal has already received support from Gordon Tait, an analyst with BMO Capital Markets, who had previously told members of the Finance Committee that extending the phase out period to ten years would likely return one-third of the investors lost savings.

“This new proposal would likely return at least of two-thirds of the losses experienced by the holders of income trusts after the October 31 announcement,” said Mr. Tait. “It would also ensure that Canadian investors continue to have a high-yield investment vehicle available to them.”

Dirk Lever, Managing Director for RBC Capital Markets, agreed with that assessment.

“I would concur with Gordon Tait’s view that at least two thirds of the lost value will be recovered,” said Mr. Lever. “It could be more.”

Yves Fortin, a noted economist who formerly worked for the Department of Finance, indicated that the proposal would put an end to any tax leakage alleged by the government.

“While I am not convinced that there is tax leakage, and expert opinions differ as to the existence or the extent of the tax leakage, this proposed 10 per cent tax would more than cover the problem,” said Mr. Fortin.

Robert Gibbs said...

Income trust related op-ed article written by Dennis Bruce of HDR | HLB Decision Economics Inc.
—————————————-

Trusts Redux: Tax Policy Suitable for Halloween
October 31, 2007

As an economist I welcome Minister Flaherty’s October 30 announced intention to boost Canadian productivity and prosperity by reducing the general federal corporate income tax rate to 15 per cent by 2012. The measure should be embraced by all: It will position Canada favorably in the global economy for decades to come. But while I laud the strategic direction on corporate taxes, I continue to question the government’s consistency on tax policy in general.

A year ago today the Minister announced in his Tax Fairness Plan his intention to “restore balance and fairness to the federal tax system by creating a level playing field between income trusts and corporations,” to eliminate tax leakage and to remove distortions in investment decisions. To paraphrase the Department of Finance’s analysis, the avoidance of corporate taxes from entities after conversion to an income trust is not totally offset by the taxes paid on income trust distributions from individual unit-holders; therefore tax leakage. The Minister estimated that annual tax leakage was in the order of $500 million and stated that something had to be done “to restore balance and fairness in the tax system”. The Minister’s solution to create “tax fairness” and eliminate tax leakage was to implement a 31.5% Distribution Tax on trusts in 2011 and to not allow any new conversions to the income trust form. The market response to the “Tax Fairness Plan” announcement was very negative.

Having worked for the income trust industry and with the Department of Finance on determining the appropriate methodologies for tax leakage, I presented evidence on the tax leakage issue to the Parliamentary Standing Committee studying the issue. To be precise, I raised several concerns with the Department of Finance approach – all of which went to a “sharp over-statement” of tax leakage. The major flaw in the Department of Finance analysis was that it did not take a lifecycle view of the tax leakage issue but rather focused on a 2006 “test year”. By failing to account for the reality that corporate tax rates were legislated to be reduced to 19 percent by 2011, the Department took a short-sighted and punitive approach to the issue. Despite the debate and a dissenting Committee Report “Taxing Income Trusts: Reconcilable or Irreconcilable Differences”, the income trust provisions of the Tax Fairness Plan remain in place.

It is regrettable that the October 30 announcement did not occur a year ago. It would have all but eliminated the perceived tax leakage issue without the punitive distribution tax on income trusts. In fact, the Department of Finance’s own Tax Leakage Model would have given an estimate of merely $80 million in tax leakage when accounting for yesterday’s corporate tax cuts instead of the $500 million stated by the Minister at the time. The Department’s own analysis would not have supported a tax on income trust distributions. If the October 30 announcement had been made last Halloween, the billions lost by investors would not have occurred and the playing field would have been leveled by 2011 – all this according to Department of Finance methods of analysis. These losses cannot be recovered and one has to question the path that led us to this point and Finance’s tax policy strategy.

I believe that even the $80 million estimate sharply overstates the leakage. This aside, yesterday’s corporate tax cuts would now allow the abolishment of the income trust distribution tax all together without incurring federal tax leakage – this, again, according to the Department of Finance’s own model.

Dennis Bruce is Vice President with HDR Decision Economics and has studied the income trust tax leakage issue since 2003. He twice testified before the House of Commons Finance Committee on the question Income Trust tax leakage.

Dennis Bruce
Vice President
HDR | HLB Decision Economics Inc.
1525 Carling Avenue, Suite 500
Ottawa, Ontario
Tel: 613-234-0080 Cell: 709-632-1708

HDR - ONE COMPANY | Many Solutions ™

Robert Gibbs said...

Income trust reversal is 100% on the Liberal agenda. — Garth Turner

Garth Turner Blog
On 07.23.08 @ 12:36 pm

Dr Mike said...

CLIFF

Some added info from Dennis Bruce of HBL


Trusts Redux: Tax Policy Suitable for Halloween
October 31, 2007

As an economist I welcome Minister Flaherty’s October 30 announced intention to boost Canadian productivity and prosperity by reducing the general federal corporate income tax rate to 15 per cent by 2012. The measure should be embraced by all: It will position Canada favorably in the global economy for decades to come. But while I laud the strategic direction on corporate taxes, I continue to question the government’s consistency on tax policy in general.

A year ago today the Minister announced in his Tax Fairness Plan his intention to “restore balance and fairness to the federal tax system by creating a level playing field between income trusts and corporations,” to eliminate tax leakage and to remove distortions in investment decisions. To paraphrase the Department of Finance’s analysis, the avoidance of corporate taxes from entities after conversion to an income trust is not totally offset by the taxes paid on income trust distributions from individual unit-holders; therefore tax leakage. The Minister estimated that annual tax leakage was in the order of $500 million and stated that something had to be done “to restore balance and fairness in the tax system”. The Minister’s solution to create “tax fairness” and eliminate tax leakage was to implement a 31.5% Distribution Tax on trusts in 2011 and to not allow any new conversions to the income trust form. The market response to the “Tax Fairness Plan” announcement was very negative.

Having worked for the income trust industry and with the Department of Finance on determining the appropriate methodologies for tax leakage, I presented evidence on the tax leakage issue to the Parliamentary Standing Committee studying the issue. To be precise, I raised several concerns with the Department of Finance approach – all of which went to a “sharp over-statement” of tax leakage. The major flaw in the Department of Finance analysis was that it did not take a lifecycle view of the tax leakage issue but rather focused on a 2006 “test year”. By failing to account for the reality that corporate tax rates were legislated to be reduced to 19 percent by 2011, the Department took a short-sighted and punitive approach to the issue. Despite the debate and a dissenting Committee Report “Taxing Income Trusts: Reconcilable or Irreconcilable Differences”, the income trust provisions of the Tax Fairness Plan remain in place.

It is regrettable that the October 30 announcement did not occur a year ago. It would have all but eliminated the perceived tax leakage issue without the punitive distribution tax on income trusts. In fact, the Department of Finance’s own Tax Leakage Model would have given an estimate of merely $80 million in tax leakage when accounting for yesterday’s corporate tax cuts instead of the $500 million stated by the Minister at the time. The Department’s own analysis would not have supported a tax on income trust distributions. If the October 30 announcement had been made last Halloween, the billions lost by investors would not have occurred and the playing field would have been leveled by 2011 – all this according to Department of Finance methods of analysis. These losses cannot be recovered and one has to question the path that led us to this point and Finance’s tax policy strategy.

I believe that even the $80 million estimate sharply overstates the leakage. This aside, yesterday’s corporate tax cuts would now allow the abolishment of the income trust distribution tax all together without incurring federal tax leakage – this, again, according to the Department of Finance’s own model.

Dennis Bruce is Vice President with HDR Decision Economics and has studied the income trust tax leakage issue since 2003. He twice testified before the House of Commons Finance Committee on the question Income Trust tax leakage.

Dennis Bruce
Vice President
HDR | HLB Decision Economics Inc.
1525 Carling Avenue, Suite 500
Ottawa, Ontario
Tel: 613-234-0080 Cell: 709-632-1708

Cliff said...

Mike / Robert;
With all due respect...so...you quote Dennis Bruce who is primarily this policy change...so what. He is against this change and is unhappy...so he has different numbers, that does not make them accurate.
This was simply about integrity and fairness to our tax system...for once a policy that helped the middle class.
Not to do so would have been very dangerous...
And don't for a second think that the Liberals will reverse this. They are simply using this as a wedge issue...keep in mind this is very the same party that used free trade and GST as wedge issues to secure votes...the GST was also about tax fairness...and we still have it as we do with Free Trade...and don't forget there were Liberal experts all across the country with so-called expert numbers that were going to devestate our economy...and what happened they were the two saviors that balanced our budget and are responsible for our economic growth during the last decade....again anyone can spew off numbers, but that does not make them factual.
Now...Mike you claim you were a life long Conservative...this policy isn't going to change with a Liberal governement...Like the GST...it is here to stay...and the reason is that all parties realize it is simply about fairness...
It's time to stop fighting reality and come back down to earth...it is here to stay and anyone that says otherwise is simply deceiving you.

Cliff said...

Robert Gibbs said...
Income trust reversal is 100% on the Liberal agenda. — Garth Turner

Now...come on...nobody really believes Garth Turner...is he now the spokesman for the Liberal party...and I thought they were trying to distance themselves from him...

Robert Gibbs said...

Climate Change Consensus


"Despite the uncertainties, there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions -- National Academy of Sciences, 2001

-----

Deniers cherry-pick quotes, misrepresent data and cut off graphs before their curves become inconvenient.

The problem is "deniers" don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about the details.

But try as they might, deniers fail to find a single reputable character who will contest the major hypothesis: The human burning of fossil fuels is affecting the world's climate in an unprecedented and dangerous way.

-----

There is almost universal agreement that significant carbon dioxide increases will cause planetary warming.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there's a 90-plus-per-cent likelihood that global warming endangers the world as we know it.

Dr Mike said...

Cliff said


cliff said...
Mike / Robert;
With all due respect...so...you quote Dennis Bruce who is primarily this policy change...so what. He is against this change and is unhappy...so he has different numbers, that does not make them accurate.
This was simply about integrity and fairness to our tax system...for once a policy that helped the middle class.
Not to do so would have been very dangerous...

Uh ok.

Dennis Bruce`s numbers were used to advise the tax department in order to come up with a compromise policy on income trusts.

You are saying that maybe his numbers are not accurate--well ,maybe Flaherty`s numbers are not accurate--why does he not show everyone his numbers--what does he have to hide--if they are correct , then CAITI as an organization would cease to exist & Flaherty would be home free & the Cons might obtain their beloved majority.

So show us the real & true numbers & we will go away.

Simple as that.

One last thing--you say this was done to help the middle class---who do you think were the main trust investors---middle class seniors trying to make some income off which to live their lives.

So how do you come off saying that not to have implemented this tax was dangerous.

Show me the figures.

If you have the accurate figures then show me.

The proof is out there--just show us.

No figures & you are pissing into the wind.

As a Progressive Conservative I remain appalled.

Dr Mike Popovich

Robert Gibbs said...

Carbon Tax - Favoured By Economists

A carbon tax is a tax on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is an example of a pollution tax, which economists favour because they tax and disencourage a “bad” rather than a “good” (such as income). Taxing something that is undesirable is favoured by economists as a method to confront users with the external cost of carbon and hence reduce emissions to efficient levels.

Because of the link with global warming, a carbon tax is sometimes assumed to require an internationally administered scheme. However, that is not intrinsic to the principle.

Emission reduction targets are met at minimum cost.

The intention of a carbon tax is environmental: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and thereby slow climate change. It can be implemented by taxing the burning of fossil fuels — coal, petroleum products such as gasoline and aviation fuel, and natural gas — in proportion to their carbon content. Unlike other approaches such as carbon cap-and-trade systems, direct taxation has the benefit of being easily understood and can be popular with the public if the revenue from the tax is returned by reducing other taxes. Alternatively, it may be used to fund environmental projects.

Source: Wikipedia

Cliff said...

Yes...your right...maybe Flaherty's numbers are not exact...so what...
Probably ten different experts / analysts...and you get ten different sets of numbers...organziations and experts don't cease to exist simply because their numbers or projections are wrong...different financial experts report substantially different projections daily...some prove to be accurate and some don't even by the most respected analysts...and they remain empoyed and in demand.
So your point is...
Again...this simply gets down to fairness and integrity in the tax system...and this time the middle class was not punished.

Cliff said...

Robert Gibbs said...
Carbon Tax - Favoured By Economists

Again...Robert, I guess you can find an analyst to support whatever position you want to take...but the FACT of the matter is this is a tax plan not an environemental plan...it does nothing for the environment...Dion has already admitted this.
Your own MP has already acknowledged this it.
This is a HIDDEN TAX that can be raised discreetly at any time...designed to penalize the middle class without them seeing it directly.
It will raise the price of all products by stealth...including gasoline.
But lets be Honest...this is a tax plan not an environmental plan.sk you Ontario MP...he has admitted as much.

Robert Gibbs said...

TransAlta: Another One Bites The Dust

Posted: July 22, 2008, 9:36 AM by Diane Francis

Here we go again: TransAlta is under siege. That will bring the takeouts of income trusts since October 2006 to 45, and $45.8 billion, mostly [by] foreigners. If debt markets had not cratered, virtually all of the 200 trusts would have been bought with debt by foreigners. Trusts represented 10% of the capital markets and are disappearing mostly into private equity to boot, thus shrinking investment opportunities for Canadians to boot.

Nothing changes and the gigantic Tory blunder is camouflaged as a result of soaring commodity prices. This skews the numbers nationally and lulls leaders into believing their own press releases.

Third rate Tory government

As this trend continues, the damage to Canada's capital markets will be enormous, leaving only the widely-held banks to buy.

Anonymous said...

Dear Cliff darling:

You said "you quote Dennis Bruce who is primarily this policy change...so what. He is against this change and is unhappy...so he has different numbers"

Actually, what Dennis Bruce has is the tax leakage model...the one he created with the Department of Finance. He has what they have. They have the same numbers. He reveals his. They don't reveal theirs. He speaks the truth. They lie. They conceal. They fabricate. "They" is Harper and Flaherty.

Brent Fullard

Enjoy:



Independent economists discredit govt tax leakage claims - 10 year phase-in of tax to have minimal costs

OTTAWA, Feb. 1 /CNW Telbec/ - In remarks delivered to the House of
Commons Finance Committee Thursday, Dennis Bruce, Vice President of HLB
Decision Economics Inc., provided data and supporting documentation to
discredit the Department of Finance's tax leakage claims.
"The department is sharply overstating tax leakage," said Mr. Bruce, who
added that there would be minimal costs associated with a 10 year phase-in of
the new tax on income trust distribution payments.
HLB Decision Economics, an Ottawa-based independent consulting firm that
provides analytical consulting services to industry and governments worldwide,
has been working on behalf of the income trust sector to develop a comparative
analysis of taxes generated under the income trust structure versus the
corporate structure.
Mr. Bruce told committee members that his firm worked with the Department
of Finance as it prepared the federal government's 2005 consultation paper on
the tax effects of income trusts. Specifically, HLB was asked by the
department to develop a common methodology and assumptions for deriving tax
leakage estimates.
Mr. Bruce said that HLB and the Finance Department achieved consensus on
the methodology with one exception - they disagreed on whether to include
deferred taxes. Deferred taxes are derived from distributions, capital gains,
and dividends received in tax exempt accounts. While they are not immediately
taxable, they are taxable upon withdrawal from such accounts.
"The discussions that you are hearing about deferred taxes reflect
confusion about budgeting convention versus policy analysis," said Mr. Bruce.
"While federal budgeting is done on a current basis, federal policy analysis
is done on a life-cycle basis. Accounting for the life-cycle effects of tax
changes, namely deferred taxes, is appropriate in the consideration of tax
policy."
Mr. Bruce went on to outline the factors that resulted in the differences
between HLB's tax leakage estimates and the tax leakage figures put forward by
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. These factors include:

<<
1) The Department's assumed effective corporate tax rate for energy
trusts fails to reflect the reductions in the tax rates for resource
corporations from 2004 through 2006, from 27.12% to 24.12%. This
results in an overstatement of tax leakage of $84 million;
2) The Department's figure for income trust units held in tax exempt
accounts is overstated. Derived from data from surveys, Statistics
Canada, interviews and Scotia Capital Markets data, the percentage of
units held in tax exempt accounts is 31 percent, less than the
Department's 38 percent estimate. This results in an overstatement of
tax leakage of $125 million;
3) The value of deferred taxes is excluded from the Department of Finance
analysis. This results in an overstatement of tax leakage of
$80 million; and,
4) The Finance Department's atypical inclusion of the impact of limited
partnerships, which reduces the tax leakage to $45 million.
5) The impact of future legislated tax changes post 2010 has not been
accounted for. Doing so reduces the ongoing federal tax leakage after
2010 by $232 million.

Mr. Bruce stressed that the discrepancies between HLB and the Finance
Department led his firm to conclude that the Finance Department is "sharply
overstating tax leakage."

Specifically, HLB concluded that:

- Federal tax leakage for 2006 was $164 million, not the
half billion dollars stated by the Department; and,
- Ongoing tax leakage, post 2010, after taking into account legislated
tax changes, is $32 million per year, about five percent of the
Department's figures.
>>


For further information: Dennis Bruce, Vice President, HDR - HLB
Decision Economics Inc. (613) 234-0080; Cell: (709) 632-1708

Robert Gibbs said...

Here we go 'round in circles.

Dr Mike said...

Cliff said...
"Yes...your right...maybe Flaherty's numbers are not exact...so what...

So your point is...

Again...this simply gets down to fairness and integrity in the tax system...and this time the middle class was not punished".




So Cliff , you do not have any figures to back up your claims..

Quit wasting our time.

Come back when you do.

Dr Mike.

Cliff said...

Dr. Mike...you miss the point...we can all put togther numbers from experts if we wish...but they are irrelevant...so what if I produce numbers that refute yours...and you produce more numbers that refute mine...it simply doesn't matter.
Get a hold of your life...this was fair tax policy that no-one is going to change...
You've apparently become obsessed with this...time to get over it and back to reality.
If you were a Conservative like you claim you were...you have should have too much common sense for the non-sensical arguments.
This is simply common sense policy...

Cliff said...

Anonymous...

Now...just one quick questions...who asked this person to come before the commons Finance Committee..surely your aware of the partisanship of these committees. The partisan and dysfunctional nature of these committees now allow almost solely any witness that weill testify against the governing conservatives...
AGAIN FACTS THAT ARE HARD TO IGNORE....these committees have become much too partisan...the Liberals have to get over the fact that Candians voted them out of office.

Dr Mike said...

cliff said...
Dr. Mike...you miss the point...we can all put togther numbers from experts if we wish...but they are irrelevant...so what if I produce numbers that refute yours...and you produce more numbers that refute mine...it simply doesn't matter.
Get a hold of your life...this was fair tax policy that no-one is going to change...
You've apparently become obsessed with this...time to get over it and back to reality.
If you were a Conservative like you claim you were...you have should have too much common sense for the non-sensical arguments.
This is simply common sense policy...

July 23, 2008 4:26 PM


Cliff

I have been a Progressive Conservative for exactly 36 years--how about you??

This argument is quantitative because Mr Flaherty based his whole premise on Tax Leakage & not on the notion of common sense.

Show me your figures & let me decide if they are nonsense or not.

As a fellow Conservative , you owe me that courtesy.

Dr Mike.

PS--who are you by the way??

Anonymous said...

Cliff:

You need to get your oil checked, or have a mental tune up or something?

How credible is it for you to be arguing on the one hand that this policy was about

"integrity of our tax system and about faorness (sic) to Canadian taxpayers."

And also be arguing that:

"I don't care what was in the blacked out pages."

Huh? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Your logic only fits the definition of blind allegiance.

You must be the target of a lot of scams and rip offs. In that case, best that you keep your identity secret.

Brent Fullard

Anonymous said...

Dr Mike asked about Cliff:

Dr Mike.

PS--who are you by the way??

Answer:

Cliff hanger......brother of CON MP Art Hanger, famous in his capacity as Committee Chairman for running out of Committee Meetings.

Robert Gibbs said...

Definition Of Supporters Of The Conservative Trust Tax:

Individuals who are dumber than fifth graders with cognitive dissonance.

This cognitive dissonance results in their brains being unable to see past their own narrow ideologies. They dismiss any data that contradicts their pre-set notions. They only adhere to what they already know is “true” or "fact". Anything else is tuned out.

As CONS love ad hominems, they should appreciate this apt description.

You reap what you sow.

Bruce Benson said...

Cliff Hanger

Looks like you have taken the bait hook, line and sinker. Your point of view is so far over board I can hardly hold back on my comments. You have accepted Flaherty bull shit without questioning whether any of it is true. You don't care about this, you don't care about that, Flaherty's version of tax fairness helps the middle class. What a crock of shit, you have absolutely no understanding of the facts. Gee, I hope your RRSP/RIF accounts love being double taxed. You are truly an idiot, another one of the brain dead, give me a frigging break.

Bruce Benson
Another former conservative.

Cliff said...

Well...well...we have another...Bruce Benson...no facts or argument to back up his claim...so he gets into name calling....
Well...if....you ever were a Conservative you have now found a great home...keep believing...
This policy is here to stay because it is good policy and the Conservatives had the common sense to realize that this policy had to change.
Although...I would suggest that you Liblogs keep believing that the Liberals will change this policy...if...they come to power...just like they did with the GST and Free Trade...and why did they change there mind and keep those policies...and why will they keep this policy...SIMPLY because they are sound common sense policies...and are great for the economy. As with free trade and the GST, this is simply being used as a wedge issue to secure votes from those who do not want to acknowledge the Facts of good commom sense policy.
I see now that some liblogs are quoting witness from the Finance Committee...now...a good question to ask is who called this witnesses...clearly these committees have become much too partisan since the Liberals became the opposition...the Ethics committee is a prime example of this with very Partisan Szabo as chairman. Lets face it the committees have been very successful at bringing any witness that can disagree with the government.
Anyway...enjoy the party of the Corporate elite...higher taxes...the new hidden Carbon Shaft...
And before you challenge the "Elite" comment look at your party Finances...they have suffered greatly since these monies were restricted...AGAIN MORE FACTS.
Keep believing...keep that sense of entitlement...keep looking for non-existent scandals..but forget about common sense policy...after all you can now all support the Green Shaft...and when all else fails...simply start the name calling...
I'll continue to stick with the facts...

Robert Gibbs said...

I'll continue to stick with the facts...

July 23, 2008 5:50 PM

By "Cliff"

------------------------------

Oh, yes, please do "Cliff" continue to provide the "facts" as you believe them to be in that eleventh dimension of "Bizarro" world you live in.

In between your "Harpergasms", perhaps you can spend some time improving your English skills, assuming your beloved CON theocratic masters let you out of the temple to do some book learnin'.

Bruce Benson said...

Cliffy my boy!

You are truly fact less, hey you want the facts, try reading the information on this blog. Better yet, try reading www.caiti.info. There you will get the facts. It's too bad you didn't get your retirement funds stolen from you because of lies. I bet your tune would be vastly different. From your comments, you wouldn't know Tax Fairness from dogs poop. Double taxation must fit right in with your plans. I would love to see Harper and Flaherty managing your retirement funds. Would you trust him? Boy, the little Leprechaun has worked his evil spell and has destroyed what could have been a great mind. Your skull has had it's brains sucked from it or you have shit for brains. Come back when you have learned something and have something constructive to contribute to this blog, till then, take a hike.

Bruce Benson
And still a former conservative

Cliff said...

LOL...Mr. Bruce Benson...I doubt the former conservative part...Now I could also lower myself to your type of language and bitterness also..but, then I would have to become a divisive Liberal also.
Maybe I could check that Liberal website you have referred me to for your version of the facts...do you really think it would counteract my common sense...
Leave this blog you say...well then you liblogs would have no common sense direction...you just never know when the FACTS will sink in...
Oh...oh...now Robert Gibbs says my english skills are lacking...should I be insulted...it takes a lot more then a few Juvenile insults to hurt my feelings...but as I've said before...when the facts don't align...revert to name calling and insults...NOW that is the Liberal way....

Anonymous said...

Dearest Cliff darling:

When you say "that Liberal website"< am I to take it that you are referring to caiti.info?

If so please share with us your "alignment of FACTS" that support such a claim?

Brent Fullard

Robert Gibbs said...

Brent:

I think the CAITI site may be in need of parental controls.

Bruce Benson said...

Cliffy Hanger

You have just one and only one feeling, it's called numbness. And yes, it is a pretty hard feeling to hurt, You think CAITI.info is a liberal blog, better check again. Again, you have no knowledge of the facts and you better get your facts together. In fact you are such a dumb ass that you can't type www.caiti.info into your web browser. If you did get that far, where do you find anything relating to the Liberals? Maybe you can't read or follow directions. Seems you are so used to flapping off at the mouth you forgot to engage the brain into first gear. Oh, I forgot that you are the man without a brain.

Bruce Benson
Another former conservative.

Cliff said...

No facts....and the name calling continues....GEE...I'm beginning to feel you don't like me....NO...that is simply Liberal bitterness...the search and destroy phenomenen...when you stand for nothing...there is nothing left but name calling...when you don't stand for anything...you can criticize everything...you can be on all sides of an issue...but there really is no conscience...so you defame...you criticize...because you have nothing left...your keft with a party that stands for nothing...simply a corrupt party...and...oh...the bitterness....

Cliff said...

Gee...have you guys looked at the site...it is simply Liberal talking points...But...you say it's really not that Liberal...C'mon, who are you guys trying to fool...again the FACTS are not aligning...so the name calling continues...
C'mon lets put 2+2 together...I know you guys don't really believe what your saying...

Anonymous said...

Dearest Cliff darling:

Now you've gone off the deep end. You are saying:

"Gee...have you guys looked at the site...it is simply Liberal talking points...But...you say it's really not that Liberal...C'mon, who are you guys trying to fool...again the FACTS are not aligning."

You are quite the gifted conjurer. You invoke the word "facts" and yet cite none. Repeat same.

Indeed the facts are now aligning. You are as intellectually bankrupt and vacuous as your kind benevolent and grossly incompetent leader, who I am assuming (since I have no facts to prove it) is Deceivin' Stephen The Lyin' King.

Please advise.

Don't jump off the cliff, Cliff, in despair. You may land on some hard facts, although you probably won't know how to recognize them. Not to worry, as they are hard to avoid. Inevitability is much like gravity....very one way.

I hope that none of this makes sense to you. It's my attempt to communicate with you on equally nonsensical terms to your posts of today. Has it only been a day?
Seems like an eternity.

Come again soon. You help remind us of what we're fighting against.....blind stupidity.

All the best,

Brent Fullard