Why Canadians need income trusts: The yield on 10 year Canada’s over the past 20 years (above).
Jim Flaherty thinks its all about the pension funds and not the 75% of Canadians who don't belong to an employer pension plan.
Jim Flaherty thinks its all abuyt the Tecahers' of this country and their cries of:
"We must find long-term investments [like BCE] that provide good cash flow into the future," Jim Leech, senior vice-president of Teachers'.
Guess what Jim, we all need "investments that provide good cash flow into the future".
So why did you steal ours out from under us when you said you wouldn't? So why did you give the pension plans a holiday from the 31.5% trust tax?
Are the pension funds more important than us? How can that constitute a "tax fairness plan" or a "leveling of the playing field'?
What is your answer? We are dying to know.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Maybe a picture would help the financially illiterate Jim Flaherty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
"What is your answer? We are dying to know."
C'mon Brent! the obvious answer from this Accounting 101 failure would be;
"It's not my fault"
Anonymous said:
""What is your answer? We are dying to know."
Well, to state the obvious, it all depends on the question. However you failed to pose a question.
If the question was "Why was Flaherty oblivious to the protracted low interest rate environment that seniors seeking retirement income were faced with"?
Then my answer would be:
Probably because he along with the other 307 presumed "representatives" in Ottawa are the beneficiaries of gold plated, fully indexed pension plans.
Talk about a "coccoon/bubble" mentality.
But the prospect of gold plated, fully indexed pension plans is probably what drew about 75% of these people to Ottawa in the first place.
Does that answer your non-question?
Brent Fullard
Post a Comment