Jim Flaherty has a "fiduciary obligation to taxpayers" to adopt my proposal NOW!

Today I proposed a solution to Jim Flaherty’s income trust policy blunder by creating a new savings vehicle that would be situated between the existing RRSP and TFSP retirement savings vehicles and maximize tax revenue for Ottawa. This new saving vehicle would be the place where income trusts currently held in RRSPs would be moved to and the taxes paid on the distributions would be taxable in the year earned as opposed to deferred, as explained here

This would be a win-win solution for both government and the 75% of Canadians without pensions. It would generate a huge new stream of taxes and protect these Canadian businesses from foreign takeover and leveraged buyouts. The new tax revebue would equal $2.3 billion a year as follows.

According to Jim Flaherty’s own impassioned testimony at the Public Hearings on income trusts, he has a fiduciary duty to adopt my proposal, since his alleged $710 million loss in tax revenues from income trusts (under his worse case scenario) has been more than offset by my $2.3 billion in tax revenue gain.....or as Jim says “Well, as Minister of Finance, I have a fiduciary obligation to the taxpayers of Canada today, not tomorrow, an obligation to pay for needed social, environmental and economic programs today, not tomorrow. I cannot, and I will not, fund today's programs from tomorrow's revenues.”

This $2.3 billion will fund lots of programs today for all and allow seniors to retire in dignity. Jim does want Canadians to retire in dignity doesn’t he or does he want them to be stock speculators and the next victims of ABCP or Manulies’ Income Plus fiasco?

Here’s the rest of Jim’s testimony, all of which argues for adoption of my proposal. What’s he waiting for? What other MAJOR STIMULUS package increases government coffers by $1.00 let alone $2.3 billion PER YEAR?

“As I stated on numerous occasions, we estimate that the federal revenue loss was about $500 million in 2006 as chart B and the supporting material you have received clearly demonstrates. This is the chart over here on my left with the various calculations and the assumptions used to make those calculations resulting in the net loss to the Government of Canada of about $500 million in 2006.

The methodology used to determine federal revenue loss should also be familiar to the Liberal committee members of this finance committee. That's because it's the very same, identical methodology their own government used in preparing its 2005 consultation report. The revenue loss estimates are based on a sound methodology, and we stand by them. These are conservative estimates. The tax loss number could actually be higher, as chart C demonstrates, which is over in the corner on my left, by increasing the effective tax rate by one percentage point—from 6.6% to 7.6%—the annual revenue impact would jump by over $200 million, to $710 million per year.

You will no doubt hear from some witnesses that there is no real tax loss, and if there were it would be more than made up in the future, through personal income taxes, or withholding taxes on foreign investors, or taxes on differed pension plans or RRSP withdrawals. Think about what you are being told: give income trusts an indefinite tax break now, but get it back some time in the future”

JIM: That argument is no longer valid under the Fullard Proposal, and since it was your only argument, then you are compelled to adopt my proposal.....pronto!