Question for Amanda: What’s not to like about a retroactive double tax that’s applied discriminatorily using false pretenses?

And if that’s not enough, Harper’s income trust tax was a broken promise that sucker punched seniors and saw them lose their only means for pension income and kiss goodbye to $35 billion of their life’s savings. Apart from that, what’s not to like about this measure? Especially since we all know ‘tax leakage” is a falsified hoax perpetrated by Mark Carney and propagated on the public airwaves by sycophant news organizations like BNN, Biased News Network of CONTVGlobeMedia.

At one brief moment in time, I had reason to believe that Amanda Lang of BNN (Biased News Network) perhaps understood what this policy was all about. People at the time said that I was reading far too much into her statements of October 31, 2008 which caused me to write the following:

Saturday, November 1, 2008
BNN’s Amanda Lang asks the operative question

On yesterday’s BNN show Squeeze Play, host Amanda Lang asked the operative question, which to paraphrase, was “if income trusts were shut down because of a tax advantage, then why are the pension funds allowed to keep their tax advantage?”

A perfect example is the present bid by OMERs to acquire Teranet Income Fund. Teranet income fund is taxable at the rate of 31.5% in the hands of its current public owners. OMERs will not have to pay this tax.

This is called a tax arbitrage. Government induced tax arbitrage. Such an arrangement is anything but “tax fairness” or “leveling the playing field”. So what exactly is Flaherty’s explanation for this gross disparity? Some Canadians are more important than others?

How will the ownership of Teranet by OMERs as an income trust, resolve any of the alleged problems with income trusts? It defies logic. It defies reason. What is Flaherty’s defense?

See Amanda’s comments at about the 8:10 mark at:

http://watch.bnn.ca/#clip108153

Bravo Amanda! Inquiring minds need to know.


Those words were premature, since Amada has lapsed back into her stance of loving a policy that lacks any evidence as to its merit and results in a retroactive tax that’s applied discriminatorily using false pretenses. Meanwhile we have BNN’s sister organization bemoaning EI benefits and writing editorials entitled “End the discrimination”. Even the Globe and BNN finds themselves arbitrarily discriminating against one form of discrmination (that is bad?) and other forms of discrimination that are great!

How very unimpressive and indiscriminate in judgment.....and character?