I am told that Amanda Lang has left the Biased News Network for places unknown. As evidence of the cozy relationship that exists between Amanda and Jim Flaherty, apparently Canada’s Finance Minister took time form his busy schedule to bid farewell to Amanda, and said that he “he'd miss her constant grilling on income trusts.”
Amanda Lang has not provided Jim Flaherty with a constant grilling on income trusts. Quite the opposite. In fact, who has been giving Flaherty a constant grilling on income trusts, that is in a position to do so.? Certainly not media, and certainly not the opposition parties in Parliament.
When was the last time that Flaherty has been asked a real QUESTION by the Liberals on income trusts?
If Flaherty has time to bid goodbyes to Amanda Lang, then he certainly has time to answer the questions of 2.5 million income trust investors. Here are five basic questions that Flaherty needs to answer. Maybe the Liberals would be wise to begin asking as a means to discredit Jim Flaherty and the Harper Cons:
(1) Where, after nearly three years, is your proof of tax leakage from income trusts that formed the core rationale for this policy?
(2) Why are you valuing the deferred taxes paid on RRSPs at zero, when there is no economic or financial rationale for doing, and the Auditor General requires you to include such taxes when determining the budget and the effect of not including these taxes is to render the RRSP obsolete, as the only benefit of an RRSP is the ability to defer taxes? Are you opposed to Canadians saving for retirement, while at the same time bailing out the pensions of GM workers?
(3) What purpose is served, apart from gross unfairness, by your allowing the pensions funds to own these income trust privately and thereby completely evade your 31.5% tax? Something that only the pension funds can do, and not the 75% of Canadians without pensions? How does this solve the alleged problems with income trusts, to have them all held by pension funds? How can this be considered a Tax Fairness Plan
(4) If you felt that the withholding tax paid by foreigners on income trusts at the rate of 15% was insufficient, then why did you reduce the withholding tax paid by foreigners on corporate debt from 15% to zero, a few months later? What became of your mantra of leveling the playing field, in light of completely tilting the playing field in favour of corporations?
(5) How much tax revenue has been lost by the takeovers of income trusts by foreigners? Is this a greater or lesser number than your alleged loss of taxes from income trusts referred to in (1) above, a number which has never been proven to exists in the first place? Why are you displacing Canadian investors saving for their retirement at a cost to them of $35 billion and the loss of significant taxes to all Canadians, only to favour foreign investors like Abu Dhabi Energy or LI Ka Shing, who pay zero taxes?
Bonus Question: Who has been the bigger pushover on income trusts to date? Amanda Lang or the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada’s supposed Official Opposition party?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Posted by Fillibluster at 8:35 AM