Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The MORAL HAZARD to all 308 MPs of not adopting the Marshall Plan

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton lied to all Canadians about tax leakage.

Tax leakage is no more an arcane concept than knowing what time of day that it is or the amount of money in your bank account at any point in time. Tax leakage, or not, is a hard fact

Stephen Harper and Jack Layton lied to all Canadians about tax leakage, because they relied on analysis cooked up by Mark Carney that left out 38% of the taxes collected by Ottawa from income trust taxpaying investors

That is also a hard fact.

As such Stephen Harper and Jack Layton are SOLELY responsible for all of the litany of adverse consequences of their deceitful actions that have occurred to this point in time, including the 51 takeovers that have seen Ottawa permanently lose over $1 billion in annual tax revenue.

The ongoing destruction caused by the gross deceit and incompetence of Stephen Harper and Jack Layton, can be HALTED by the adoption of the Marshall Plan, on terms consistent with the fact that income trusts DO NOT CAUSE TAX LEAKAGE.

The Marshall Plan’s greatest virtue is that it does not require either Stephen Harper or Jack Layton to admit to their lie about tax leakage, as the Marshall Plan’s structure makes the inclusion or exclusion of those 35% of taxes a moot point (btw, name of my cottage up north).

HOWEVER, now that the Marshall Plan is ON THE TABLE, all FOUR of the LEADERS of the federal parties, Harper, Ignatieff, Duceppe and Layton SHARE EQUALLY, along with the other 304 MPs in the MORAL HAZARD directly associated with not taking proactive and immediate steps to see that the damage of Harper and Layton’s deceit and incompetence is MITIGATED and AMELIORATED.

The existence of a Liberal Plan that can only be implemented in a scenario of an election and an election won by the Liberals counts for nothing under the circumstances of today and its mere presence in the past does NOTHING to provide protection for the Liberals from the moral hazard arising from the continued takeover of trusts, now that the Marshall Plan can be made to achieve that end and is not dependent on things beyond the Liberals control. Like winning an election that hasn’t even been called or won.

Failure to take immediate steps to implement The Marshall Plan into Budget 2010 will mean that these representatives of the people are acting in contradiction to what is best for ALL CANADIANS, as implementing the Marshall Savings Plan is a decision that involves no trade-offs, except perhaps abandoning the nefarious goals of the corporate CEOs and LifeCo big wigs who put Harper and Layton up to this fraudulent policy in the first place. Those people are BAD FOR CANADA and should go back into the hole they came from. There is no moot point about that.

Michael Ignatieff, Gilles Duceppe and all 306 other Members of Parliament: Failure to act promptly and decisively in adopting the Marshall Plan in Budget 2010 means that you own the moral hazard of not doing so and the clear and present dangers that loom with certainty if you do not. Every takeover of a Prime West by and Abu Dhabi or a Teranet by an OMERs will be like looking in the mirror and seeing the glib idiotic visage of a Jack Layton or a Stephen Harper. Take your pick it isn’t pretty. As for the Marshall Plan, the choice is obvious, as there is virtually no choice involved. Just a few ounces of conviction.


Anonymous said...

As soon as you start attacking the life insurance industry with sweeping non sensical statements I turn the channel.

I have a little secret I will share with you.

It is not about the tax leakage. It is about creating "bleed out corporations" that are not in anyones long term interests.

You can quote the titles of fancy reports paid for by your group that denies tax leakage but that means Bo Didly.

CAITI said...

Dear Bo Didly:

Given that we are sharing secrets, here's a little secret for you:

You know not what you speak of.

This concept of yours referred to so eloquently of as a so called "bleed out corporation (BOC)", is most interesting.

Never having heard of such a concept before, let me ask you a skill testing question. Which is the more BOC-like company, and why:

(a) BCE had it become a income trust with $9 billion of the existing debt on its books, or

(b) BCE had it become the leveraged buyout that ensued after BCE had been prevented from becoming (1) above and which would mean that it would have $35 billion more in debt on top of the existing $9 billion in debt for a total of $44 billion in debt for a capital structure that was 95% debt?

Meanwhile these "fancy reports" that you seem willing to reject on the basis of their covers alone, do you consider them (a) more, or (b) less authoritative than Jim Flaherty's 18 pages of blacked out documents as his alleged "proof" of tax leakage?

Also how exactly do you go about measuring "anyone's long term best interests" or are you a big subscriber to interventionist big brother type government?

PS: These are all rhetorical questions, so don't puzzle over them for too long.

Anonymous said...

A) BCE with 9 b in debt becoming an income trust creates the BOC that I refer to.

B) You refer to a Wall street/ Bay street sham a thon deal that never was going to happen. You just cant treat bond holders like poo baby.

Your fancy reports with the nice titles are no where to be found on the net if the titles are entered into google

Everyones interest mean win win win solutions in the long term.

CAITI said...

Bo didly:

Re-read the question, as it called upon you to provide your reasoning. It wasn't a mere multiple choice.

Whether the alternative deal was viable in the marketplace at the time is not relevant to the question I asked you, as we are dealing with concepts here.

Meanwhile the BCE deal did not die for the reasons you cite, as the SCC sided with BCE and allowed them to oppress the bondholders. I should know, as I intervened before he Supreme Court of Canada in opposing the LBO of BCE. Only person to do so.

As for the "fancy report". Google this: "tax revenue implications of income trusts"