CON MP David Sweet is a CON MP

Susan:

Thanks for letting me know about my letter in this weeks’ Canadian Business that talks about the government’s lie about tax leakage and the government’s falsified tax leakage analysis.

CON MP David Sweet is lying to you and please tell him I said so, as the whole policy was sold to Canadians on the basis of alleged tax leakage, otherwise what was Harper’s excuse for, on the one hand promising to seniors to NEVER tax income trusts and then the next minute saying that he was going to tax trusts? The “level the playing field” argument, as bogus as it is doesn’t explain that? Meanwhile if the CONs are so concerned with “leveling the playing field” what do they claim was “unlevel” about it in the first place, if not alleged tax leakage? Also for a party so concerned about “level playing fields” why did they destroy the level playing field for investors by taxing RRSPs at 31.5% and not pension funds at 31.5% when RRSPs sole policy purpose in life to create a level playing field between the 75% of Canadians without pensions and the 25% of Canadians with pensions?

This David Sweet sounds like a real CON artists and snake oil salesman

Furthermore why would the Ways and Means Motion have read this way if the policy wasn’t all about the false allegation of tax leakage?

# ensuring that taxes are not unfairly shifted onto the shoulders of Canadian taxpayers, especially Canadian families,

# strengthening Canada's social security system for pensioners and seniors,

Both of these false propositions in the Ways and Means Motion, which is what enables legislation to be drafted, allege that tax leakage was at play. While you are at it, please ask David Sweet to explain to you how the social security system has been “strengthened” now that 2.5 million Canadians have lost $35 billion of their retirement savings and will become more reliant on social security and 51 trusts have been taken over by foreigners and non-taxable entities with the result that $1.5 billion in ANNUAL tax revenue has been lost by all taxpayers? In fact what absurd argument was being employed to ever suggest it was going to be “strengthened” even under the best of circumstances?

David Sweet can lie about this policy not being about tax leakage until he’s blue in the face, but whether he wants to admit that or not, he can’t deny that Canadians are now making the issue about tax leakage.....not the phony tax leakage that never existed in the first place, but the real tax leakage that these idiots like David Sweet have created.

Brent

PS Ask David Sweet to explain why the Government only issued blacked out documents as their so called proof of tax leakage and why the government demanded them back when they showed the government had falsified their analysis, especially given that he claims its not about tax leakage?




Hello Mr. Fullard,
I saw and read your letter in Can.Bus. mag. I am a bit surprised they even printed it, as this mag. and other Can. business mags have not had a whole lot to say about Income Trusts. I thought the heading they gave your letter was a touch ironic or mocking, which fits w/most of the print media attitude which is a touch on the nanny state side of things. There was one thing in your letter that I question - that the reason given for the I.T. legislation was revenue leakage. I did not hear anyone in the govt. giving that as a reason for the legis. I discussed this issue w/ my MP (David Sweet) and the only reasons that I was given for it were - to level the playing field, and another glib saying. Actually, Mr. Sweet denied that tax revenue leakage was one of them, though he would not reply to me by E-mail, it was on the phone that he made this comment. We were in Florida when I communicated w/him by E-mail and he insisted on talking to me by phone - obviously did not want anything in print. I was tempted to record the call, but couldn't fix it up soon enough. I did not read Al Rosens' column, I gave up reading him some time ago, he uses to much accountant speak for me. Anyway, congrats on getting your letter printed, they should know we have not gone away. I will write a letter to them also and attempt to read that column, if I still have the mag.
Yours Susan