Ah so we get to the crux of the issue...
It's not just about politicians current and past being lobbyists. (paid influence peddlers) It's also about corrupting our democracy in the first place.
Wilipedia defines lobbing as follows "Lobbying is a concerted effort designed to effect influence, typically over government authorities and elected officials."
What better way to start your self enrichment program than to own a Prime Minister. How do you do that ?? well first you have to get some one you can corrupt or is already corrupt elected.
So it appears in our ridiculous party system democracy that's not to tough to do. You don't need to influence 15 million Canadians, no you just need to influence maybe a few hundred at a party leadership convention.
Then you make sure the party is well funded to fight an election. Then you and your KINGmakers partners can sit on the sidelines and wait for the gold to fall from the skies.
The money may fall to you and your kingmakers in various ways. First lets make sure you get plum board appointments on government crown corporations., not tough to do now that you own a Prime minister who makes these appointments. After all corporations spend money , sometimes lots of money. Oh yeah and you can act as lobbyists for companies that want to sell stuff to the government and crown corporations. (and get paid massive payola should a deal close)
Ah this is the life sit around rolling in the money, some of it not even visible to the tax man as somehow it just showed up in a brown paper bag. (dammed if i know what it was for ??)
TOTALLY STINKS.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Saturday, December 01, 2007
Politicians work for us ?????
In the past I have commented frequently on David Emerson, obviously out for himself and a privlaged life style on the backs of his constituents. Now it's time to have a look at Brian Mulroney and his group of buddies.
Have you read any of Stevie Camerons books on the topic ? It is obvious to any one who has read on the Mulroney years that he and Mila were out to get everything they could form the Canadian tax payers and when that wasn't enough he just turned to friends or the Conservative party for extra cash.
Did it matter what he may have been obliging himself to do for that money ??
The thing that bothers me the most abouthe the Mulroney issue is the way he got the laedership of the Conservative party in the first place !! A bought and paid for leadership convention by a former premier and lobbiest. How's that for democracy eh ???
We Canadian voters get to vote for the best Politicians that can be bought by business leaders or lobbiests. Then were stuck paying there salaries, and as we've seen with the David Emerson, we can't even fire them.
What ever happened to the recall concept ??? Oh and if we find someone guilt of being take, or taking money for favours lets use some of Steven Harper's tough on crime concepts and throw these guys in jail.
Have you read any of Stevie Camerons books on the topic ? It is obvious to any one who has read on the Mulroney years that he and Mila were out to get everything they could form the Canadian tax payers and when that wasn't enough he just turned to friends or the Conservative party for extra cash.
Did it matter what he may have been obliging himself to do for that money ??
The thing that bothers me the most abouthe the Mulroney issue is the way he got the laedership of the Conservative party in the first place !! A bought and paid for leadership convention by a former premier and lobbiest. How's that for democracy eh ???
We Canadian voters get to vote for the best Politicians that can be bought by business leaders or lobbiests. Then were stuck paying there salaries, and as we've seen with the David Emerson, we can't even fire them.
What ever happened to the recall concept ??? Oh and if we find someone guilt of being take, or taking money for favours lets use some of Steven Harper's tough on crime concepts and throw these guys in jail.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
When will you say enough is enough ?
Some people are glad that income trusts tax got changed because now their investments are doing a little better as income trust investors are fleeing for safety. This view is VERY VERY SHORTSIGHTED.
This government interference in the public markets is the type of move that is impossible for the government to make right. Its not like simply telling an us individual tax payers that we have to pay additional taxes in June or July or when ever, that can be discussed , reacted to and even reversed without implication.
However the way the tax change and the type of change made to income trusts (public traded companies) causes an instant reaction in the perceived value and the trading of these trusts as soon as the market opens. The loss in this case to investors was about 30 billion $ over a few days.
Even if the government now reversed their approach to this change in taxation, it is now totally impossible for the folks that have taken the loss by selling some or all of these trusts (which many had to do in order to protect their savings) to recover their losses.
It is also impossible for the government to make it right to them by compensating then for their losses because the government never received any of that 30 billions $ lost.
That is the guts of the issue, a promise to keep one corporate entity in place caused people to invest and make investment decisions, the breaking of that promise casued people to lose in some cases 100,000 or more of their lifetime savings.
Oh we can all say so what they must be rich, but these are not business tycoons, these are Mom and pop investors. People that paid their mortgage off, then downsized the home when they retired and put the money into income trusts or some folks that have a run a small buisness ther whole like like a gas bar or a convience store and have no pensions except what they have saved.
Why did they invest in income trusts ? Because these companies were the type of investments that did not need additional capital, so the profits that they made were paid directly to the investors. The investors then paid full tax on this income just like it was interest earned.
When they invsted in other companies like bombardier or Bell Canada thes companies made profits and paid taxes on these profits, but they chose what they would pay to investors and how much they would keep. When dividends were paid out , the income the investor recieives is not tax as regular income as tax was paid by the corporation.
Here's is a simple example.
Income trust makes 100,000 $ , the investor receives his share of this say 1000.00, The invetor pays taxes on that income just like earned income . Lets say 45 % so the tax paid in total on the 100,000 was 45,000 $ (So total tax to gov here is 45,000.00)
Corporation makes 100,000 $ , it pay taxes on this profit of (combined federal & prov) of about 31 % = 31000.00, say it pays the rest out to shareholders as a dividend thats 50,000 to pay out to investors, the tax rate paid by investors is only about 20 - 23 % on the funds received as dividends , so that would be 10,000.00 (So total tax to gov here is 41,000.00)
So there is no real loss of tax to the government. There is some potential to defer some tax by individuals if they are getting this trust income in RRSP, but this is totally recovered when funds are drawn out of your RRSP. (just like your current investmenst and gains defer tax in your RRSP.
The real issue here is pleasing the big corporations who want control of your money. The real issue for Canadians is when something like this can be done by your government, what is next , who is next, and when do we stand up and say enough is enough !!!
It is like I heard in commentray on a radio show discussing the income trust issue, he related it to what may have happened in Germany.
Heres the Cdn version.
1. When they taxed the income trusts, I did nothing as I owned no trusts.
2. When the cancelled RRSP's and wound then down over 4 years I did nothing as I had no RRSP's .
3. When they put in the tax 3 % tax per year on the value of mortgage free homes , I did nothing as I was not a home owner.
4. When I tried to buy a home and there was no more capital available for mortgages. I asked for help but there was no investment capital left.
This government interference in the public markets is the type of move that is impossible for the government to make right. Its not like simply telling an us individual tax payers that we have to pay additional taxes in June or July or when ever, that can be discussed , reacted to and even reversed without implication.
However the way the tax change and the type of change made to income trusts (public traded companies) causes an instant reaction in the perceived value and the trading of these trusts as soon as the market opens. The loss in this case to investors was about 30 billion $ over a few days.
Even if the government now reversed their approach to this change in taxation, it is now totally impossible for the folks that have taken the loss by selling some or all of these trusts (which many had to do in order to protect their savings) to recover their losses.
It is also impossible for the government to make it right to them by compensating then for their losses because the government never received any of that 30 billions $ lost.
That is the guts of the issue, a promise to keep one corporate entity in place caused people to invest and make investment decisions, the breaking of that promise casued people to lose in some cases 100,000 or more of their lifetime savings.
Oh we can all say so what they must be rich, but these are not business tycoons, these are Mom and pop investors. People that paid their mortgage off, then downsized the home when they retired and put the money into income trusts or some folks that have a run a small buisness ther whole like like a gas bar or a convience store and have no pensions except what they have saved.
Why did they invest in income trusts ? Because these companies were the type of investments that did not need additional capital, so the profits that they made were paid directly to the investors. The investors then paid full tax on this income just like it was interest earned.
When they invsted in other companies like bombardier or Bell Canada thes companies made profits and paid taxes on these profits, but they chose what they would pay to investors and how much they would keep. When dividends were paid out , the income the investor recieives is not tax as regular income as tax was paid by the corporation.
Here's is a simple example.
Income trust makes 100,000 $ , the investor receives his share of this say 1000.00, The invetor pays taxes on that income just like earned income . Lets say 45 % so the tax paid in total on the 100,000 was 45,000 $ (So total tax to gov here is 45,000.00)
Corporation makes 100,000 $ , it pay taxes on this profit of (combined federal & prov) of about 31 % = 31000.00, say it pays the rest out to shareholders as a dividend thats 50,000 to pay out to investors, the tax rate paid by investors is only about 20 - 23 % on the funds received as dividends , so that would be 10,000.00 (So total tax to gov here is 41,000.00)
So there is no real loss of tax to the government. There is some potential to defer some tax by individuals if they are getting this trust income in RRSP, but this is totally recovered when funds are drawn out of your RRSP. (just like your current investmenst and gains defer tax in your RRSP.
The real issue here is pleasing the big corporations who want control of your money. The real issue for Canadians is when something like this can be done by your government, what is next , who is next, and when do we stand up and say enough is enough !!!
It is like I heard in commentray on a radio show discussing the income trust issue, he related it to what may have happened in Germany.
Heres the Cdn version.
1. When they taxed the income trusts, I did nothing as I owned no trusts.
2. When the cancelled RRSP's and wound then down over 4 years I did nothing as I had no RRSP's .
3. When they put in the tax 3 % tax per year on the value of mortgage free homes , I did nothing as I was not a home owner.
4. When I tried to buy a home and there was no more capital available for mortgages. I asked for help but there was no investment capital left.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Tired of broken promises ? I am
Harper and Falherty stated a promise during the election Campaign, (just a short ten months ago) , and now have broken that promise. This one is pretty serious it affects 1 in every 6 Canadians.
This broken promise has cost Canadian Investors more than 25 billion $ so far. Yes I'm talking about the promise of not taxing income trusts. ''A Conservative government will ... preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them,'' the Conservative election platform stated.
It is one thing to break a promise on saying you would build a building or pave a road and just not getting aound to it. It is something else entirely to promise to preserve an investment vehicule and then completely reverse your promise .
Many seniors and other canadian savers took the conservatives at their word and made significant investments decisions based on this promise, the result for many is a significant hit to their RRSPs and savings, in many cases as much as a 20 % loss.
Said in another way if your RRSP was worth 300,000 the next day it was likely worth only 240,000.
Your Mom, your Dad, you , your brothers and sisters may very well have been impacted by this broken promise.
It is time to take action on politians that don't keep promises, especially those that don't respect our hard earned savings.
Sign the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/DC103/petition.html
After all whats next ? maybe they will just cancel RRSP's or introduce a new tax on houses that no longer have a mortgage.
Or just add new caharge to your double double , after all I bet Starbucks is lobbing the gov now, with reasons why it is unfair for a large Tims to be 1.40 and the same at Starbucks is 2.50
This broken promise has cost Canadian Investors more than 25 billion $ so far. Yes I'm talking about the promise of not taxing income trusts. ''A Conservative government will ... preserve income trusts by not imposing any new taxes on them,'' the Conservative election platform stated.
It is one thing to break a promise on saying you would build a building or pave a road and just not getting aound to it. It is something else entirely to promise to preserve an investment vehicule and then completely reverse your promise .
Many seniors and other canadian savers took the conservatives at their word and made significant investments decisions based on this promise, the result for many is a significant hit to their RRSPs and savings, in many cases as much as a 20 % loss.
Said in another way if your RRSP was worth 300,000 the next day it was likely worth only 240,000.
Your Mom, your Dad, you , your brothers and sisters may very well have been impacted by this broken promise.
It is time to take action on politians that don't keep promises, especially those that don't respect our hard earned savings.
Sign the petition at
http://www.petitiononline.com/DC103/petition.html
After all whats next ? maybe they will just cancel RRSP's or introduce a new tax on houses that no longer have a mortgage.
Or just add new caharge to your double double , after all I bet Starbucks is lobbing the gov now, with reasons why it is unfair for a large Tims to be 1.40 and the same at Starbucks is 2.50
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Harpers big mistake.
What were Falherty and Harper thinking ?? Strange way to want your name recorded in the history books. I can see the entry now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Halloween October 31 st 2006, Canada's finance Minister introduced a very poorly planned reversal of a promise not to tax income trusts.
The move to tax trusts was a result of what's rumoured to be some rapid calculations on the back of a napkin while out for an early supper with Prime minister Steven Harper. The poorly executed calculation and the resulting tax introduced on trusts resulted in the loss of 25 billion dollars and affected millions of everyday Canadians.
Seniors groups, RRSP holders, foreign investors and everyday Canadians reacted quickly to the broken promise and the loss of funds. Millions of emails and faxes were received by MPs, TV shows , newspapers and radio shows covered the issue for many investors as they relayed the stories of Harpers broken promise and the ten of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of savings this had cost them.
The Harper government (known for being very hardheaded and PM Harper even being called a Hardass by some of his own ministers ) stood steadfast on the change.
The Harper conservatives being a minority government could not however withstand the voters displeasure in the election that followed the new tax by about 6 months. Harper and the conservatives were virtually wiped out in the election achieving only 21 % of the popular vote and 18 seats in parliament.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
On Halloween October 31 st 2006, Canada's finance Minister introduced a very poorly planned reversal of a promise not to tax income trusts.
The move to tax trusts was a result of what's rumoured to be some rapid calculations on the back of a napkin while out for an early supper with Prime minister Steven Harper. The poorly executed calculation and the resulting tax introduced on trusts resulted in the loss of 25 billion dollars and affected millions of everyday Canadians.
Seniors groups, RRSP holders, foreign investors and everyday Canadians reacted quickly to the broken promise and the loss of funds. Millions of emails and faxes were received by MPs, TV shows , newspapers and radio shows covered the issue for many investors as they relayed the stories of Harpers broken promise and the ten of thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of savings this had cost them.
The Harper government (known for being very hardheaded and PM Harper even being called a Hardass by some of his own ministers ) stood steadfast on the change.
The Harper conservatives being a minority government could not however withstand the voters displeasure in the election that followed the new tax by about 6 months. Harper and the conservatives were virtually wiped out in the election achieving only 21 % of the popular vote and 18 seats in parliament.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Now Emerson would consider offers from the $$ private sector
Update OCT 13 2006, The softwood deal is signed, within days of this 8 Mills have closed and 1500 people have lost their jobs.
Canfor (Emerson previously CEO) will receive its 4.3 billion refund and Emerson is thinking about going back to private industry.
I this really shows how money can buy our politians , and the voters of our democracy, the workers, us canadians have all been shafted.
I hope History documents this issue as it has happened and that Emerson is seen as one of the lowest points in our Canadian history and democracy.
Canfor (Emerson previously CEO) will receive its 4.3 billion refund and Emerson is thinking about going back to private industry.
I this really shows how money can buy our politians , and the voters of our democracy, the workers, us canadians have all been shafted.
I hope History documents this issue as it has happened and that Emerson is seen as one of the lowest points in our Canadian history and democracy.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Softwood lumber deal has us all backed in a corner
The garbage deal made by the Non elected conservative David Emerson, and supported by Stephen Harper, has us somewhat backed into a corner.
The only reason this guy switched was to try to finsish the lumber deal and we get this. This guy should resign now for making such a mess of this, as well as the fact that he was never elected to by his consitutents as a conservative in the first place. So now the lumber execs get treated the same as the residents of Vancouver Kingsway. Basically shutup and sign up, I know whats best for you.
-----------------------------
US Lumber Lobby Only Winner if Harper’s Sell-out of Canada’s Softwood Industry Stands
August 14, 2006
OTTAWA – Trade Minister David Emerson’s self-imposed deadline leaves him little time to atone for the bullying tactics the Stephen Harper government has applied since it began selling-out Canada’s softwood industry for the sake of a naïve, and now failing, public relations exercise, said Liberal International Trade Critic Dominic LeBlanc today.
“I hope Minister Emerson takes this week to show that he is finally willing to push the U.S. for much needed changes to a deal that industry has been justifiably reluctant to accept,” said Mr. LeBlanc. “Without additional changes to ensure Canadian interests, the Harper government needs to walk away from this deal and reach out to our producers with support, including living up to election commitments to pursue legal challenges under NAFTA and provide loan guarantees.”
Mr. LeBlanc noted a string of recent U.S. court decisions have made it even more difficult for Canadian firms to agree to the current terms of the deal as much of the legal leverage our industry has gained over the past few weeks would be completely squandered if the agreement was adopted.
On July 14, the top U.S. trade court, the Court of International Trade, determined that tariffs collected on Canadian lumber could not be distributed to the U.S. industry. This ruling clearly determines the only way U.S. producers can now get their hands on any of the roughly $5.2 billion (U.S) in softwood tariffs collected since May 2002 or any money collected in future is if Canadian firms agree to this softwood deal.
Also significant was the July 21 ruling in which three trade court judges unanimously upheld previous NAFTA panel rulings that the anti-dumping and countervailing levies were improperly applied. The court determined that the U.S. cannot circumvent NAFTA rulings by appealing to apparently contrary rulings by the World Trade Organization. The trade court also ordered the repayment of the $1.2 billion U.S. in duties collected since November 2004 and is set to undertake a decision on what should happen to the remaining $4 billion.
“If this deal were in effect today, it would impose even higher export duties on our producers and would award the U.S. lumber lobby $500 million in money that U.S. courts say was illegally collected and that is expected to be returned in full by court order,” noted Mr. LeBlanc.
In addition to the five to 15 per cent border tax which would immediately be triggered at the highest rate at current lumber prices, the deal’s “opt out” clause fails to guarantee any stability, as after as little as two years the U.S. could re-launch further trade action against Canada and pull out of the deal . It also agrees to a 34 per cent cap on Canadian exports; "surge mechanisms" that punish efficient producers; and crippling duties on Canadian re-manufacturers and value-added producers.
“There is still so little for Canadian producers to like in this so-called deal,” added Mr. LeBlanc. “Instead of forcing our industry to make the bleak choice between being abandoned or sold-out by the Harper government, Mr. Emerson should use the legal leverage Canada has gained over the past weeks to broker a better deal—a deal that all of our affected producers can accept.”
“Anything less wastes Canada’s softwood victories under NAFTA and puts our softwood industry’s neck firmly in the hands of the American lumber lobby,” Mr. LeBlanc added.
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?site=news&id=11823
The only reason this guy switched was to try to finsish the lumber deal and we get this. This guy should resign now for making such a mess of this, as well as the fact that he was never elected to by his consitutents as a conservative in the first place. So now the lumber execs get treated the same as the residents of Vancouver Kingsway. Basically shutup and sign up, I know whats best for you.
-----------------------------
US Lumber Lobby Only Winner if Harper’s Sell-out of Canada’s Softwood Industry Stands
August 14, 2006
OTTAWA – Trade Minister David Emerson’s self-imposed deadline leaves him little time to atone for the bullying tactics the Stephen Harper government has applied since it began selling-out Canada’s softwood industry for the sake of a naïve, and now failing, public relations exercise, said Liberal International Trade Critic Dominic LeBlanc today.
“I hope Minister Emerson takes this week to show that he is finally willing to push the U.S. for much needed changes to a deal that industry has been justifiably reluctant to accept,” said Mr. LeBlanc. “Without additional changes to ensure Canadian interests, the Harper government needs to walk away from this deal and reach out to our producers with support, including living up to election commitments to pursue legal challenges under NAFTA and provide loan guarantees.”
Mr. LeBlanc noted a string of recent U.S. court decisions have made it even more difficult for Canadian firms to agree to the current terms of the deal as much of the legal leverage our industry has gained over the past few weeks would be completely squandered if the agreement was adopted.
On July 14, the top U.S. trade court, the Court of International Trade, determined that tariffs collected on Canadian lumber could not be distributed to the U.S. industry. This ruling clearly determines the only way U.S. producers can now get their hands on any of the roughly $5.2 billion (U.S) in softwood tariffs collected since May 2002 or any money collected in future is if Canadian firms agree to this softwood deal.
Also significant was the July 21 ruling in which three trade court judges unanimously upheld previous NAFTA panel rulings that the anti-dumping and countervailing levies were improperly applied. The court determined that the U.S. cannot circumvent NAFTA rulings by appealing to apparently contrary rulings by the World Trade Organization. The trade court also ordered the repayment of the $1.2 billion U.S. in duties collected since November 2004 and is set to undertake a decision on what should happen to the remaining $4 billion.
“If this deal were in effect today, it would impose even higher export duties on our producers and would award the U.S. lumber lobby $500 million in money that U.S. courts say was illegally collected and that is expected to be returned in full by court order,” noted Mr. LeBlanc.
In addition to the five to 15 per cent border tax which would immediately be triggered at the highest rate at current lumber prices, the deal’s “opt out” clause fails to guarantee any stability, as after as little as two years the U.S. could re-launch further trade action against Canada and pull out of the deal . It also agrees to a 34 per cent cap on Canadian exports; "surge mechanisms" that punish efficient producers; and crippling duties on Canadian re-manufacturers and value-added producers.
“There is still so little for Canadian producers to like in this so-called deal,” added Mr. LeBlanc. “Instead of forcing our industry to make the bleak choice between being abandoned or sold-out by the Harper government, Mr. Emerson should use the legal leverage Canada has gained over the past weeks to broker a better deal—a deal that all of our affected producers can accept.”
“Anything less wastes Canada’s softwood victories under NAFTA and puts our softwood industry’s neck firmly in the hands of the American lumber lobby,” Mr. LeBlanc added.
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?site=news&id=11823
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
