Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6195
Reputation: 294.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, he has the same contempt for MPs as his father had. Do you remember him snorting to some indignant opposition MP that he was a nobody a few feet outside of Parliament? Or asking Why should I sell your wheat?

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9422
Reputation: 306.7Reputation: 306.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the mp is going to be punished but its not clear how , its clear there going all out to eliminate any descent in there caucus )

Liberals punish lone MP for protest tax vote

The Canadian Press

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

OTTAWA – The Liberals have told a backbench MP how he will be punished for the stand he took against his party by supporting an opposition motion calling on the Trudeau government to extend a consultation on its controversial tax proposals.

A staffer from Wayne Long’s New Brunswick riding office says the MP has been notified, but declined to share details of the penalty because the issue is an internal matter at this time.

Earlier this week, Long was the only Liberal to vote for a Conservative motion to extend to January the feedback period on proposed tax reforms that have attracted waves of criticism – including numerous complaints from Liberals.

Long has said he was prepared to pay a price for his decision to vote his own way on what was a so-called whipped vote by the Liberal party.

He has said he voted for the motion because he and his constituents wanted the consultation extended amid concerns the proposed changes will hurt small businesses.

The Trudeau government has insisted the proposals are designed to create a fairer tax system, while critics warn the plan will hurt entrepreneurs who take personal financial risks when they decide to open a business and have to save for retirement and prepare for economic downturns.


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9422
Reputation: 306.7Reputation: 306.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( the liberals are now making public what the changes to this proposal are )

Morneau confirms tax proposal changes

Liberals narrow passive income measure on private firms to target ‘most wealthy‘

Canadian Press

Wednesday, October 18th, 2017

HAMPTON, N.B. — Finance Minister Bill Morneau is adjusting his tax proposals on passive income so only about three per cent of the “most wealthy” privately owned corporations will have to pay higher taxes.

Morneau confirmed the changes today at a cafe in Hampton, N.B., a small community east of Saint John in an area where the Liberals’ tax reforms have not been well-received.

The minister says the system will now allow a threshold of $50,000 of passive income investment annually, which he says will help small business owners put money away for retirement and parental leave.

Morneau says he hopes the measure helps businesspeople save money for future needs, but will end the practice of stowing money in privately held firms purely as a tax planning strategy.

He says there’s between $200 billion and $300 billion in assets sitting in the passive investment accounts of just two per cent of all private corporations — or about 29,000 companies out of 1.8 million private corporations.

The tweak to Morneau’s original proposal comes after an onslaught of complaints that warned cracking down on passive investments could adversely affect middle-class entrepreneurs who use their companies to save for economic downturns, sick leaves and parental leaves.


Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9422
Reputation: 306.7Reputation: 306.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

October 28, 2017 8:01 am

Majority of Canadians think Liberal tax plans are about new revenues, not tax fairness: Ipsos poll

By Rahul Kalvapalle
National Online Journalist Global News

Nearly six in 10 Canadians believe the Liberal government’s tax reform proposals are aimed at boosting the federal government coffers’s rather than making the tax system more fair, according to an Ipsos poll provided to Global News.

Fifty-eight per cent of respondents — including 38 per cent of Liberal voters — said they thought the tax plans were designed to help the Liberals cover the cost of previous spending. Only four in 10 believe the government’s line that the changes will bring Canada a step closer towards a more equitable tax system.

READ MORE: Conservatives gain support as controversies plague Liberals, poll finds

The numbers are an indictment of the Trudeau government’s inability to convince the public of its intentions, according to Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Global Affairs.

“When you’re that far out of tune with what the public believes is the truth, and you just keep repeating it over and over again, it doesn’t make it any more true,” Bricker told Global News.

He said the argument that governments are looking out for the people “as opposed to trying to find a way to generate money” is a tough sell under any circumstance, and that the Liberals would be well advised to change tack.

“They either have to find something else to say, or they’ve got to find a way to move on.”

Canadians’ feelings about the motivations behind embattled finance minister Bill Morneau‘s tax proposals weren’t significantly influenced by age, gender or even the medium through which news was consumed.

“People have made their minds up about this,” Bricker says. “When you’re in a situation like this, the more you talk about it, the worse you make it.”

WATCH: Scheer calls PM’s canceling of tax benefits ‘mean-spirited attack’

Play Video

The tax reform plan — and the controversy surrounding Morneau’s potential conflict of interest vis-a-vis human resources management company Morneau Shepell — is one of several issues that could be responsible for causing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s approval rating to drop from 59 per cent in mid-September down to 52 per cent as of Oct. 25.

“Whether it’s negotiating the NAFTA deal with the American government through to all of Mr. Morneau’s woes, it’s just been a steady diet of things in which [the Liberals] seem to have been in reaction mode, rather than leading the agenda as they were doing previously,” Bricker said.

The government’s attempts to take control of the agenda by increasing the child-care benefit or highlighting Canada’s economic health have largely failed, Bricker added.

READ MORE: Morneau Shepell says it won’t make big money off pension bill tabled by Bill Morneau

Less than one in four decided Liberal voters said they strongly approve of Trudeau’s leadership, while 65% said they “somewhat approve,” hinting at murmurs of discontent even among Liberal voters.

“The Liberal Party seems to be getting somewhat out of tune with the public, including its own supporters, which is interesting because previously the government seemed to be so good at that,” Bricker said.

But he points out that despite these hiccups, the Liberal Party remains robust, all things considered.

“Fifty-two per cent approval is actually really, really good so it’s not like they’re in a tragic situation yet,” Bricker says. “If they were at 40 and they dropped down to 33, this would be huge news… but what it does show is that whatever momentum they seem to have had previously seems to have stalled.

“Should they be concerned? Yes they should. But they still have a really strong majority level of approval and they look very good. When you translate that into their electoral support, they still hold a pretty big lead over their biggest opponents, the Conservatives.”

READ MORE: Liberals announce $15 billion in fresh spending thanks to strong economy

Elsewhere, the election of Jagmeet Singh as the New Democratic Party‘s federal leader resulted in that party getting a three-point bump in support, with 23 per cent of respondents saying they would vote for the NDP if the election was held tomorrow.

The three-point increase is an improvement over what the Conservative Party saw after it elected Andrew Scheer as leader.

Support for the Tories was pegged at 30 per cent, down by two percentage points from mid-September, the poll found.


Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6195
Reputation: 294.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I think the whole idea of "tax fairness" is a load. How do we distinguish between "tax fairness" and social vindictiveness?

This is a perfect example. I don't think the increased revenue was the point of the exercise. It was at least as much the desire to punish some tax-payers for arranging their affairs in a perfectly legal way, but with a goal of minimizing taxes. It's a way of cutting the roots of Harper's support, and it seems to me tp be best understood that way. It is simply úndoing' Harper's targetted tax cuts.

This was one of the characteristics of the same gang back when Dalton was their hood ornament. They tried to do all they could to "ündo" what Harris had done. Some of it they couldn't, like the amalgamation of the Toronto, but where they could, they did, even when Harris's policies were still popular.

That's how Caledonia happened, at the beginning. They weren't going do what Harris did at Ipperwash, so they gave away everything to pacify the hoodlums. The failed in the most basic function of government -- they abandoned law and order, and forked over undisclosed assets money to pacify the rebels, and looked like a bunch of loons doing it. And they have never come clean!

Tax policy based on social revenge is probably not in the public interest.

Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8119
Reputation: 325Reputation: 325
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Personally, I think the whole idea of "tax fairness" is a load. How do we distinguish between "tax fairness" and social vindictiveness?

This is a perfect example. I don't think the increased revenue was the point of the exercise. It was at least as much the desire to punish some tax-payers for arranging their affairs in a perfectly legal way, but with a goal of minimizing taxes. It's a way of cutting the roots of Harper's support, and it seems to me tp be best understood that way. It is simply úndoing' Harper's targeted tax cuts.

But doesn't that simply galvanize Harper's old base?
Raising taxes, revisiting the gun registry, government subsidies and spendings, etc

Aren't these all the things that drives apathetic voters back to a position of caring or for that matter partaking in a deviant lifestyle like donating to a party?

The tax fairness argument is bunk to begin with;


I really think this comes down to two issues;

1) Conservatives have historically targeted credits and tax cuts under the assumption that Canadians will spend money in their best interests as they know their best interests better than Government,

Whereas Liberals have traditionally spent with the mindset that one size fits all and the Government is a better manager of programs than its citizens

The Liberals are governing like Liberals govern.

2) The Federal Government is spending around 330b a year on revenue of around 300b. Their reelection hopes aren't coming on the backs of responsible spending, it will be the usual spend yourself into office approach.

The issue is sooner or later some in the electorate are going to demand some degree of fiscal restraint and there are only two ways to balance the books you either cut spending (which appears unlikely) or you increase income which the Liberals have been very effective at. The problem is its not enough income to offset their spending.

Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6195
Reputation: 294.9
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may well galvanize the people concerned, but do they care? I suspect they felt they were fulfilling a campaign promise to make the rich pay for the childcare benefits.

Their own vulnerability caught them by surprise. They didn't think they had personal sharp-practice-with-taxes problems. They look terribly hypocritical as a result. To make it even better, they acted with their customary arrogance. Morneau got snotty about 'reporting to journalists' which is quite possibly the best thing he could have done to motivate those spiteful creatures.

I suspect they are willing to trade whatever support they have in the small business community for solidifying the key group in the Liberal coalition -- single mothers. They have that vote nailed down with the childcare benefits. In fact, accommodating and encouraging single motherhood seems to be an electoral strategy that works because it appeals to women in general.

I think that Morneau planned to slide his tax increases in under the radar. The changes are sneaky because they push more income into higher income categories. I am sure he didn't think there was a lot of sympathy out there for small businesses when he started, and that the changes were sufficiently technical that most small business owners wouldn't feel the full impact until their accountant pointed it out to them.

He may have been right, as far as that goes. But what really created the political storm is the hypocrisy. Trudeau himself is a trust fund recipient and he called small businesses tax cheats, while the estate that pays him his income avoids all the taxes it can, trust me. Morneau ran a business exploiting these 'loopholes' in personal financial planning, and it turns out he used a 'small business' designation to protect his villa in France. What's more Bolshevik-y that villas in France? That's almost as good as on the Black Sea.

So Morneau really looked bad, combining arrogance and whining in an interesting new brew. Trudeau was dragged into a fight by the media, and the two of them seemed equally tone-deaf. They were arrogant.

I think what they have really lost in this episode is media respect. The media saw the top Liberal handle basic question with indignation. It adds to the feeling they don't think things through. Fewer and fewer are willing to suspend disbelief. That's a big deal, and the effects won't show up in the polls for awhile.

Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 9422
Reputation: 306.7Reputation: 306.7
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Dec 13, 2017 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( these changes aren't actually law yet and some senators are saying they should be delayed or scrapped entirely )

Senators urge Morneau to ‘scrap’ tax proposals

By Janice Dickson. Published on Dec 13, 2017 12:38pm


Most senators on the Senate finance committee — which has spent weeks travelling the country to hear from witnesses on Finance Minister Bill Morneau’s proposed tax changes — want the government to axe the plan or delay it for a year.

“There’s too much uncertainty and too much confusion for the government to proceed with the timelines it’s suggested. The government has not taken the time to ensure that any unintended consequences are minimized and that the benefits outweigh the negative effects,” said the committee chair, Conservative Sen. Percy Mockler.

Mockler, Conservative Sen. Elizabeth Marshall and Independent Sen. Anne Cools unveiled the committee’s findings at a press conference in Ottawa Wednesday morning.

Mockler said that the committee’s study “is not some exercise to embarrass the government.” He added that Morneau endorsed its investigation at the outset. Mockler said the committee held 30 public hearings and heard from 138 witnesses, while 32 organizations provided the committee with written submissions.

After hearing many compelling stories, said Mockler, the committee is recommending that the government withdraw its proposal to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to Canadian controlled corporations. If Morneau insists on proceeding, the committee recommends the government delay implementing its proposals until January, 2019.

The committee released its findings hours before Morneau is expected to release details of the government’s planned changes to the tax practice of ‘income sprinkling’.

Morneau was criticized for unveiling controversial new proposals to change tax practices — such as ‘income sprinkling’, which lets business owners use their private corporations to move income over to family members subject to lower tax rates — in the dead of summer. Now the minister is under fire for releasing details the very day the House is expected to rise.

“Here it is December 13, the Commons is getting ready to close, MPs are going home to their constituencies to celebrate Christmas and here we are, we’ve left small businesses in a lurch. We’ve ruined their summer and now we’re going to ruin their Christmas,” said Marshall, echoing a similar line Conservative Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt delivered in question period Tuesday.

In the Commons yesterday, Morneau suggested families who sprinkle their income will have a year to prepare before the new rules come into effect. Marshall noted the government has been quiet about changes it intends to make to the capital gains rules.

Cools said she hopes the report will convince Morneau to listen to Canadians, to withdraw his proposals and undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system. Cools also said the committee heard from physicians who are now considering moving their practices outside of Canada.

Marshall said that while the committee would prefer to see Morneau scrap the changes and embark on a major review, senators acknowledge that the minister has indicated his determination to make the changes. If that’s the case, said Marshall, Morneau should take the next year to do his homework.

“He should do the homework that hasn’t been done so far, which would include an impact analysis on what this is going to do to the economy, to small business, what it’s going to do to our healthcare system, and defer it for one year until he gets the homework done,” said Marshall.

While most of the senators on the committee agree with the report, committee deputy chair Senator André Pratte and Senator Éric Forest disagreed, according to a media release.

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

Concerns mount over Morneau's proposed tax changes

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB