1  2  Next

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=15387" target="_blank">Harper renegs on election promise</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=News_Links&file=category&catid=1" target="_blank">Political</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=DerbyX" target="_blank">DerbyX</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2006-11-02 06:02:37
<strong>Canadian</strong>

   

It seems to me they had little choice.

   

I guess it was a matter of time before they broke a promise. But I think income trusts were becoming a loophole and the government probably needed to fill it. All the opposition parties support it even the liberals probably do but will just say until the cows come home the Tories broke a promise. This article is one sided too by the way. Which is not surprising since the Toronto star printed it. The government now is also allowing income splitting for pensioners, which should benefit people. As for me none of it has much of an affect for by the time I retire who knows what will be in place then. Kind of funny going to the Conservative and Liberal party websites they just look like two extremes.

   

It was before big compagnies and bank decided to transform into income trusts to evade to pay taxes.

   

Like the Ontario teachers pension fund.Greedy bastards.

   

Seeing as how they are Conservatives, I'm sure there is a very sound economic reason for doing what they did. Whether that makes it right or not is for the electorate to decide. Personally, I don't see why crippling the incomes of seniors to make a quick $1 billion is really worth it, but then again, I haven't been privy to all the data. I'll have to ask my econ prof what he thinks and get an explaination from him.

   

Hey, this is one promise I'm glad he broke!

Income trusts are/were robbing the government of taxes. I, for one, am glad. It will prevent corporations from paying even less in taxes than they already do.

Yes, there was some panic selling and some people lost money on income trusts, but from what I've read, it sounds like the plan is to prevent companies (like Teuls/BCE) from becoming income trusts and stiffing the nation on taxes. I'm sure the rest of the existing trusts will eventually regain their valuations, just like mutual funds have (after taking a pounding after the dot-com collapse).

I do feel sorry for anyone who lost a lot of money (like those in the article), but you should never have all your eggs in one basket...

   

This is just Derby protecting his fat cat bay street friends again

   

The feds and some provincial govs are taking in huge amounts of money and now they want more?

   

I thought I heard on the news that there was good news for seniors. Isn't it true that seniors with one pension could not share that income but now they can? That means that a $60k pension can now be shared by two people, making each income $30k and saving the family unit about $4000.

   

No. Just showing you that the cons are every bit the politicians you accuse the Libs of.

Suck it up.

   

Richard I think it's a case of them wanting to protect what they have coming in, not to get more. This is no different than the scum liberals reneging on the promise to drop the GST. Fuck them.

   

ooooo, touchy touchy.

   

I remember when the Ontario teachers pension fund started buying up all the coal mines in Sask,AB,and BC and going income trust with them.

They then laid off hundreds of workers allmost overnight but as the then head of the union told me "it's about securing a future for our members". So much for union brother/sisterhood. Glad to see that loophole tightened up.

   

Not at all. Its time conservatives started accepting responsibility instead of blaming the Liberals as they always do.

This is case in point. We hear non-stop about how Chretein reneged on the GST promise yet nary a word of criticism comes out of the con camp when their golden boy does the same thing, yet again.

In this thread and others they try desperately to turn it around and put it back on the Liberals.

Look at RR. He accuses me of "protecting fat cat bay street chums" yet it is nothing but a red-herring.

My motive is irrelevant as is what the Libs were or were not going to do.

The only point here is that Harper reneged on an important election promise and one that helped get him votes.

Everything else is irrelevant. We hear nothing from the cons about how they are mad or feel betrayed, all we here is them treying everything they can to put it back onto the Liberals.

Once again. Harper lied. Why he did it is irrelevant. He lied.

Come election time we will bring out the fact that he has been lying with a good deal of frequency as he renegs on yet another aspect of his election promises.

He lied. Again. N'uff said.

   

1  2  Next