Quote:
Originally Posted by FireFly
You're right, they didn't. Does that make it their fault? What you're telling me is you would rather have the government losing hundreds of millions of dollars because of a tax loophole, and essentially, passing that loss of money onto us, just because some people took shoddy savings advice? The government gave them 4 years... I'm thinking that's enough time to figure things out. It's not like they said, "oh, and you people with your money in there... well that's too bad." Basically, they said "Telus, Bell... nice try. We've had enough and you're not taking our revenue away. Sorry."
I'm thinking that the plethora of announcements last summer and fall was enough of a hint that it would come. Do you think the Conservatives knew that by saying they wouldn't close the hole, a whole whack of new companies would try and set up income trusts? To be fair, the businesses didn't give them a hint either.  |
Yes, absolutley. That is their point of existence, to manage these things. If they stuck their foot in their mouth regarding the trusts and were really losing the "hundreds of millions of dollars" then they should have to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Since the announcement there has been a lot of discussion surrounding that figure and how it was arrived at.
The fact that a lot of companies were planning on going that route could not have come as a surprise. I knew of some of the companies looking at this; if I knew then I can guarantee that someone who is actually important knew. Businesses don't have to give them forewarning that they are considering operating within the bounds of the law!
Facts are:
1. PC's say that they will not tax trusts
1a. Average citizens invest accordingly, after first PC win in 12 years.
2. PC's see companies use this to plan their operations and save money on taxes
3. PC's do a 180 and slam the door shut on income trusts
Now the Liberals have caught them; basically the PC's can either vote for this and re-do the 180, or vote against this and take the (possible) punishment at the polls.