canadian income trusts to be taxed

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by vladn, Nov 1, 2006.

  1. Oooooh what a brutal evil socialist dictatorship we live it! All our godless social programs. In most medium and large cities the murder rate can be measured in double or very very low triple digits, the world doesn't hate us, we are known are peace keepers. Why, it almost sounds normal?

    The economy is riding on oil now (pssst, we could be making WMD, best to invade just to be sure).

    Must run, I have to use our free health care system to suck out some fetuses with a large shop vac (we are so godless) and then beat some kids for not learning French language fast enough.


    My health care budget this year: 0%
    Our WMD budget this year: 0%



    "Health care costs are crippling not just GM, but also businesses across the United States, the only country where health care is primarily paid by employers. In other industrialized nations, it is paid for by the government. Companies may pay a health care tax in other nations, but that cost is far lower than the insurance premiums most U.S. companies pay.
    Consider: Since 2000, premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage have jumped 73 percent, while wages have gone up 15 percent, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey.
    The average cost of annual premiums for family coverage is $10,880 - more than the $10,712 in gross earnings a full-time minimum wage worker would make in a year.
    The share of U.S. companies offering health insurance dropped 13 percent from 2000 to 2005. Citing increased costs, only 60 percent of U.S. companies now offer health insurance.
    Employers who continue to provide health insurance pay an average of 82 percent of the cost, according to a study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. With insurance premiums for a family of four now averaging almost $900 a month, companies are bearing a huge expense that their foreign competitors do not.
    For example, the price tag of every vehicle GM builds in the United States includes $1,525 just for the medical care of the nearly 1.1 million Americans the automaker insures. Toyota's health care tab for each vehicle it builds in Japan is $97; it's $400 to $425 in the United States.
    #41     Nov 2, 2006
  2. If it is only 5% , why are you bitching in the forum? Get over it.
    #42     Nov 2, 2006
  3. Good God its so sad to see that the liberal disease has worked its way into Canada like the mad cow disease did in UK. Only a liberal would think that somehow governments are entitled to reap the rewards of somone elses risk and innovation. Only a liberal would think that something that is owned by another is somehow owed in part to others and there is no concept of property or wealth ownership. No, only a liberal thinks that things that are accomplished for the benefit of one's self and family somehow belong to everyone else too; irrespective of what effort others contribute.

    Some day son you will learn that it is the nature of all governments to steal wealth and blood and sweat and time (and even flesh and children) from its own people. Its the same old share cropper and knight system scaled up from medieval times that you have right now in Canada. Someday you will realize that you are on an economic treadmill that leads no nowhere but self paced busy work. Such that can not see their plight will never get out of their mortgage liabilities or enough economically ahead to every unshackle yourself from economic slavery. Such thinking perhaps deserves exactly this kind of limited form of existence and slavery. Your government is yoking you to the burden of living for it as a tax cow to be milked. It's really that simple. Just as soon as you get a little bit ahead they will increase your taxes and give you more "services" that you do not need or want. Without free enterprise and innovation the government will become the large inefficient tit from which all must sup from. That will make it grow ever bigger and tax ever more as it creates codependency after new co-dependency to enslave itself as well as its protected serfs.

    Look down the road to where this is all headed. Eventually when your country becomes totally socialistic, and its just a matter of time, as people see that they are taxed for everything they do they will simply stop working. They will see their countrymen taking handouts and then only put out a token effort to produce. After all, why work HARD when big government will provide?
    There will be no reward for differences in productivity or achievement - so all will become net takers of government. Government will become the big employer. Innovation and excellence will flee from mediocrity to other places and nations. Wealth will migrate and the country will eventually implode for lack of substance. The pattern has started already and Canadians look like they are quite content in being perpetual wards of the state to be put out to pasture to be milked. Learn the game then profit by it before its too late. BTW America is headed down this path to - just more slowly.

    #43     Nov 2, 2006
  4. Wetton


    You're backtracking now. You said you lost a good portion of your net worth. Now in your last post, you say it is only a drop in the bucket for you.

    Which is it?

    I guess if everyone saw it coming to the online gambling industry, then why didn't you see this coming to income trusts? It was talked about endlessly in the financial press.

    This will be my last post on this topic. You don't know the issues and like to tell half truths.
    #44     Nov 2, 2006
  5. You do know that with this kind of thinking you are setting terrific precedence for the US to impose a security tax on our free loading Canadian neighbors who have almost ZERO defense/military spending. Not bad having a friend on your border with a capable military to keep any possible foreign encroachment out of the neighborhood and sealanes/trading open is it?

    If the US dropped its military spending to your country's levels we could give everyone free health care for life. But I'd rather that those who abuse their health with elective life styles (obesity, smoking, AIDS, etc.) just get what they chose and pay for the cost of their own self inflicted medical problems. Major casualty insurance with a reasonable deductible level is not all that expensive. People have just not traditionally figured in the cost of responsibly taking care of themselves or understanding that it costs a lot of money to keep somone alive well past their normal design life span. People should die naturally at 65+ and not be kept alive with organ transplants and 20-30 drugs every day. Medical costs increase exponentially with age and entire fortunes are spent in the last 2 weeks of a persons life trying to keep them alive. My attitude is - if you are that medically bad off give up the ghost naturally and be responsible by leaving some fortune for your family. Humans are not immortal and it will bankrupt individuals and nations to attempt to deny the reaper. It's like justice - how much justice can society afford? A justice system that has 2 sigmas of standard deviation criteria for a good or bad judgement with the appeal process can not possibly avoid bankrupting itself in the long run. All "civilized" societies only remain civilized while the banks are solvent and budgets hold. In the end they all tend toward anarchy. Those who invested in a military win in that scenario. Take a lesson here.

    Frankly if I had it my way I think its a better business case to just use the military to expand our natural territory north and extort our unthankful neighbors to pay its due tax and homage. After all - you are all use to being tax cows to be milked. Are you sure the whole country is not a little bit French?

    Having fun rattling your cage...


    #45     Nov 2, 2006
  6. I am an honorable person - I don't lie. A good portion of my net worth is 5%. We differ on semantics. I did not say it was a drop in the bucket. I conveyed that its not going to bankrupt me. What I lost is what I use to make in a year at a traditional corporate salary. That is what outrages me. Just because I came into wealth through smart investing and hard work does not mean I have lost my roots and remember how hard it is to save money and get ahead. Not all of us self made multi-millionaires were given our wealth. I think in terms of how many years I use to give up to get $10K in the bank after living expenses. Its not that large to my current net worth but its sure large compared to when I was stuck in solid middle class life style. That is where my roots are and remain.

    #46     Nov 2, 2006
  7. To the guy who replied to my post, why do you mention invading other countries? Can you have a rational discussion with out that - how come you cannot life peacefully within the bounds of your own country like everyone else can?

    Yes I am sure in a few years all work will grind to a halt in Canada, we will become a ruined shell of a country, having survived fine since 1600s or so. *rolls eyes*

    It's called Moral Hazard - when people abuse an insurance system because they can. Nothing new, every insurance company has to account for it. And no, our national health insurance does not appear to be collapsing that I know of.

    Yes you are right the govt only exsits to shake out as much money from us. That's why 1-party systems are bad (mentioning no names...).

    In short, everything is as fine it can be with the usual robber barons running things.
    #47     Nov 2, 2006
  8. duard



    Can I use this?
    #48     Nov 2, 2006
  9. mskl


    Unbelievable response - but let me respond to the "liberal" comments.

    FYI, most countries (including Canada and the US) have a tax law that states in a round about way that it is illegal to create a transaction for the sole purpose of avoiding "normal" taxation. Regardless of loopholes - it still could be deemed illegal by this blanket section of the appropriate tax code.

    This - although hard to prove is what the IRS and Revenue Canada often attempt to prove in Tax Courts.

    For example - there are many transaction done in the securities markets today done simply for tax purposes - as certain insititutions are treated differently under Tax Acts (i.e. Corps are treated differently than Pension/Mutual Funds). Trades can be done between these different entities that can increase both parties after tax income. This is ILLEGAL in both countries although there is nothing illegal about trading in the securities market.

    One could similarily make an argument that these Corporations in Canada simply changed entities (to a Trust) for the "sole purpose" of avoiding "normal" tax. There obviously could be other reasons for starting a "Trust" thus it might be hard to prove - but possible. In fact, there has been some talk that the big Canadian Banks didn't go ahead with a "Trust" entity because they were concerned over it's legality.

    Back to your meaningless garbage.........
    #49     Nov 2, 2006
  10. OK OK - going back to being on good behavior. I wanted to rant and shake out more Canadian patriots to use as punching bags. But it looks like "Canadian" & "patriot" is an oxymoron or all are women over there hehe :p

    I just tripled down on AAV, FCGYF, ERD, AETUF, NOIGF, PDS & SBKEF (mostly all Canadian energy/mining and drilling trusts). These yields just shot way up as a result of the across the board 15% - 20% trust price decline. One is about 20% yield now but some dividends will be cut no doubt by the tax.

    I am now waiting for a dead cat bounce in a few weeks to make a killing on the capital gain. To hell with the dividend and tax since the expected capital gain on a buy back wave should make up for the loss when the panic selling stops. This should more than make up for the losses. If it takes a year or so - oh well I guess I can get use to making 14% return on div at a new individual foreign tax rate of 41.5% by year 2011. By then I should be well out of Canada. Or possibly some special interest group from Canada or TRUST CEO etc. will have bought off politicians to get a grandfather clause to totally exclude pre 2006 Trusts.

    That's called hedging aggressively...

    #50     Nov 2, 2006