GPersonem@il

a.k.a. Blanks57

09/30/2006

Dear member of parliament and presently “Leaderless” Liberal m.p.,

Did you know that Canadian employees pay two thirds * of Canada’s “federal” tax burden compared to business according to a recent, September, 28/2006, Globe and Mail News article entitled, You are the chumps.

Just thought you should know in case you missed the article in your daily read.
It occured to me that employee payroll taxes are really a business expense and that by lowering payroll taxes by fifty percent or more you could increase modestly then business taxes to make up the difference while at the same time gaining much favour from most of this country’s electoral.

In case you were wondering how the NDP could become the next governING party in Canada.

la te di, la ti da

well I must be going now,
have a nice day .
Sincerely Yours,
Blanks57, aka Gperson, aka *7,
aka * *
*, Ontario, Canada
P.S. Were going to “Scrap the G.S.T.“, Oh really, well “were going to stop corporate welfare” Oh, really .

Advertisements

September 30, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

CHUMPS !

September 28, Globe and Mail,

TAX PAYERS YOUR THE CHUMPS

If you had to guess the tax burden split between individuals and corporations, you might guess that corporations pay the most. That’s because Corporate Canada is always whining about its tax load, which it claims is uncompetitive and sends jobs overseas.

You’d be wrong. The chump is you, not the corporations. The public accounts show that the total corporate tax revenue is about 30 per cent of the total personal tax revenue. In the early 1960s, it was 60 per cent. The tax burden on the individual has, relatively speaking, doubled since your parents’ generation. Now you know why your parents could afford a house on one salary and you have trouble paying the mortgage on two.

But fear not. This week, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he’s going to take care of you. He’s swimming in surpluses — $13.2-billion, for the 2005-06 fiscal year. That amount will be thrown at the federal debt. He also promised to cut your taxes. “We think the people of Canada are overtaxed,” he said.

They may or may not be, by international standards. What is absolutely certain is that “the people” are wildly overtaxed compared with corporations. So will Mr. Flaherty balance the equation and not just give individuals lower tax rates, but lower their share of the total tax burden?

Forget it. If anything, the pendulum is swinging even farther in corporations’ favour. They will pay relatively less, you will pay relatively more. If it doesn’t sound fair, it’s because it isn’t.

But look what’s happening. Every week the corporate tax bill, proportionately speaking, becomes slightly smaller and it’s not just because corporate tax rates have fallen in recent years (they have). It’s because Canadian companies are turning into income trusts, which are structured to avoid paying tax, and because other companies are bought by foreigners and restructured to minimize the tax hit.

Let’s start with the trusts. Earlier this month, Telus announced it would become a trust in January to “optimize its future taxable position.” Optimize is another way of saying eliminate. Telus is on the verge of becoming taxable, because the $800-million of tax losses inherited from the 2000 Clearnet purchase are exhausted. Tax losses are used to offset profits. We don’t know what Telus’s Canadian tax bill would have been next year. But given the company’s size (it’s almost as big as BCE, owner of Bell Canada) and profitability, you can bet it would be a biggie — as high as $600-million, some analysts say. In effect, Telus will soon vanish from the tax rolls forever.

Unitholders pay tax on the trusts’ distributions, so tax is still being paid. But there’s some “leakage” (blame the pension funds and the foreigners who own trust units). University of Toronto tax guru Jack Mintz estimates trust conversions are depriving federal and provincial governments of about $500-million a year in revenue.

The figure is bound to rise as the trust wave swells. In 2000, the TSX was home to trusts worth $18-billion. Their collective value is now about $200-billion and rising rapidly. There are no political obstacles to their proliferation — the Tories have given no hint they will try to stop the runaway train. Investors are putting great pressure on companies of every description to convert. When a company turns into a trust, or announces its intention to do so, the equity value typically rises by a third.

The tax losses from foreign takeovers are much harder to quantify. But the losses are certainly real. Generally speaking, a foreign owner loads its new Canadian subsidiary with debt (though there have been times when foreign-owned companies in Canada carried less leverage than domestically owned rivals). Since interest payments are tax deductible, tax bills can plunge.

Cigarette maker JTI-Macdonald, owned by a Japanese company, is a case in point. Canadian bankruptcy court filings from 2002 show that JTI in 2002 made a surprisingly modest $10-million profit on sales of $404-million — modest because cigarettes are about the highest-margin business you can find. Apart from operating costs, the biggest drain on the bottom line was interest payments of $106-million, nearly all of which was paid to affiliated companies.

Foreign companies went on a hunting spree in Canada this year. Inco is about to disappear into the maw of Brazil’s CVRD. Last year, Inco paid $241-million in Canadian taxes and deferred another $50-million. You can bet Inco’s tax payments will drop next year as debt is shifted around the CVRD empire. Of course, Canadian-owned companies with funny Caribbean addresses play the same debt-shifting tricks. But they always have.

If Mr. Flaherty really thinks the average Canadian is “overtaxed” he would restore the balance between individual and corporate tax payments. Don’t count on it. Corporations have lobbyists and PR people. You don’t.

w/o permission, this is a commercial free site and this article is available in full on the Internet.

September 30, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

I PaY TwiCe as much as you, Corp. / Inc.

28/09/2006
Dear member of parliament,
If I could ask a question of you regarding the working class in Canada it is why are we forced to pay twice as much federal income tax as Canada’s business, as was recently reported in the News?
This federal double taxation of Canada’s workers may be causing stress to the individual which could lead to what I would term electoral brain damage.In that I believe only the mentally ill or brain damaged, excluding real morons of course, could vote for those who cut taxes to themselves while promoting an atmosphere of compassion of or for the taxpayer.
I am reminded of Canada’s largest progressive government’s implosion and defeat to the hand’s of a cruel dictator and effeminate loitering hypocrite.
Perhaps you could consider doing something for the working class or the “working poor” whom do seem forgotten, regardless of political stripe once elected to top two per cent wage earner class.Possibly it has not occurred to our elected governor(s), past or present, that fifty percent of one hundred seventy thousand dollars a year is not as much money as fifty percent of thirty thousand dollars on a per ca-pita percentage of gross taxable income.
No, I haven’t yet stayed at a Holiday Inn Express or have a degree in Economics but I did work a summer for H&R Block.
Your toying with pretend “tax cuts” is annoying to me.Honestly.
Possibly, you could revisit the fifty-fifty option I did lend and relieve Canada’s “working class” of the grievous NDP, Liberal, Progressive, tax burden which may presently cause much grief (stress) to one and all citizen’s of this country.
Yours Truly
*
*
*, Ontario, Canada

Dear Mr. blanks57:Thank you for your correspondence of September 28, 2006, which was also referred by your Member of Parliament, Mr. *, regarding personal income tax relief.As I mentioned in my September 6, 2006 correspondence, Budget 2006 proposed tax relief measures that will leave significantly more money in the pockets of Canadians. With these measures, we are not only keeping our word to Canadians on reducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST), we are going much further in delivering immediate, real, and continuing results for people across the country. Canada’s new Government’s tax relief plan provides almost $20 billion in tax relief for individuals over the 2006­07 and 2007­08 fiscal years ? more than the preceding four budgets combined. Our tax relief plan will also remove some 655,000 people from the income tax rolls. As a result, Canadians across all income groups can expect to be better off. Department of Finance officials and I are continually reviewing tax matters. We recognize the need to ensure that the existing system is as fair and as current as possible. In this regard, your comments are welcomed and appreciated.Thank you for communicating your concerns.
Sincerely,James M. Flahertyc.c.: Mr. *, M.P.

September 28, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Short but Sweeet

27/09/2006

To: “honLeaderFrenchHezbohla,mp”
cc: “RCMP” , “RHonMP”, Mymp”
From: “*”

Dear Gilles Duceppe, Leader of the Bloc Quebecois, m.p.,

I hope you can read english because this is one of Canada’s official languages and being a leader and member in our parliament a fluency in english must be a necessary part of your vocabulary.

With that said, I do wish to refresh your memory or perhaps enlighten said regarding the history of France in Canada and defeat and surrender of France and its Colony in Canada to the Crown of England.

Would you wish to argue this sir I would have no alternative were I an officer than to have you formerly charged with treason.

Sincerely Yours,
*
*, Ontario, Canada

September 27, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Belinda Stronach billionaire mp, sex-trade-worker or just another prostitute?

26/09/2006
Dear member of Canada’s parliament,
I see that one of our m.p.’s is in the news again for less than ambassador like qualities.Belinda Stronach mp is on the top headline of the London Free Press this morning involved as the other women in a divorce scandal with a professional hockey player.
Belinda Stronach m.p. has previously been mentioned in the news as having spent a weekend in New York City with Bill Clinton, foreign dignitary and the previous President of the United States.
Ms. Stronach m.p. was also involved with a fellow member of parliament Peter McKay m.p. now Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs.
If I could ask a question of our elected representative in the house of commons, it would be why is this harlot still sitting as an elected representative for her riding and could an election recall be implemented by a challenger to her riding to dispense with this vile piece of s*** and or atleast should/could she be censured by the ethics commissioner and/or fellow m.p.’s for this outrages, unethical and “border line” criminal behaviour by an elected member of parliament ?
Yours Truly
*
*
*, Ontario, Canada
Uppity date : Poor thing. How could the Magna heiress possibly expect that carrying on an affair with a married, well-known Toronto Maple Leaf may turn into a public soap opera?”,

September 26, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

"Scopes v. Monkey"

Dear Mr. Bryan,
I would like to ask that you reconsider your fight with the supreme court of Canada to publish election results on the Internet prematurely.Though your attempt to defend “freedom of speech” may seem honourable to some you are really just mucking about.Should pornography be allowed unedited and uncensored on the Internet as is the case presently?

Though some believe that the proliferating of pornography is an issue of “freedom of speech” and have even used that defence successfully in the courts, really it is about making money for the pornographer and the expansion of the porn industry and its “coffers”.I would suggest that election results should not be allowed to be published prematurely as that could influence the results in other parts of this country due to the time zone differences and that elections Canada and the government should not be bothered by this kind of baseless assault on the true freedoms we enjoy as citizens of a free uncensored democratic society.
Yours Truly,
*
*, Ontario

Dear M*. *:
Thank you for your message regarding my upcoming hearing in the Supreme
Court ofCanada to challenge the Elections Act Internet gag law.
Though I believe your comparison to child pornography is off-base, it
isnot the first time it’s been made. I am vehemently opposed to child
pornography, and do not accept the argument that freedom of expression
should take precedence over the rights of children who are exploited by
it.
In Canada, freedom of expression is not absolute; it is balanced
againstother rights and pressing and substantial social concerns.
You may or may not be aware of the Royal Commission in 1991 on
electoralreform (commonly referred to as the Lortie Commission). The Lortie
Commission is to-date the most comprehensive study on Canadian
electoralbehavior ever made.
The Commission found that technology made the publication ban on
election results obsolete. It recommended other measures to protect the
integrity of the electoral process, namely staggering the voting hours
across the country. With the stagger, we could only know how the
Atlantic provinces vote, roughly 13% of the vote. The Commission
concluded that this knowledge would have very little effect on voter
behavior.
In 1997, Parliament adopted the stagger, but kept the publication ban.
In today’s age, such a ban on publication is frivolous. This was
demonstrated in the 2006 election, when several web and blogging sites
published results despite the publication ban. Most of these sites were
outside of Canada, and out of reach of Canadian jurisdiction.
If there were actual evidence that the publication ban actually
prevented harm, I would take a very different position.
Yours truly,
Paul C. Bryan
email@pb*

Mr. Bryan,
I wasn’t aware of this stagger and from reading the NCC report it seemed to me that your fight with the supreme court of Canada was self serving only.
I would like to clarify that my concern regarding pornography is not limited to child porn and that as you say, no freedoms are absolute.
Thank you for your reply.
Sincerely,
*
*, Ontario

contn’d;
To: feedback@electionresultscanada.com
From: ” S]Blank[57
Subject: ElectionResultsCanada.com

‘Re:”Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act, makes it a crime to broadcast or otherwise transmit voting results from parts of the country where the polls are closed to parts of the country where the polls are still open.,
There is no justification for this kind of blackout law in a free society. The government has no business banning the flow of political information.”‘

I don’t believe that.

There is every justification.

* “Blanks57″*

September 25, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Lawmakers or lawbreakers who can tell ?

September 23/ 2006

Dear member of parliament,
Some provincial courts in this country have ruled that the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman is discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional and therfore unlawful.
The federal government of Canada did change the law to allow a change in the definition of marriage to be “inclusive” because of the court rulings.
As Canada’s lawmaker’s are you aware that this change has been made by you?
Some provincial courts have ruled that the public funding of Catholic religious school boards is not discriminatory because the constitution makes allowance for this “inequality”, the federal government of Canada has for decades done nothing about this un-inclusive public tax funding arrangment.
Are you aware of this hypocritical and even hateful double standard and hypocrisy even treachery of Canada’s courts and previous federal governments ?
Could you be held responsible today if this were deemed by the law to be a hate crime since you do apparently presently support this hypocritical double standard ?
Could you be a hate criminal and if so should someone call the police ?
Yours Truly,
*
*
*, Ontario, Canada
*

September 23, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

The Right Honourable Jean Charest ,PM, MP, PC, MPP

Dear member of parliament,
I noticed this on the Internet at the official UNESCO web page and thought you should know that Canada really does have two  Prime Ministers.
In case you were unaware.
*
*
*,Ontario, Canada

Meeting of the Director-General with the Prime Minister of Quebec In closing, the Director-General thanked the Prime Minister for the support given by the Government of Quebec to the Montreal-based UNESCO Institute for
portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=20382&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTIonfiltered=201.html – 32k –CachedSimilar pages

September 9, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

O’ Canada *#*@!

Dear minister, m.p. and m.p.p,

Killing an unborn child “fetus” is murder under the Canada criminal code.

An exception is made in the code to provide for the barbarian practise of medical abortion.

This should not be tolerated in an “enlightened society” by our government’s.

The Government of Ontario does publicly fund a religious charity, the Catholic Church, with public tax funds, this is also barbarian in a democratic society.

Quebecer’s do get special treatment from the federal government of Canada, this is an insult to all the other provinces and territories.

All Quebecer’s should be removed from Canada’s federal parliament and offices unless or until the anglophobic separatist-treason movement is eradicated.

Canada’s federally regulated trucking industry does hire employee’s as contractors with the governments permission contrary to the Canada Labour Code and the ministry of Revenue.

The low class and no class (yours truly) pay the most, proportionally to income, in income taxes.

These are a few of the things that peeve me on a daily basis.

Yours Truly,
*
*
*, Ontario
*

September 9, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

Loopholes for Liberals

07/09/2006

Dear honourable minister of loophole spenders m.p., ?

You should really close this loophole which does allow criminals to get around the law.

“From the party which brought you the Adscam Scandal’ comes the Liberal Loan Loophole.
It turns out several of the leading Liberal leadership candidates are borrowing huge amounts of money to help finance their campaigns.
For instance, Michael Ignatieff has borrowed $125,000 and Scott Brison $200,000.
What’s interesting is that virtually none of those loans are coming from banks or other financial institutions – they are coming from family, friends or from sympathetic business backers.
What’s even more interesting is that under our election laws, these loans don’t necessarily have to be paid back!

So what’s the difference between a loan and a contribution”

Sincerely,
*
*, Ontario

September 7, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment

R.S.V.P.

September 6, 2006


M*. **
**

Dear M*. *:
Thank you for your correspondence of May 17, June 29, July 15 and
August 19, 2006 and your correspondence of June 2, 2006, which was referred
by the Office of the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Stephen
Harper, regarding taxation. Please excuse the delay in replying.

Canada's new Government believes that lower taxes for businesses are
essential if Canada is to remain competitive. Lower taxes encourage the
investment necessary to create jobs and improve the living standards of
Canadians. For example, capital investment in new machinery and more
efficient technology makes workers more productive and leads to economic
growth, more jobs and higher wages. In an increasingly globalized
economy where capital is highly mobile, a competitive business tax system
is crucial.

To make Canada's tax system more competitive, Budget 2006 sets out a
significant business tax relief plan that will:

* Reduce the general corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 19
percent by January 1, 2010;
* Eliminate the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008; and
* Eliminate the federal capital tax as of January 1, 2006 - two years
ahead of schedule.

The tax reductions proposed in Budget 2006 will allow Canada to regain
an advantage of 5.1 percentage points for manufacturing income in 2010.
This will make Canada a more attractive destination for investment.

A statutory tax rate advantage is not enough. That is why our Budget
takes steps to create a marginal effective tax rate (METR) advantage for
Canada over the U.S. By 2010, when the measures proposed in Budget
2006 are fully in place, Canada's overall METR will be slightly lower than
that of the U.S. Budget 2006 establishes a clear commitment to improve
the international competitiveness of Canada's corporate tax system.

In Budget 2006, the Government of Canada proposed tax relief measures
that will leave significantly more money in the pockets of Canadians.
With these measures, we are not only keeping our word to Canadians on
reducing the Goods and Services Tax (GST), we are going much further in
delivering immediate, real, and continuing results for people across the
country.
As I mentioned in my correspondence of July 13, 2006, our tax relief
plan provides almost $20 billion in tax relief for individuals over the
2006-07 and 2007­08 fiscal years ? more than the preceding four budgets
combined. Our tax relief plan will also remove some 655,000 people
from the income tax rolls. As a result, Canadians across all income
groups can expect to be better off.
Thank you for communicating your concerns.

Sincerely,
James M. Flaherty

Blanks says,
That's alot of tax relief but I believe the original question was, why
is the lowest income tax rate increasing while all these others are being reduced?

September 6, 2006 Posted by | Canadian Politics | Leave a comment