It's been a relatively silent coup. The wealthy have successfully bought our political system. If you have doubts, consider two key pieces of Harperian policy -- income splitting and Tax Free Savings Accounts. Both policies amount to robbery of the federal purse. Rhys Kesselman writes:
Income-splitting has been extensively assessed and widely criticized for its revenue cost, its tilt toward higher-income families, and its failure to accomplish anything beneficial for the economy.
Soon the other shoe may drop: The Conservative Party of Canada’s second major tax promise from the last election was to double the contribution limits for Tax-Free Savings Accounts.
The Conservatives market TFSA's as the salvation of the little man and they now propose to double contribution limits:
Yet doubling the TFSA limits would share the deficiencies of income-splitting as public policy — or even surpass them. It would drain revenues from both federal and provincial treasuries, with deceptively small initial sums adding up to costs far greater than those incurred through income-splitting. The long-run benefits would be far more sharply skewed toward the wealthy and high-earners. And doubling the TFSA limit would not benefit the economy in tangible ways.
Once the existing TFSA provision has fully matured in 40 to 50 years, it’s estimated to cost the federal treasury up to $15.5 billion annually — more than seven times the cost of income splitting. Provincial treasuries were insulated from the revenue impacts of income-splitting; they will not be so lucky with TFSAs, losing up to $9 billion per year when the scheme matures.
The government’s vow that TFSAs will never be considered in federal income tests for tax and benefit provisions carries further revenue costs. By mid-century, TFSAs will raise the Guaranteed Income Supplement’s cost by $2.8 billion annually and reduce recovery tax from Old Age Security by $1.2 billion annually. These figures are the official estimates; the sums projected by an independent analyst run far higher.
Stephen Harper argues that the age for Old Age Security must be raised because we don't have the money to pay for it. But he doesn't tell you why the money won't be there.
The wealthy could not ask for a better servant. And they will see that he is properly compensated. They own him.
15 comments:
Those of us on 'fixed income' who can count know only to well what a scam the TFSA is, Owen. Those lower income folks who are able to squirrel a little away merely save the tax on the interest which with a lower tax bracket and little savings is all but meaningless. Meanwhile those with high income that can max it out can, as outlined above can save extra hundreds of dollars. Perk for the rich indeed.
That's what Harperian policy is all about, Rural -- perks for the rich.
Are we citizens, with all the rights and obligation the term implies, Owen, or are we merely stakeholders? The next election should go a long way toward answering that question.
We are treated like detritus, Lorne. It's time for the people who have been left over and left out to revolt.
Revolt?
Once upon a time I would have said Canadians would never revolt because it would be indecorous.
Today I would say they're to passive, too satiated, too compliant. I can't even say they're too afraid because I think by and large Canadians are too stupid to be afraid of the things worthy of fear. Instead they're increasingly afraid of things that have longer odds than a big Lotto Max win.
You may be right, Dana. They think the boogeyman is big and ugly. Instead, he looks like Stephen Harper.
Everyone should watch the Belgian series 'Salamander' on netflix and then look at what's going on. Fact is always stranger than fiction. No question he's 'owned' by someone bigger than the greedy ones who need to stuff their TFSA's. Watch Salamander! It makes one shudder.
Let's see if we get any other comments about the show, Anon.
"Large deposits at banks are no longer money, as this legislation will formally push them down through the capital structure to a position of material capital risk in any "failing" institution."
From ---> be prepared this not for the feint of heart and ready yourself for losing all of your paper goods ie money--->
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-12/russell-napier-declares-november-16-2014-day-money-dies
http://investmentwatchblog.com/nov-16-2014-g20-to-implement-a-new-policy-that-makes-bank-deposits-on-par-with-paper-investments/
Um Steve Harper-con signed on to this G-20 decision in Brisbane Australia in November 16th 2014 without our consent and in secrecy as he does with all other back door dirty deals. So that means if you have money/cash in the bank it is now considered a paper "investment" and if the bank slides into insolvency your paper cash was an investment and you lost it so sad love dad. You made a bad investment. You had an investment in your local bank branch not money not cash. Look my children and grand children wake up before it is to late.
You will never know the freedoms I have experienced that I cherish in my heart Canada. Unless you wake up and get out and vote ABC [Anything But Conservative]. You will be a monetary slave for the rest of your life sorry to tell you how it really is.
I have prepared my family for this most treacherous outcome I try and visualize each and every day that it will not. But it seems like the most likely outcome. The 1% want own us lock stock and barrel as they used to say.
Cheers,
Mogs,
Let's turn this puppy around eh?
If we don't turn this puppy around in the next election, Mogs, it may be too late.
turn this puppy around indeed
got to say i'm with you all
but only vision i can get in my head right now
is cartoon puppies with justin and thom faces chasing their own tails
while the crook escapes over the fence
damn my simplistic mind
does this mean that guaranteed deposit insurance is no longer valid?
check here
http://www.cdic.ca/Coverage/SavingsChequing/Pages/default.aspx
i just phoned my credit union and they told me my deposits are guaranteed with no limit....a million dollars was mentioned as example
so i guess my 20 bucks is safe
For now, lungta. For now.
I'm sure that you're not alone in that vision, lungta -- unfortunately.
Lungta what Harper signed into eliminates that so-called deposit insurance only we are not allowed to know that so we are being lied to.
Basically your money is safe for now but in another 2008 event the banks will no longer receive a government 'bailout' instead they will receive what is called a 'bail-in' simply called stealing all depositors cash to try and remain solvent.
It is complicated depending on who you read but as Huff-Po & Forbes states it is nothing other than a crime:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ellen-brown/bailout-is-out-bailin-is-_b_3178702.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2013/05/03/the-cyprus-bank-bail-in-is-another-crony-bankster-scam/
Now we were also lied to by the Harper-con government that Canadian banks did not receive bailouts in the period of 2008 to 2010:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/banks-got-114b-from-governments-during-recession-1.1145997
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/04/30/did-canadian-banks-receive-a-secret-bailout/
http://behindthenumbers.ca/2012/04/30/canadas-secret-bank-bailout/
They received more money than you and I combined will ever see.
The Harper government is made up of liars cheats and thief's. Now money in the bank is no longer safe because it will be a "bail-in" instead of a "bail-out" this information is not for the feint of heart it is dead serious. The truth is about how we are being manipulated and lied to.
Didn't mean to spoil your day it is just that you were asking and I was answering with powerful references.
Cheers,
Mogs Moglio
Post a Comment