Linda McQuaig tells the history -- and the real story -- behind the Liberal government's attempt to close a tax loophole:
Twenty-five years ago, Brian Mulroney’s Conservative government introduced a tax change beneficial to wealthy families owning private trusts. One of the arguments used to justify the change was that it would help families with a trust support a disabled child.
The image of helping a disabled child certainly softened the image of what the government was doing — channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in tax savings to some of the wealthiest families in the country.
The amount of money that the wealthy have added to their annual incomes is staggering:
Once this invisible income — amounting to an astonishing $48 billion in 2010 — is added to their reported personal incomes, Canada’s rich are considerably richer than we’ve been led to believe.
For instance, according to commonly used data (for 2011), the average income for those in Canada’s top 1 per cent was $359,000. But once the income they held in private corporations was added, the actual average annual income of these folks was a much heftier $500,200.
The higher up the income ladder, the more popular private corporations have become. Roughly 80 per cent of the richest .01 per cent of Canadians funnel income through private corporations and the amounts involved are substantial, the study found.
The average income for those in the top .01 per cent was $4.69 million a year — an enormous income. But once the income held in their private corporations was added, the average income in this privileged group actually jumped to a stunning $8 million a year.
The Conservatives claim that they are fighting for Mom and Pop businesses and small farmers. These folks are now the disabled children of twenty-five years ago. But that line was a red herring then. And the Conservatives' argument is a red herring now.
It's all about distraction.
Image: btlonline
8 comments:
It surprises me that the Liberals don't come straight out and tell it like it is. It does the Libs no harm to paint the Cons as the party of plutocrats like Conrad Black. Let Scheer deny it.
Cap
It seems that all governments lose their nerve when it comes to taxes, Cap.
I'd like to publish your comment, Anon, but it needs to be initialed.
I suspect you're right, Owen. We're likely to see the Libs back-peddle from these tax changes, announcing that they didn't have enough support. In other words, the same crap we got with JT's promise to change the voting system. They govern like they have a parliamentary minority.
Cap
A red herring, indeed. Unfortunately it's the lingua franca of Parliament. I wonder how we'd react if any party communicated with us accurately and honestly. We would probably find them boring and tune out.
Reminds me of Trump's tax cut policy that could put tens of millions more in his own pocket and, with the abolition of much of the inheritance tax, could net upwards of a billion for his heirs. Yet they'll dress it up as the salvation of small business and the little guy.
You'd think that after having heard that lie for almost fifty years, the little guy would rise up in revolution -- or, at least, rebellion, Mound.
Scheer want to distract from the fact that Google has face recognition GAYDAR. and worse than that they may go along to identify with face recognition perverts.
Scheer is not setting the world on fire, Steve.
Post a Comment