Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election

[SirJosephPorter]

Let me get this straight:

Peterson had a huge majority, he was way ahead in the polls, but he never thought, "hey, i could take advantage of this by calling an election!"

You say Peterson was despised for being chummy with Mulroney, yet he held a huge margin in opinion polls! The only thing that changed was that he CALLED AN ELECTION.

you offer no other explanation, but you are adamant this widely held opinion is outright impossible.

well, thanks for setting me straight. my apologies for wasting your time.

Peterson may have called an election because he was ahead in the polls (although as I said, there was no reason for it, the voters were not going anywhere, Liberals would have been just as popular in a year or 18 months).

However, there is no evidence to suggest that he lost because he called an early election. Chrétien called an election in almost identical conditions. Three years into his second mandate he called an election. There was no reason for that, except to take advantage of his standing in opinion polls. People didn’t want an election at that time. Yet Liberals won an increased majority.

I don’t see any evidence to suggest that Peterson lost because he called an election. I think it is much more likely that he lost because people were mad, frustrated at Mulroney and they took it out on poor Peterson.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Quoting SirJosephPorter
Perhaps, JLM. However, when somebody agrees with Harper on just about everything, when he praises Harper to high Heaven, when he trashes Liberals at every opportunity, I draw the logical and reasonable conclusion that that somebody is indeed a loyal conservative, a committed Harper acolyte (in spite of what he may say).

S.J. - I guess you can't see the forest for the trees, what you have just described is the mirror image of yourself to a tee.

You don’t’ know what you are saying, JLM. Show me even one post where I have praised Iggy even slightly, let alone to high Heaven. One doesn’t’ exist. I could show you several posts where you have praised Harper and trashed Iggy.

It is rare that you will find me praising any politician (the only exception is Trudeau; I have nothing but respect for him, for giving us the Constitution and the Charter). As I have said before, I am loyal to principles, not to personalities. Unlike you and Harper, I think Iggy has his faults (and Dion had his). However, as long as he supports liberal principles, he will have my support. I don’t care about his faults. That is totally different from the blind worship of the Messiah by Harper acolytes.

 

[TenPenny]

Goober, sure I am aware of the history (incidentally, one of my friends tells me that the music for ‘Amazing Grace’ is pure Indian Classical music, I don’t know if it is true). So what is your point?

To me, that sounds a totally appropriate song for Harper. In addition to pleasing his acolytes, perhaps he may manage to pick up a few Indian votes.

I think you need to rely less on your friends. If this is how you come up with your 'facts', that explains a lot of your comments.

 

[JLM]

There are millions of people in Canada who may be described as typical Conservative, Liberal or NDP.

So you think millions of Canadians are idiots, do you? I am sure supporters of all the political parties combined would count in millions. Well, maybe they are idiots compared to you, who knows?

Anyway, if you think that people like Chrétien, Trudeau, Paul Martin etc. are idiots, I am proud to count myself among idiots.

The vast majority of Canadians don't align themselves with any party. A lot vote for the party who they think will do them the most good and a few vote on the basis of who they think is the best local candidate. Where did I say Chretien and Paul Martin are idiots? All I said was people who would blindly follow them are idiots - big difference. I'll grant you one thing though, there are millons of people who are typical Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats, they get up in the morning and go to work and come home at night and have supper with their families and go to church on Sundays and play bingo on Wednesdays etc. etc. etc.

 

[pgs]

Sue away, Captain. I have such a creative accountant you would be lucky to collect a coffee mug from me.

Incidentally, is Durka a lawyer? I didn’t know.

So is what you are saying that you really don't mind tax hikes because you hide
all your income in tax shelters and through creative accounting.
Very benevoulent of you.

 

[captain morgan]

Don't look at it as benevolence pgs, maybe SJP just enjoys the CRA sponsored prostate exams that come free with every audit.

Don't forget SJP, get nicked once and you're on the CRA's sh*t list for a very long time.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

So is what you are saying that you really don't mind tax hikes because you hide
all your income in tax shelters and through creative accounting.
Very benevoulent of you.

Hey, I pay my fair share. But there are many legal ways to save on taxes (RRSP being the simplest). Many people are not aware of the tax saving techniques (And some of them do need high income, you get tax deduction at the maximum rate on your investments, and only that makes the investment worthwhile).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Don't look at it as benevolence pgs, maybe SJP just enjoys the CRA sponsored prostate exams that come free with every audit.

Don't forget SJP, get nicked once and you're on the CRA's sh*t list for a very long time.

Indeed Captain, that is the danger of investing in a tax shelter. Every tax shelter is audited by CRA at the end of three years. Sometimes they disallow part of the shelter; sometimes they disallow the shelter completely.

If that happens, they will assess you for back taxes, interest and penalties. So one has to be careful when investing in tax shelters.

 

[TenPenny]

Hey, I pay my fair share. But there are many legal ways to save on taxes (RRSP being the simplest). Many people are not aware of the tax saving techniques (And some of them do need high income, you get tax deduction at the maximum rate on your investments, and only that makes the investment worthwhile).

I love the way you trot out these little gems, I guess we're supposed to honour you as someone special and wealthy, of good breeding, with well educated and important children.

It suggests that you're very insecure, and need random people on the internet to validate your social standing.

 

[petros]

Oh no the CRA ****list" what is that? Getting the long form yearly? You get screwed faster with the short T-1 or T-2 ?

Terminator 1 and 2?

Pay-up deadbeat or I'll break your legs!

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Oh no the CRA ****list" what is that? Getting the long form yearly? You get screwed faster with the short T-1 or T-2 ?

Terminator 1 and 2?

Pay-up deadbeat or I'll break your legs!

Petros, I think he means getting audited every year.

Ad they don’t have to break your legs. In extreme cases, if you owe them money, they can take money straight from your bank account; you don’t have any choice in the matter.

If you are assessed back taxes, the easiest way is to pay them (and then fight them if you wish). But you cannot get away by not paying when it comes to CRA (same with IRS).

 

[JLM]

Indeed Captain, that is the danger of investing in a tax shelter. Every tax shelter is audited by CRA at the end of three years. Sometimes they disallow part of the shelter; sometimes they disallow the shelter completely.

If that happens, they will assess you for back taxes, interest and penalties. So one has to be careful when investing in tax shelters.

A smart person might just phone them up first and make sure it's a valid tax shelter or better yet get it in writing from them.

 

[Cannuck]

I love the way you trot out these little gems, I guess we're supposed to honour you as someone special and wealthy, of good breeding, with well educated and important children.

You should honor him...if you actually believe what he posts.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

A smart person might just phone them up first and make sure it's a valid tax shelter or better yet get it in writing from them.

That is the problem, JLM. There is no way of making that sure. CRA won’t tell you, and I don’t blame them. After three years they look at the tax shelter in detail and then decide if is a valid tax shelter or not.

Sometimes a tax shelter may get a preapproval from CRA. But even that is not foolproof. A tax shelter such as a movie tax shelter, will invest in several movies. They will put together a movie deal and get CRA’s opinion about it. CRA says it is OK, and that is how they get preapproval.

However, each movie deal would be different. If the tax shelter invests in say 20 movie deals there is no guarantee that CRA will approve all of them just because it approved the one that was submitted to them originally. The company will try to stay as close to the deal that was approved as possible, but each deal is slightly different, and there are no guarantees.

There is always some risk in tax shelter investments. I know of an instance where CRA gave preapproval and at the end of three years, denied the whole deal. If that happens, you tax bill, including back taxes, interest and penalties could range into tens of thousands of dollars.

One has to be careful when investing in a tax shelter.

 

[JLM]

That is the problem, JLM. There is no way of making that sure. CRA won’t tell you, and I don’t blame them. After three years they look at the tax shelter in detail and then decide if is a valid tax shelter or not.

Sometimes a tax shelter may get a preapproval from CRA. But even that is not foolproof. A tax shelter such as a movie tax shelter, will invest in several movies. They will put together a movie deal and get CRA’s opinion about it. CRA says it is OK, and that is how they get preapproval.

However, each movie deal would be different. If the tax shelter invests in say 20 movie deals there is no guarantee that CRA will approve all of them just because it approved the one that was submitted to them originally. The company will try to stay as close to the deal that was approved as possible, but each deal is slightly different, and there are no guarantees.

There is always some risk in tax shelter investments. I know of an instance where CRA gave preapproval and at the end of three years, denied the whole deal. If that happens, you tax bill, including back taxes, interest and penalties could range into tens of thousands of dollars.

One has to be careful when investing in a tax shelter.

Then you just don't do it, any more than you would take out a mortgage if they weren't going to tell you what the interest rate is for 3 years.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then you just don't do it, any more than you would take out a mortgage if they weren't going to tell you what the interest rate is for 3 years.

If the tax shelter is successful it can result in significant saving in taxes (or rather, tax deferral, CRA as a rule doesn’t like tax shelters which actually avoid paying taxes. They have no problem if the shelter results in tax deferral for a few years). So there are risks, but there are rewards as well.

 

[JLM]

If the tax shelter is successful it can result in significant saving in taxes (or rather, tax deferral, CRA as a rule doesn’t like tax shelters which actually avoid paying taxes. They have no problem if the shelter results in tax deferral for a few years). So there are risks, but there are rewards as well.

Perhaps like buying a lottery ticket- nothing wrong with it if you realize the risks.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Perhaps like buying a lottery ticket- nothing wrong with it if you realize the risks.

It is not as hit and miss as that, JLM. Sure there are risks, but there also are rewards. That is how it works in investing, greater the risk, greater the reward. The reward here is that you use government’s money to make more money (since the tax you were supposed to pay is deferred for ten years).

 

[Cannuck]

The reward here is that you use government’s money to make more money (since the tax you were supposed to pay is deferred for ten years).

...and that government money could be spent on programs for the needy. You sound an awful lot like a conservative...making money off the backs of the poor.

Of course, we all know that really isn't true anyway.

 

[JLM]

...and that government money could be spent on programs for the needy. You sound an awful lot like a conservative...making money off the backs of the poor.

Of course, we all know that really isn't true anyway.

You're getting the picture Cannuck- I spent 30 years of my life as a staunch supporter of one party, until I figured out what a bunch of hooey it all is. Some politicians are better than others but they are spread between all parties and as much as a few of the best ones have the well being of others at heart, 99% of them are in it for one person's benefit- theirs.