OT:
Yes, I am aware of all that.
As I have already posted, in a letter to the Canadian Embassy I wrote:
As anyone knows who follows political developments in Canada closely, The Honorable Mssrs. Harper and Flaherty have their own reasons for changing the tax structure that governs income trusts in Canada.
I am writing as a United States citizen and as an investor in Canada, who had been watching with admiration as your country began to enjoy unprecedented prosperity, reflected in surpluses in both the national budget and the balance of trade. The Canadian dollar has been one of the strongest currencies in the world as a consequence.
I watched with great dismay as Mr. Harper reneged on his campaign promises, only a few months after saying repeatedly, in well-recorded public appearances, that the income trusts would not be taxed.
There are not many things that the current Government could have done that would so abruptly change the perception of Canada as a country that could be trusted to abide by explicit promises. This change has been reflected--and will continue to be reflected--in the values assigned to Canadian stocks on world stock exchanges and to the Canadian dollar.
I realize that those in Canada who have been most affected by this change are a minority, and that most Canadian citizens are unaffected by the change and indifferent to it. However, that segment of the population that has been affected are, on the whole, the more prudent, self-sufficient, and disciplined citizens. I have admired the way in which the Canadian way of doing things has, in recent years, rewarded many individual holders of shares in trusts, as opposed to the United States model where company managements and boards of directors award themselves disgracefully enormous compensation rather than distributing it.
One can sympathize with the wish of Mssrs. Harper and Flaherty to stop further proliferation of the business trusts, which in some cases certainly were turning into corporate tax dodges. But why those measures should also be directed at individuals, who have made their financial plans on the basis of much earlier promises and agreements, is much harder to understand. |
