Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (10989)	11/2/2006 8:03:03 PM
From: abuelita	Respond to of 217745

they ought to have grand-fathered old trusts and stopped new ones ... our investment advisor told me today that established trusts will not be taxed until 2011 - new ones starting 2007. between now and 2011 there WILL be a regime change and who knows ..... at the very least, our paper bills aren't crumbling yet. not physically anyway. you wouldn't believe the spin the tories are putting on this in the local media. on the other hand, you probably would.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (10989)	11/2/2006 8:25:30 PM
From: KyrosL	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217745

The rationale for not grandfathering was that existing trusts enjoyed an unfair tax advantage compared to non-trust oil companies (CNQ, SU, etc.), which enabled them to bid higher for energy properties, so, eventually, they would have been able to buy up all of Canada's energy assets.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (10989)	11/2/2006 9:42:32 PM
From: 8bits	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217745

Spoof of Canadian Tax System: youtube.com Harper promising to never raise taxes on income trusts: youtube.com (Already posted the latter to KyrosL but.. well.. I am annoyed...) Sold off my Vermilion and like you I had quite a capital gains but it's dividend is pretty low comparatively so it may drift down for a while.... keeping the oil sands....at least gold is waking up...... :) With the payout percentages we are now seeing, we may in effect get a greter than 50% return of capital if we hold for 4 years.

To: TobagoJack who wrote (10989)	11/2/2006 11:02:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 217745

TJ, the trusts in Canada and your response reads much like the NZ tax changes on capital gains. I admit to enjoying seeing you in my boat, but of course to a trivial extent by comparison as I am totally stuck in NZ as a tribal serf of the state, beholden to ignorant mob rule whereas your headquarters is freedom mountain and capitalist China. I suspect that freedom from a practical point of view is less in New Zealand where the wealth is such that the government can hire hordes of bureaucrats to harass every detail of our lives, from wearing helmets while riding a bicycle in a park, to letting off a double happy, smoking weed, altering vegetation in our own garden, making a few carpentry changes in our kitchens, or filling in a bit of swamp on our farm, or back of our section. Everything here is forbidden unless it's expressly permitted, in which case it's compulsory. Any earnings are taxed at about 70% [if all taxes, hidden and subtle are included]. We pay to earn it, pay to spend it, and assets we hold are taxed too. They tax then pour it down the drain. I bring, say, $100 into the country from a QCOM dividend. If I buy a packet of smokes and some petrol, the oil company, cigarette company and their employees get about $10, after income tax is taken from me before I spend the $100, and after I pay GST, duties, road taxes, etc, and more is taken from the companies' profits and their employees' salaries. After my suppliers' employees have bought their booze and paid their dentist bills, all the money has gone to the government in tax. No wonder NZ is going down the gurgler. It's not as though the government spends the money on something useful like roads, water supplies, airports and communications systems. They blow it on themselves, welfare and dumb ideas. Hospitals and schools do some good, but not very effectively - aiming at lowest common denominators. Mqurice