Corner of Berkshire & Fairfax Message Board

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: alpha on September 28, 2017, 11:19:16 AM

Title: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: alpha on September 28, 2017, 11:19:16 AM

http://www.bnn.ca/billionaire-seymour-schulich-blasts-morneau-s-tax-plan-warns-it-s-political-suicide-1.869864

When I first read about these proposed tax changes I thought I must be missing something because they seemed so ridiculous, but it looks like I was correct. Opposition seems to be gaining momentum.

What do fellow Canadians think?
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on September 28, 2017, 12:40:58 PM
I'm cool with the tax changes. I'm surprised they actually got away with doing some stuff that is being banned.

I also think that Schulich's letter is disgraceful.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: MikeTheCannon on September 28, 2017, 12:53:44 PM
Any chance you have a good article that explains the whole things from start to finish? I've been keeping my eye out for one but have yet to come across it.

My murky understanding is that the current structure allows small corporations to keep earnings inside of the structure and away from taxes (as the earnings are only taxed once they leave the structure). The set up allows for business investments to be made tax free. A doctor I was talking to stated that he uses it as a method to save for new equipment. The Liberals, however, are suggesting that people are using it "unfairly" (<-- a disputed term for sure) as a personal savings vehicle. That is, it's akin to having an unlimited RRSP. The result (from the Liberals perspective) is two fold: 1) It results in a reduction in taxes being paid and 2) it provides an unintended advantage to small corporations when compared to non-corporation earners. More importantly, perhaps, is that those who are in a position to take advantage of such a perk are the wealthy, as they can afford to leave more money inside of the corporation. That is, a corporate structure in and of itself is not enough to take advantage of the "perk"; you have to have a corporate structure and you have to be wealthy enough to not have to withdraw money from the corporate structure for normal living expenses.

There were a few other tangents on the conversations about this topic:

1) Apparently Doctors (at least in Ontario) negotiated their right to keep this setup during the last round of wage discussions with the province. That is, doctors traded a lower wage for the right to keep the structure. <-- This was according to the doctor I was talking to.

2) The "people will move to the US" argument is really just a "what are (enter profession here) worth?" argument. We can get rid of the structure and replace it with cash. Alternatively, we can determine that doctors really are paid too much (I'm not suggesting that's the case) and just do without. So perhaps this is the real discussion we should be having.

3) A similar argument (legitimate vs illegitimate use of a corporate structure) has already been raised and settled in the past. That is, at one time the concern was that owners of corporation would "hire" their family members to do nothing yet pay them a salary (effectively circumventing taxes). I believe the law now states that family members must make a wage (or at least not make more than a wage) equal to the value of the work being done. I have no doubt that some people are still abusing this to a certain degree, but at least the law now allows the CRA to call out blatant abusers. Perhaps we can make a similar rule for investments.

4) The value of the RRSP is really the value of the tax drag for an investment over its life time. That value can be very large and thus is a very nice perk to have.

Again, I've only picked up my understanding from small pieces here and there. A full blown, start to finish explanation is something I haven't come across yet. That said, the idea of handing out unlimited RRSPs to people who are already wealth seems regressive to me... but I'm not convinced I fully understand the situation.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on September 28, 2017, 01:18:45 PM
Any chance you have a good article that explains the whole things from start to finish? I've been keeping my eye out for one but have yet to come across it.

My murky understanding is that the current structure allows small corporations to keep earnings inside of the structure and away from taxes (as the earnings are only taxed once they leave the structure). The set up allows for business investments to be made tax free. A doctor I was talking to stated that he uses it as a method to save for new equipment. The Liberals, however, are suggesting that people are using it "unfairly" (<-- a disputed term for sure) as a personal savings vehicle. That is, it's akin to having an unlimited RRSP. The result (from the Liberals perspective) is two fold: 1) It results in a reduction in taxes being paid and 2) it provides an unintended advantage to small corporations when compared to non-corporation earners. More importantly, perhaps, is that those who are in a position to take advantage of such a perk are the wealthy, as they can afford to leave more money inside of the corporation. That is, a corporate structure in and of itself is not enough to take advantage of the "perk"; you have to have a corporate structure and you have to be wealthy enough to not have to withdraw money from the corporate structure for normal living expenses.

There were a few other tangents on the conversations about this topic:

1) Apparently Doctors (at least in Ontario) negotiated their right to keep this setup during the last round of wage discussions with the province. That is, doctors traded a lower wage for the right to keep the structure. <-- This was according to the doctor I was talking to.

2) The "people will move to the US" argument is really just a "what are (enter profession here) worth?" argument. We can get rid of the structure and replace it with cash. Alternatively, we can determine that doctors really are paid too much (I'm not suggesting that's the case) and just do without. So perhaps this is the real discussion we should be having.

3) A similar argument (legitimate vs illegitimate use of a corporate structure) has already been raised and settled in the past. That is, at one time the concern was that owners of corporation would "hire" their family members to do nothing yet pay them a salary (effectively circumventing taxes). I believe the law now states that family members must make a wage (or at least not make more than a wage) equal to the value of the work being done. I have no doubt that some people are still abusing this to a certain degree, but at least the law now allows the CRA to call out blatant abusers. Perhaps we can make a similar rule for investments.

4) The value of the RRSP is real the value of the tax drag for an investment over itself time. That value can be very large and thus is a very nice perk to have.

Again, I've only picked up my understanding from small pieces here and there. A full blown, start to finish explanation is something I haven't come across yet. That said, the idea of handing out unlimited RRSPs to people who are already wealth seems regressive to me... but I'm not convinced I fully understand the situation.
I think you've covered most of it. The other thing that's being terminated is split shareholdings in personal corporations for income splitting. Essentially a doc will give family members shares in his personal corporation/practice in order to further split income.

What surprises me about the outrage about this is that most of this stuff is already prohibited either expressly or under GAAR. So the outrage really is more along the lines of "How dares the gov't make us stop breaking tax rules".

The retained earnings/using you're company as a tax shelter for investments was already prohibited. I really don't know how these guys got away with that.

Splitting income with family members by paying them wages they don't deserve was already against GAAR. This was however hard to enforce and I believe it will continue to be hard to enforce even after current changes.

There may be a larger conversation to be had around family shareholdings in personal corporations. But my instinct is that when it's done purely for tax avoidance it smells fishy.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: SharperDingaan on September 28, 2017, 02:55:16 PM
Morneau is correct in that there is abuse, in some cases it is wide spread in particular professions, and the result is often extremely unfair (to put it mildly). The problem is that he is using a hammer to swat a flea, and painting everyone with the same brush. The vast majority of business people who could use the loopholes, don't, because of the GAAR issues.

Frankly his political capital would be far better spent, simply banning 1-2 of the major tax consulting firms from all government business for a period of X years, & dragging out the expected law suits in the courts. Freeze them out for any extended period of time; their business collapses, and their competitors behave for fear of it being them next. Use the protection of the courts, air the dirty laundry in public discovery, and make the targets wear it in the media. If it is as bad as claimed, they are unlikely to escape the fire unscathed.

The man is very good at what he does, & we wish him luck
... but I guess we all have our idiot moments!

SD
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cardboard on September 28, 2017, 03:20:18 PM
Morneau is the same guy who wants to raise the inclusion rate on capital gains. He can go to hell!

Too bad that the smart Liberals of the past including Paul Martin are no longer. This bunch spends their time looking to increase taxes, legalizing pot and endlessly apologizing at the U.N. for Natives instead of having Canada as a world leader trying to solve existential issues such as North Korea.

Cardboard
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: tengen on September 29, 2017, 09:35:41 AM
My 2 cents: Doctors should be compensated fairly and the income tax system should not provide special advantages to highly paid professionals.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: EliG on September 30, 2017, 06:29:53 AM
Any chance you have a good article that explains the whole things from start to finish? I've been keeping my eye out for one but have yet to come across it.

https://www.cibc.com/content/dam/small_business/day_to_day_banking/advice_centre/pdfs/business_reports/private-corporation-tax-changes-en.pdf
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: MikeTheCannon on September 30, 2017, 09:07:46 AM
Any chance you have a good article that explains the whole things from start to finish? I've been keeping my eye out for one but have yet to come across it.

https://www.cibc.com/content/dam/small_business/day_to_day_banking/advice_centre/pdfs/business_reports/private-corporation-tax-changes-en.pdf

Thanks!
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: TBW on October 01, 2017, 08:06:08 AM
Having given this a lot of thought, but still may be wrong about this, I think most of the changes are good. 

Income sprinkling, paying dividends to family that didn't buy equity is wrong and should rightfully be stopped.  However, salaries paid to family is likely more legit and the tax savings is very small as only the first $30k paid to a family member in income is tax efficient, so making a huge burden for corps to prove income is 'fair' may be overdoing it.

Lifetime capital gains and converting dividends to capital gains are also loopholes that shouldn't exist, so I am happy to see these closed.

Finally, taxing passive income is where I have issues and think these measures are overreaching.  Small businesses have higher risk and no pensions, they should not be treated like employees at bigger corps.  Also, large corporations get the benefit of lower taxes on retained earnings, why is it fair that small corp can't get the same benefit?  I am very against these proposed changes.

One other thing, rich people I know use the above measures but mostly through family trusts.  By not extending these rules to family trusts, then I don't think you are really achieving much.  You are penalizing small businesses, likely causing too much paperworks, and you aren't getting at the real schemes that actually do dodge taxes.

I would love to hear if I have any of this wrong, so please let me know.  I want to be sure I completely understand this.

Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 01, 2017, 08:53:43 AM
My humble take on this.

Underlying problems:
-Incorporation rules are way too lax.
-The tax code is way too complex.
-Incorporated entity tax rules are based on the template of the tax code.
-Incorporated entity tax rules allow the potential for significant abuse.
-Significant abuse occurred. (big surprise!)

Let's say you are the Finance Minister with noble intentions (interesting to remember that Mr. Morneau has had quite a rewarding personal experience from the fiscal perspective). I think it was FDR who hired Joe Kennedy to head the SEC in order to "understand" what went wrong in 1929.

http://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/PublicRegistries/Pages/PublicRegistry.aspx#k=morneau%2C%20bill*

To solve the issue, you propose to add another level of complexity.

Tax rules often fail at predicting 2nd and 3rd order effects, fail to predict fiscal "adaptation" and contribute to regulatory uncertainty costs.
Personal note: I followed the rules (both the letter of the law and in substance) and I find out that I likely underestimated the political costs. 

My opinion is that current trajectory suggests that, overall, total society costs will outweigh benefits. Negative NPV. Reject the project as submitted.

Why not address the underlying incorporation issue from the start?
Why not just simplifying the tax code?
Too complicated?

Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on October 01, 2017, 09:24:32 AM
Finally, taxing passive income is where I have issues and think these measures are overreaching.  Small businesses have higher risk and no pensions, they should not be treated like employees at bigger corps.  Also, large corporations get the benefit of lower taxes on retained earnings, why is it fair that small corp can't get the same benefit?  I am very against these proposed changes.
It's because small businesses have a lower tax rate than large corps.

One other thing, rich people I know use the above measures but mostly through family trusts.  By not extending these rules to family trusts, then I don't think you are really achieving much.  You are penalizing small businesses, likely causing too much paperworks, and you aren't getting at the real schemes that actually do dodge taxes.

I would love to hear if I have any of this wrong, so please let me know.  I want to be sure I completely understand this.
As far as i know trusts in Canada already pay tax at the largest income bracket. Essentially they're treated as holding corps. So there rules were extended to trusts long ago.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: SharperDingaan on October 01, 2017, 10:26:49 AM
Just to mention one abuse ...

I start a small business and split the ownership between myself (55%), my spouse (25%), and 2 kids aged 5 & 8 (10% each). The business puts up some equity to buy the house/building the business will operate out of, and pays the mortgage. And each owner is made a director, by virtue of their high ownership stake. The very common practice.

The mortgage interest & all associated shelter cost is a 100% deductible expense, along with directors fees. Assume the business is operated at a very modest profit (after deducting these expenses) for 10 years, wound up, and the house/building liquidated at a net gain of 300K. 

Over the 10 years the kids directors fees are paid directly into their RRSP's (or RESP's to be really abusive), ensuring that anything earned on those contributions will be tax deferred. Legal income sprinkling.

Over the 10 years mortgage interest was deductible, and when the property was sold EACH partner got to use a portion of their lifetime exemption - eliminating the tax they would have otherwise paid. Each kid gets 10% of the proceeds and mortgage principal repaid over the years - for zero money down. As this property is a 2nd residence, if you or I had done this there would have been NO mortgage interest deduction AND tax paid on the gain on sale. Legal tax avoidance.

Were it just an ordinary property, and used mostly by folks operating those truly small businesses (retail store, baker, grocer, etc.) that we all would like to do business with - the view might be 'good on them'. The problem is that its not generally used by those truly small businesses (who don't have the capital), and it's often $1 million+ property. Abusive.

And at the extreme, the guys/gals running that business may well be paying less total tax (income + GST/HST) than the temp they have collectively hired to man the phones. Abusive.

Nobody did anything wrong, but most would see it as a sh1tty way of doing business that really needs to be changed.
Which is Morneau's point.

SD





 
 
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 01, 2017, 11:06:27 AM
Abuses, there are.
Need to make amend, there is.

Simply asking: Are we trying to solve the right problem?

Real life example. If the issue is teen abuse of digital privileges, the answer may be to make them sign a 35 page contract that will periodically be updated with a team of specialists.
Maybe another way is to have a clear discussion about rules with them beforehand. And to turn off the router or recuperate the device after, if applicable.

Apparently Einstein would have said: "If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it."

In the old days, blood-letting was used to treat hypertension (too much blood). I submit that underlying assumptions sometimes have to be tested.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: TBW on October 01, 2017, 12:34:45 PM
RB - some clarifications please - small corps earnings will now be effectively taxed at personal tax rates, that is much higher than large corp rates, no?
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: SharperDingaan on October 01, 2017, 02:44:11 PM
Abuses, there are.
Need to make amend, there is.

Simply asking: Are we trying to solve the right problem?

Real life example. If the issue is teen abuse of digital privileges, the answer may be to make them sign a 35 page contract that will periodically be updated with a team of specialists.
Maybe another way is to have a clear discussion about rules with them beforehand. And to turn off the router or recuperate the device after, if applicable.

Apparently Einstein would have said: "If I were given one hour to save the planet, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute resolving it."

In the old days, blood-letting was used to treat hypertension (too much blood). I submit that underlying assumptions sometimes have to be tested.

The push back is valid, and many would argue you shouldn't be punishing people for simply using what is available to everyone - & being very good at it. Its quite correct of course, but the underlying assumption of the times when this was put in place; was that these people would be hiring lots of worker bees in the process of building their organizations - and the tax rake on those worker bees would more than offset this loss.

In todays world most every young person has to be an entrepreneur in some fashion, and it is highly desirable. The old world of working for someone else that this existing tax structure serves very well, just isn't the norm anyone. Arguably we would all be a lot better off if we simply made the first $X of entrepreneurial net income tax free, subject to a maximum revenue limit. Simply embrace the 'gig' economy, move with the times, & change the incentive structure to favour self employment over working for someone else, for total incomes under $Y.

SD
 
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 01, 2017, 03:10:19 PM
Yes, the world is changing.
Reforms, essential.

It has been reported that Mr. Morneau has been saying that the targeted groups have difficulty understanding his message.
Mr. Morneau has been a very successful entrepreneur himself and may very well be a good man but when the message does not reach destination, the logical step back is to wonder about the message or the messenger.

Somehow, a well intentioned plan comes across as a direct blow to small entrepreneurs.

Comparing to the 1995 budget speech may be insightful.
It is possible to move forward a difficult path.
But you need a good plan and clear/effective communication.

May need to think outside the box.
When facing an obstacle, an alternative is to use a different route.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 05, 2017, 11:47:19 AM
Through publicity on this specific site, was taken to a link allowing, if applicable, the signature of an on-line open letter.
I submit that the letter tends to be lyrical and does not offer material solutions that may be necessary nonetheless, but worth a look (and a signature?).
www.wtfjt.ca

Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on October 05, 2017, 02:59:20 PM
RB - some clarifications please - small corps earnings will now be effectively taxed at personal tax rates, that is much higher than large corp rates, no?
Sorry for the delay in answering this.

No. Small corps will not be taxed at personal tax rates. Passive investment income earned in small corps will be taxed at personal rates. Active business income will still be taxed at the low business tax rate. Basically you can't use your small corp to shelter your investment income.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 14, 2017, 06:36:48 AM
For those interested, "modifications" will be announced on Monday.

Message was (my read on it): Small business owners have a tendency to fraud and we are taking measures to correct the situation.

Perhaps message should have been and should be: We (the government) have set up a poor set of rules with loose definitions that allowed abuse and, for several years now, we have not used tools that already exist that would have curbed at least some of these abuses. So we want to correct the situation.

Hopefully the message has evolved because there are relevant problems with the present legislation and, yes, appropriate measures have to be taken.
Hopefully, instead of adding complex rules to an already ineffective mix (fiscal "experts" are already racing ahead here), simplification and common-sense grounded principles will apply.
Maybe a clear tax based definition of what a small business is would be a good starting point.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on October 14, 2017, 12:41:14 PM
Maybe a clear tax based definition of what a small business is would be a good starting point.
That definition already exists. It's a business with less than 15 million in total capital and generates less than 500,000 in active business income.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 14, 2017, 01:32:26 PM
Using that definition and existing rules for incorporation in many sectors, a person with an employee status in substance can incorporate and have access to the tax advantages of a small business.
How to deal with that?
Make it more complicated after you incorporate?
Or deal with the problem upstream?

A "problem" now is that many "small businesses" exist mostly because of the intent to pay less taxes.


Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on October 14, 2017, 01:39:57 PM
Using that definition and existing rules for incorporation in many sectors, a person with an employee status in substance can incorporate and have access to the tax advantages of a small business.
How to deal with that?
Make it more complicated after you incorporate?
Or deal with the problem upstream?

A "problem" now is that many "small businesses" exist mostly because of the intent to pay less taxes.
Well actually no. Under existing rules, what you describe would not fall under active business income but under personal service corporation which is taxed under a different regime. This is the technical part.

In reality though yes the rules were not respected and badly abused. As a result we do have corporations that exist only to take advantage of preferential taxes and they have also broken tax laws. The new rules are (were?) supposed to fix that. We'll see how this plays out though.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 14, 2017, 01:56:54 PM
So the problem would be that rules were not respected.
To resolve that, you need new rules?

So far, the "reform" contemplated had nothing to do with a better definition of existing rules or a strict application of existing rules.
BTW, if you think quantum physics may be a challenge, it may be relevant to read through (and understand) the tax documents relevant for a small business.

 

Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on October 14, 2017, 03:03:58 PM
I did read and understand them. I have a tax consultancy business. And yes, these "new rules" don't really bring much new stuff since most of the issues they address were already covered by existing rules. So I'm pretty puzzled by what's going on right now on both sides: the government and business owners and conservatives bitching.

What's become clear is that there was wide-spread non-compliance with the existing rules. Something I was not aware of. Probably a combination of greedy business owners and unscrupulous tax advisors. One possible explanation on why the government is bringing in new rules is this: If the gov't would enforce existing rules they would do so by dispatching the CRA to deal with the offenders. Once CRA would start to look at your business it would go back years. Given the state of non compliance this would look very bad. you'd get headlines of Gov't war on business or Gov't war on doctors, etc. So instead they say ok, new rules: clean slate and stop breaking the old rules.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 14, 2017, 03:43:43 PM
Reasonable. Glad we could reach common grounds.
Are you incorporated?  ;)
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: rb on October 14, 2017, 04:00:53 PM
Reasonable. Glad we could reach common grounds.
Are you incorporated?  ;)
Hahaha. Nope. The tax consultancy is not incorporated for a number of reasons.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Aberhound on October 19, 2017, 07:56:11 PM
1. What is unfair is the pension monies which accrue tax free when the current proposal is to limit small business passive income additions to $50,000 per year without penal taxation. It is unfair to discriminate against one group will leaving the perks for another. Limit both or neither.

2. The income splitting is an attack on the family, an attack on women and an attack on immigrants. The whole logic of family law since the early 1970s is that lower income wives make indirect contribution to the higher income spouses (wives now are often the higher income earner but this was how it was years ago) and therefore are entitled to an equal share of the family assets earned mostly by the husband. Is CRA now saying that the indirect contribution to family members who are paid dividends are worthless? This is mostly an attack on women as they will get less dividends than they enjoy now after the change. They can thank the liberals for the pay cut.

Immigrant families often live in multi-generational households with two or three families living together (parents, sons, their wives and children) all of the adults of which earn dividends. Are the family contributions of those immigrant wives and adult children worthless?  Immigrant businesses often make far more money because they work in networks where social events are important for business success so the contribution of wives and adult children are invaluable. How will the CRA and Courts determine what dividends are reasonable? I can see the arguments that the CRA is discriminating against immigrant families and in actual practice the implementation of the policies will be constant and repeated pain inflicted by the CRA against immigrant families.

The liberals are committing political suicide. I have a friend who is Sikh who warned the BC Premier's right hand man that if they continued to break their promises to his group he would make sure the BC Liberal government lost power. My friend lobbied his community and caused the defeat of Fasbender and at least one other riding which was sufficient to defeat the BC Liberal government.

If the Conservatives are smart they will use this issue to capture the immigrant vote. The Liberals seem determined to destroy the family so this is the wedge to defeat them. Remember that it was the Liberals who reduced the age of consent to age 14. The Conservatives wisely increased the age of consent and allowed income splitting and these pro-family policies captured a large portion of the immigrant vote.  If it wasn't for the Conservatives insane policies on Crime they would still be in power and we wouldn't suffer through this nonsense. The Conservatives also wisely reduced the business tax rate below the US rates and simplified the filings which gradually improved our relative prosperity in Canada as compared to the US. Now the Liberals are going to reverse the trend and we will become the poor neighbours again. This will only get worse when Trump is able to reduce the corporate tax rate and to simplify the filings. Instead the Liberals should fix the problem by copying the UK which got rid of the small business rate and dropped the big business rate to 19%. Added complexity will greatly harm Canadian small business.

It is particularly ridiculous for the CRA to have rules to dictate what it is reasonable for business to do. If they do so they will put the Court in an impossible position. Traditionally there has been no test on what dividends are reasonable because of the business judgement rule where the Court will not attempt to say what business judgment is reasonable. The businessman is in a far better position to judge that himself.
Title: Re: Seymour Schulich blasts Morneau's Tax plan, Warns itís 'political suicide'
Post by: Cigarbutt on October 21, 2017, 06:19:27 AM
This specific post is not about the merits of the "reform".
It's about content versus container.

Here's a link. The Toronto Sun may not be a model but used only for illustrative purposes.
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/10/20/for-starters-morneau-needs-to-say-hes-sorry

Respectfully submitted and notwithstanding any political inclination, it would be difficult to devise a strategy and plan more miserably.