WHAT DO AMERICANS HAVE ..

WHAT DO AMERICANS HAVE
THAT CANADIANS DO NOT?

A Government that recognizes a tax atrocity when it is told about it and then does something decent and tangible to correct the problem.

THAT IS WHAT.

A comparison between the USA Government’s correction of their
defective AMT Legislation which produced taxes on phantom profits.

Whereas the Canadian Government does not acknowledge an identical defect in our taxable benefit legislation.
By Victor Drummond ©
October 2008

---------------------------------------------------------------------
How many readers of this blog have ever heard of the “CFT”?

Not many judging by the feedback – or lack thereof – reaching me via comments to this blog series and/or e-mails to me via:- vic.drummond@sympatico.ca

Those who have read – one or more of my postings know all about “CFET” and know it is the acronym for the group of Canadians dedicated to petitioning the Canadian Government to resolve the ESPP/ESO issue which has victimized thousands of honest, hard-working Canadians. This Canadian tax atrocity has caused the financial ruin and stress sufficient to trigger heart attacks for many thousands of honest hard-working Canadian taxpayers.

The stated purpose and objective of the USA group called:- “The Coalition for Tax Fairness”, (CFT), is word-for-word identical to the stated purpose and objectives of the Canadian counterpart organization is called:- “Canadians for Fair and Equitable Taxation”, (CFET).

Both the CFT and the CFET have appealed to their representatives -- in government -- for correction of the legislation that produced unjust tax on money never received and compensation for those who have already been victimized.

The problem tax has been operating in both countries for at least eight years.

The CFT government representatives acknowledged there was a problem and introduced one or more bills -- to correct the situation -- to their Congress, and associated government agencies. The most recent being the Kerry/Lieberman bill to accelerate the compensation of those taxpayers already victimized.

Although the USA is more deeply affected -- by the current world economic crisis than is Canada -- they have found the distress of those unjustly taxed -- to be sufficiently important to pass corrective legislation now.

Is the distress of the overtaxed American citizen of greater importance to their government than an identical overtaxed Canadian is to the Canadian government?

Read the entire pdf reference document below and decide for yourself.

Below is the opening sentence of the pdf file announcing final passage of the corrective legislation by the American government.

==============================================

WASHINGTON, DC … October 3, 2008 --- The Coalition for Tax Fairness (CTF), an organization working to address the Incentive Stock Option Alternative Minimum Tax (ISO AMT) crisis, and ReformAMT, a grassroots tax reform organization dedicated to resolving the ISO AMT crisis,

==============================================

The entire text can be viewed at the following link:-

http://www.fair-iso.org/images/ISO_AMT_Relief_Passage-Final.pdf

Whatever your opinion may be of the USA Government they do not take a back seat when it comes to representing their citizens. CFET members have been appealing -- to their elected representatives for correction of their identical unjust tax penalties -- for at least eight years and under two different political parties. To date no Canadian Political party has recognized a problem.

All the majority -- of Canadian victims -- have to show for their efforts are a stack of boiler plate replies and/or a reply that states you are not entitled to the same tax remission granted the former employee’s of the Saanich B.C. SDL/JDSU Corporation.

Why not? No one in authority can – or will – say.

Apparently Canadian taxpayers do not rate equal -- and/or fair – treatment and/or justice – or defence of their rights – by their elected representatives that the American taxpayer has now received.

Why not?

I would guess it is because it appears the average Canadian will just suck it up and do nothing about it.

There will not be any protest marches, and No crowd of angry citizens waving placards and shouting we want justice – on parliament hill.

There will not be full page newspaper adds decrying the lack of government action and No radio talk-show hosts, such Lowell Green of CFRA, or television political commentators such as Rex Murphy or Mike Duffy criticizing our government inaction on this issue.

Why not? Then again do not be so sure that these things will not happen.

It appears our elected representatives believe their constituents have no reason and/or no right to expect them to do anything to protect them from Government abuse.

And as long as we Canadians just suck-up such abuse things will never change for us.

If you are a Canadian who is public spirited enough to run in a marathon -- or organize a public event -- to help one or more worthy causes then consider doing the same for those victimized by the same kind of defective tax legislation the USA government has now seen fit to correct.

If you want to do your part -- to correct this on-going abuse of your fellow Canadians -- please contact CFET at email:- inquiry@cfet.ca and/or send me an e-mail at vic.drummond@sympatico.ca and/or post a comment to this article.

Victor Drummond ©

P.S.:- Although my postings are marked © copy write I will make any and/or all my postings available at no cost to any publisher, radio and/or television producer who wants to use my material in support of the CFET objectives.

I WOULD RATHER LOSE THIS ELECTION..

THE LOWEST VOTER PARTICIPATION IN DECADES
What was there about the 2008 Federal Election that failed
to interest 40.9 percent of Canada’s eligible voters?

A commentary by Victor Drummond ©
October 2008

Although the leader of the Green Party, Elizabeth May, captured a bit of public interest during her fight to be included in the Political leaders debates her election platform lacked consistency.

Before long no one knew whether the green party was more concerned in protecting the environment or in defeating Stephen Harper. The later objective appeared to be the main thrust of the party.

The end result being Elizabeth failed to be elected in her own riding and the green party failed to elect even one member to the House of Commons.

The leader of the Liberal Party, Stephane Dion, and the leader of the New Democratic Party
both began their election campaigns with declared objectives which may have interested enough voters to get them a decent percentage of the popular vote.

Somewhere along the way they both became distracted from their initial programs, i.e. “The Carbon Tax” and the “Hold the line on the Corporate taxes”, and use the money to subsidize job creation in Canada.

They also became infatuated with the “Anyone but Harper” campaign. At that point I, and many other voters lost interest in both parties.

It then seemed to me the conjecture made in my prior posting titled:- “What do you get for your money”, e.g. “That no party really wanted to win this election due to economic problems they could be faced with…” – might really be the case.

The lack of specific information regarding proposed policies along with waffling on what objective the parties really held as their highest priority left voters with little or nothing to get excited about.

In my opinion that is why voter turn-out was by far the lowest -- for this election -- than has been the case for several decades.

Leaders and support staff of the three main political parties in Canada have been made well aware of a major glitch in the Canadian Income tax, taxable benefit legislation, which manifest itself during the crash of the hi-tech stock-market in 2001.

Beginning with the 2002 taxation year the legislation defect generated huge taxes on ordinary hard working Canadians who thought they were being rewarded by their corporate employers for their performance contribution to their employer and by association contributing to the economic well being of Canada.

The economic downturn in progress today is ideal for the creation of a new batch of victims of the defective taxable benefit legislation.

There were thousands of decent Canadian taxpayers financially decimated by way of devastating taxes being levied on Income they never received. (Real taxes on phantom Income).

During the 2008 Federal Election prelude Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May all had knowledge of this atrocity and plenty of opportunity to acknowledge
the correction of this issue as a plank in their election platforms.

Instead they all chose to ignore those victimized Canadians struggling with unjustified taxes, often, beyond their ability to pay and which -- if deferred -- hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of these victimized taxpayers.

Those same political leaders have been made aware the United States Government has a bill in process, (now passed by Congress), to correct their equivalent Alternative Minimum Tax, (AMT) legislation which also produced taxes on phantom profits.

But it seems Canadian political leaders prefer to adopt policies that sound good – Protect the Environment, (whatever that entail’s?)

Fiddle with the economy by introducing a Carbon Tax. (At a time when the economy is in deep trouble.)

Or pour tons money and resources into downsizing the global warming concerns.

None of the above high profile issues are things that a Canadian Government can really predetermine a positive result or even accomplish anything without international co-operation.

It appears to me the political party leaders -- identified above -- have adopted an attitude of:- “I would rather lose this election than do the proper, honourable and decent thing for all Canadians.”

Why give Canadians back their RIGHT to fair and equitable taxation – if you do not have to?

Canadians are not anywhere near as gullible as the conduct of our political leaders would imply.

In my opinion that is why the voter turn-out for the 2008 Federal Election was the lowest in recent times.

For readers not familiar with the defective taxable benefit issue visit the web page for the group:- “Canadians for Fair and Equitable Taxation”, (CFET), at:- www.cfet.ca

Victor Drummond ©

IF ELECTED I WILL...

IF ELECTED
An unofficial oath of office by those I would Support in the 2008 Federal Election – October 14 2008
By Victor Drummond (c)
October 2008

IF ELECTED MY PRIORITIES WILL BE:- (In order of importance)

(1) To represent my constituents to the best of my ability.

(2) To apply my power in office in the best interests of all Canadians.
So far as it is within my power I will provide all Canadians with honest, decent, fair and
just government.
When a real violation -- of any of these fundamental principles – comes to my attention
I will acknowledge the problem and do my best to have the violation corrected.

(3) To only vote the party line when the party line does not conflict with any of my higher
level priorities.

(4) To serve in the best interest of all honest hard-working Canadians to the best of my
ability.

Endorsed By:- ______________________________
Party:-_______________

Riding:-____________________________________
Witnessed by:- _________
(Initials)
===============================================

As a Canadain voter do you have any expectations of your local candidate?
Do you have any demands on the party you intend to vote for?
Would you vote for any candidate who would hesitate to endorse the foregoing priorities?

Your vote is important to those who would form Canada's next goverment and
the policies of those you support should be important to you.

Among the abuses currently being imposed upon thousands of honest hard-working Canadians is the taxation of phantom income on people who not only had lost their jobs but to add insult to injury the unfair taxes imposed cause the financial ruin of many of them.

Ref. information at:- http://www.cfet.ca

If you do not endorse this treatment of your fellow Canadians send this e-mail to your local candidate and inform them you want them to apply it's policies IF ELECTED.

See you at the federal voting polls on Tues Oct 14 2008 -- O'Grady

Victor Drummond (c)

NO APOLOGY NEEDED...

NO APOLOGY NEEDED
A follow-up commentary to the Article
THE CANADIAN POLITICAL LEADERS DEBATES 2008
By Victor Drummond ©
October 2008

For those who have not read the reference article here is my offer of an apology contained therein:-
=============================================

Canadians for Fair and Equal Taxation, (CFET), has organized the submission of several versions of the “Question” –

As Canada’s next Prime Minister what would you do to correct this unjustified tax and compensate its current victims?

My bet being their question will not be presented – in any form -- during either of the Leadership debates. It will be lost in the shuffle of so-called higher priority issues.

What if I am wrong – for once? Then my sincere apology will be posted in my next article – constructed to be commensurate with the degree the question is presented intact.

==============================================

The questions submitted on the topic of fair and just taxation never made it to the debates – so there is no apology needed from me.

There should, however, be an apology made by the administrators of the Political Leaders Debate to the members of CFET who submitted a few very relevant questions.

In the day, or so, following the English Language Debate the moderator Steve Paikin remarked how difficult it was for the debate administrators to select the eight most relevant questions from the 4500 questions submitted via mail and the on-line link question@electiondebat08.ca

Yes it must have been a daunting task to be sure.

Of course questions relating to the current economic downturn and the US Government 700 Billion Dollar Bail-out project are a no-brainer highest priority topic.

But how relevant is a question asking our political leaders for their response to the lack of voter trust caused by the frequent failure of politicians to keep their pre-election promises?

Everyone knows election promises are comparable to pie-crust – they are both made to be broken.

But even if our politician’s sincerity, honesty, integrity and decency were all above reproach – sometimes well intentioned promises can not be kept due to changing circumstances.

When a promise is broken under unforeseen condition changes – then all that is due the voter is a clear and rational explanation.

So who would consider an irrelevant question – that no political leader, or subordinate, can do anything about – to be more important than a question relating to the distress of thousands of Canadians that any Prime Minister of Canada could correct?

By placing a higher priority on a purely rhetorical question the debate administrators have revealed that public input to these debates is more than less irrelevant. The questions that are actually presented during these debates are cherry picked.

Questions -- on real issues that the political leaders do not want to address -- are just left of the debate agenda.

But why would any political leader -- campaigning for election to the office of Prime Minister --
want to avoid addressing a home grown situation that abuses and distresses thousands of honest hard-working Canadian taxpayers?

Would they rather lose votes – and possibly the chance of winning the election – than do the honourable, right, and proper thing?

It certainly looks that way to me. How does it look to you?

If you resent being assessed by the political spin doctors -- as an anti-establishment, university age Canadian who’s principle ambition is to urinate on the street and/or on the classroom blackboard -- then contact your local candidate, for election, and inform them you demand their party commit to restoring every Canadian’s RIGHT to fair and equitable taxation – or no support from you.

If you resent being assessed by the political spin doctors -- as a gullible, passive, unthinking Canadian taxpayer who doesn’t know the difference between a real relevant question and a stupid inconsequential question for our political leaders to answer at a public debate -- then contact your local candidate for election and inform them you demand their party commit to restoring every Canadian’s RIGHT to fair and equitable taxation – or no support from you.

Reference data on this issue is available at:- http://www.cfet.ca

See you at the federal election polls October 14/08 O’Grady, (Ref. prior posting O’Grady Sez.)

Victor Drummond ©