ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE, WAR AND...

ALL IS “FAIR” IN: LOVE, WAR AND TAXATION
An update on the old folk saying: “All is Fair in Love and War”

By Victor Drummond ©
June 2009

When it comes to winning the hand of the person you want to spend the rest of your life with society tolerates every trick in the book with barely a frown in response to some unethical trick or downright deception to outwit the competition.

Likewise in battle where survival is the object of both combatants playing by any kind of rules is not required. May the best fighter win and the devil take the loser.

But what excuse does a government -- elected to represent the best interests of its citizens – have for attempting to justify taxing any of its citizens on purely theoretical income, (phantom income), and then declaring such a tax policy is “FAIR”?

When a tax is identified as “Income Tax” what can possibly be “FAIR” about levying this tax on money that never existed as any form of real income?

How much do you rely on your own intellectual reasoning power? Does taxing your own honest, hard-working citizens into financial ruin on any pretext what-so-ever make sense? Not in my books.

Could anyone overpower my sense of fairness to convince me that such a tax policy is “fair” in any sense of the word? No way!

If the Canadian public tolerates this insult to their intelligence and blatant abuse of political power then obviously the area of “TAXATION” belongs in the same classification as “LOVE” and “WAR”.

Unfortunately voting age Canadians who do nothing about this outrage are not the ones who suffer its direct impact. And those who have been ripped off in this way are too much of a minority to pressure the politicians to correct the problem – as the Americans have done already.
Ref:- www.reformAMT.org

No matter what deception is applied or whatever callous disregard the politicians have for those victimized honest, hard-working Canadians -- it is “ FAIR” taxation.

At least that is what our Honourable Minister of Finance would have us believe.

When the CBC, (British Columbia), “Go Public” program broadcast the interview with CFET member Shannon MacLeod, on May 26, 2009 the following remarks were made:

" Vancouver tax lawyer William Cooper said.

"Right now there are probably thousands of people under water. And how many know about this tax before they get the bill? Not a lot. I would say very few."

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty indicated Ottawa has no plan to help affected taxpayers.

'I won't hold out any hope of any tax exemptions'—Finance Minister Jim Flaherty

"The tax laws apply to all of us equally," Flaherty said. "There are some remedies that are available through hardship cases, but the reality is that those stock option situations are not uncommon and apply to a large number of Canadians. So, I can't and I won't hold out any hope of any tax exemptions in respect to that."

When Flaherty mentioned "hardship" cases, he was likely referring to JDS Uniphase employees from Victoria. After lobbying by their MP, Gary Lunn, 37 employees with the optical-equipment company were granted exemptions from paying the tax last year.

How about that for equal treatment under the tax laws of Canada? The “Taxpayers updated Bill of Rights” article No 8 for example?

What was the Honourable James Flaherty saying when he included the following in his speech to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, (FINA) on January 30 2007?

“Tax Fairness Plan”

“I want to say from the outset that it is regrettable that some investors suffered financial losses. Although it was a very difficult decision, it was an absolutely necessary decision for the country and for future generations of Canadians, our children and grandchildren.”

“Our Tax Fairness Plan achieves two critically important goals. It restores balance and fairness in the tax system and strengthens the Canadian economy, now and into the future.” (Not very far into the future apparently.)

And what about this statement made by the same James Flaherty on the occasion of this same speech where he used the words: “Tax Fairness” more than a dozen times and concluded with these undeniably true statements:

“A few finals thoughts to conclude.”

“In the end, our government was faced with a hard choice, and now this Parliament is faced with a big decision: to make the Tax Fairness Plan a reality.”

‘We chose not only to recognize a growing problem occurring in Canada's tax system, but to fix that problem.”

“We made our decision based not on political calculations, as did the previous government, but on principles of tax fairness, balancing the needs of individual investors with the interests of taxpayers and their families.”

“And we acted responsibly and decisively.”

“It is not tax fairness if it is only for a few.”

Jimmy we couldn’t agree with you more – per the above – but what happened on the way to the theatre?

While you were recognizing the growing problems occurring in Canada’s tax system, how could you possibly miss the abusive unfair policy of taxing honest, hard working Canadians into financial ruin on income that never happened, (phantom income)? Just what problems in the Canadian tax system did you actually “Fix” or as The Right Honourable Stephen Harper said: “resolve”?

Were you not recently quoted as declaring: “people who decide to hold the equities they acquired by way of an “Employee Shares Option” (ESO) agreement are treated the same as any other investor and therefore the tax treatment they receive is “FAIR”. (or words to that effect).

So lets state the tax treatment applied to any other investor:

(1) Any investor who purchases futures options on the open market has a choice of:- buying a “put” or a “call” option that carries a stated guaranteed return price per share, i.e. the “strike” price when the holder decides to exercise (sell) their options.

He or she can select the term of the option and the price they are willing to pay. (price determined on the time-risk and volatility risk of the underlying shares.) and take possession (control) over their equities from the moment their order is filled.

By comaprison the employee who signs an ESO agreement with his/her employer has no such choice.

The price, per share to be paid, and many other terms -- including when the purchased equities will be delivered, (exercised) are all fixed per the agreement and the price to be received if the shares are exercised, and sold, is an unknown until the actual time of sale.

So the buyer of an ESO option is at a big disadvantage to the typical investor from the very start.

(2) The typical investor may pass up all kinds of opportunities to take a profit while the equities are in their possession but they are not taxed until the equities are actually converted to cash and then only if a real profit has been realized.
No problem with that situation.

By comparison the ESO option holder is taxed on any potential gain they might have taken at the time of delivery of their purchased equities -- which may be a year or so after the purchase.

If, for any number of reasons, the ESO option holder does not sell their equity holdings on that date and miss an opportunity to take a theoretical profit – it makes no difference to the Canada Revenue Agency – the tax is levied regardless of the devastation it may cause the victim.

How can you say this is the same treatment as any other investor? It isn’t – and you know it.

Canada Revenue Agency web pages are loaded with claims of fair taxation, policies and
practices.

But how fair can it be to obliged victims to apply individually for tax relief on the
basis of “Hardship” and leave it up to a third party to decide whether or not to grant the tax relief applied for.

Some victims will receive tax relief and others will not – based on how good a story the victim can tell or even more likely depending upon the location the appeal is submitted. (per Federal Auditor General)

Such a system merely compounds the unfairness of the whole thing.

(3) The typical investor/speculator after having reported on a real “Capital Loss” may apply the Loss retroactively for up to three years, and into the future indefinitely, to offset the taxes paid, or to be paid, on any “Capital Gain”.

The ESO option buyer can not even apply any real loss suffered against the “taxes” levied on his or her phantom income charged against the phantom gain of those very same equities.

So tell me again Mr. Flaherty how is the victim of taxation, on ESO options, being treated the same as any other investor/speculator? Your concept of equal tax treatment and fair treatment is one for the books.

There is absolutely no similarity between the treatment of an ESO options buyer and any other investor in Canada.

The real tragedy is not how devastated the taxable benefit tax policy leaves its victims – that is bad enough – the greater tragedy occurs when the average Canadian allows themselves to be hoodwinked into believing their elected representatives -- in Canada’s Parliament -- are earning their salaries and are performing their duty regarding the serving and protecting the best interests of all Canadians.

Until the average Canadian realizes they are being treated like mushrooms, i.e. kept in the dark and fed Horse Manure, the Title: ALL IS FAIR IN LOVE, WAR AND TAXATION will stand.

See you at the voting polls in the next Federal Election – O’Grady

Victor Drummond ©

ANSWERS TO A POLITICAL APTITUDE..

ANSWERS TO A POLITICAL APTITUDE TEST
For Canadian Federal Members of Parliament

by Victor Drummond (c)
June 2009

The following multiple choice questions are designed to reveal the extent of the knowledge our elected representatives possess about the guidelines for providing every Canadian with fair laws and equal treatment by those who administer those laws. The source document is a Canadian Government publication named: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice”

This document can be viewed at:-
www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/img/courten.pdf

If you took the test posted last Wednesday you may now view the source document without cheating.

Test Questions:-

(1) Is “Fairness” stated as a primary objective of Canada’s System of laws as described in the document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice?

(a) No but “Fairness” in Canada’s system of Laws is implied in several places.

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

(b) Yes “Fairness” is stated in a paragraph on page (2) along with other qualities such as liberty and equality.

Correct answer:- If you picked (1) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count
zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Document page 2

Laws are also aimed at ensuring fairness. By recognizing and protecting basic individual rights and freedoms, such as
liberty and equality, our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take
unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.

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

(c) No it is not required to mention “fairness” as the staff working in the office of the Minister of Justice takes care of “fairness” in the administration of Canada’s Laws.

(d) No Canada’s laws are inherently “fair” and applied fairly in keeping with the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (CCRF) and “The updated Taxpayers Bill of Rights” (TBOR)

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

(2)Does the government document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” offer Canadian Taxpayers protection against being intimidated by more powerful , unscrupulous people, groups of people, or organizations?

(a) Absolutely not. What possible reason could there be for making such a commitment in that document. There would be no reason for any Canadian group or organization to
intimidate individual honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayers into paying
conventional income tax.

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

(b) Yes. Again in the same paragraph on page (2) there is a statement saying: “our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.”

Correct answer:- If you picked (2) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Document page 2
Laws are also aimed at ensuring fairness. By recognizing and protecting basic individual rights and freedoms, such as
liberty and equality, our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take
unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.

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

(c) Definitely not. Canadians are automatically protected against intimidation by more powerful people, groups of people and/or organizations. Such tactics would amount to extortion which is illegal in Canada.

(d) No. There is no need to provide such protection. Honest, hard-working Canadians do not require protection against more powerful, people, groups of people or organizations because they pay their taxes without such tactics being required.

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

Although several Canadian Politicians, including the current Canadian Minister of National Revenue, and the Minister of Finance, have recently stated “Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation is “fair” because it has been on the books and in operation for a decade or more.

We all know the longer an item of law has been in operation the greater the probability it is no longer a good law. So that argument used to justify Canada’s flawed taxable benefit legislation is an oxymoron.

(3) When a law creates more problems than it solves and the legislation requires change how might that change be brought about – according to the document: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice?

(a) In my opinion the only people that can initiate change to a problem law or have it cancelled are those who have been duly elected to represent the best interests of all Canadians. i.e. Members of the House of Commons . In some cases members of
Canada’s Senate may introduce a bill to have a law changed or cancelled.

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

(b) Anyone from an ordinary Canadian citizen, and/or to a social group and/or to a decision by a judge in conventional court of law, may request that a problem law be changed.

If members of Canada’s House of Commons agree then a bill will be introduced in
Canada’s Parliament and after due consideration a defective law may be changed or
cancelled.

Correct answer:- If you picked (3) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Document page 7
Ultimately, though, the responsibility for changing our laws is not left entirely to the lawyers, the experts or the interest groups. It is the people of Canada who elect the lawmakers; we need to decide what we want from the law and then make sure it reflects those wishes. Everyone has the right to point out flaws in the law and to work towards changing these laws – lawfully, of course

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

(c) There is no mention of how changes may be made to Canadian Laws in the subject
document. Only the Judges on the Supreme Court of Canada can strike down a problem
law. The issue then reverts to the House of Commons to decide if an amended or replacement law is required.

(d)Identifying problem laws is in the jurisdiction of the Minster of Justice. The Minster of Justice has a competent staff of legal experts to keep him informed when any of Canada’s laws become obsolete or need to be updated. When such a change is needed the Minister of Justice will introduce a government bill to initiate the change.

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

Canadians are assured of “fair” tax treatment by both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the more recently updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”.

(4) As the updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights is newer than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Taxpayers Bill of Rights supersedes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should any conflict ever arise between “RIGHTS” as they are provided by the two documents.

(a) Definitely yes. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights must take precedence over the older Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is newer and was created by the Canadian
Government specifically for the protection of the Canadian people.

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

(b) Rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes precedence over any and all RIGHTS offered by the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” because the Rights provided in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are enshrined in Canada’s Constitution.

Correct answer:- If you picked (4) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document

From Document page 11
The Charter takes precedence over other legislation because it is “entrenched” in the Constitution, the supreme law of Canada. It applies to the provincial legislatures as well as to Parliament. This means that when an individual who believes that Parliament or a legislature has violated guaranteed rights asks the courts for help, the courts may declare the law invalid as far as it conflicts with the Charter. In addition, courts may provide other appropriate remedies to individuals whose rights have been violated or infringed.

However, the Charter also recognizes that even in a democracy rights and freedoms are not absolute. For instance, freedom of expression is guaranteed, but no one is free to yell “fire” in a crowded theatre,

However Canadians who believe they are guaranteed “fair” treatment in respect to
Income Taxation are in for a shock. If your RIGHT to fair taxation has been violated by Canada’s Revenue Agency, (CRA) neither document will automatically protect you from intimidation and extortion. The most support you can expect from the office of the “Taxpayer’s Ombudsman” is for that office to reprimand the CRA if they used abusive and/or offensive language in their communication(s) with you – the victim.

Unless you have the financial resources to fight your case through the courts and/or you have the right political connections you do not stand much of a chance of getting a “fair” deal.

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


(c) The question of RIGHTS document precedence is a pointless question as Canada has a Department of Justice – and a Minster of Justice -- which automatically guarantees the RIGHTS of all Canadians and protects their best interests according to the laws of the land.

(d) Neither document takes precedence as they both guarantee all Canadians fair and equal treatment under the laws of Canada. Consequently they compliment one another and no conflict could ever arise between them.

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

(5) There is a well known universal “RIGHT” that states every person accused of a crime has the right to be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is this right mentioned in the reference document?

(a) No it is not. The presumption of innocence, when a Canadian is accused of committing a crime, does not exist. It is a phrase used mainly on American TV dramas to impress TV viewers and is not really a guaranteed right for anyone, anywhere.

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

(b) Yes the presumption of innocence of a crime, until proven guilty is stated in the document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” on page 13 under the title “Legal Rights”.

Correct answer:- If you picked (5) (b) as the correct answer give yourself 10 points --- otherwise count zero points for this question. Following is the actual text from the reference document.

From Reference Document page 13
Legal rights
The Charter also protects the individual and ensures fairness during legal proceedings, particularly in criminal cases. The rights to habeas corpus, or the right to challenge being detained or held, and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty – always recognized as part of our law – are now guaranteed in our constitution.

It is a “RIGHT” imbedded in the Canadian Constitution but unfortunately not a right applied, or honoured, by the CRA or by Canada’s Minister of Finance when it comes to taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on money that never actually existed:
i.e. phantom income.

When the taxpayer is a buyer of their employer corporation’s shares via an Employee Shares Purchase Plan (ESPP), or an Employee Shares Option (ESO) agreement and they fail to sell their purchased equities when these equities are delivered to them,
(the exercise date), the CRA and Minister of Finance “ASSUME” these people are guilty of deliberately playing the stock markets in the hope of making more profit and on that unproven assumption of guilt they levy a fine, in the form of taxes, on “income” money that never actually existed. In many cases this fine is financially devastating to the victim and family.

Just what crime has been committed ? Even if such a buyer did deliberately hold their equities in the hope of making a bigger (taxable capital gain) on equities which they purchased with their own money -- to date no one has explained on what basis in law does this justify a tax before any gain has been realized?
Probably: because there is no logical explanation for this abusive, unfair, outrageous tax policy.

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

(c) No: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a universal right applied by the governments of all civilized countries. So there is no need to include this statement in the reference document.

(d) I think the “right” to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is mentioned somewhere in the reference document – but if it is not -- it should be.

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

That concludes this political aptitude test. If you rated yourself and/or your MP with a score of 50 then you have an outstanding elected representative or should be an MP yourself.

Unfortunately when I see, hear or read statements made by our representatives elected to the House of Commons -- in response to appeals by victims of phantom taxation -- very few would get a rating of 10 points or more.

Visit web page www.cfet.ca to find out more about Canada’s policy of taxing phantom income then visit www.reformAMT.org to see how the United Stated Government has corrected a similar problem with their “Alternative Minimum Tax” (AMT), legislation.

If the American government can fix their phantom tax problem the Canadian government can, and should fix ours.

It is no credit to Canada’s system of government to tax any of its citizens into abject poverty on any excuse what-so-ever.

Canadians who wish to point to their country with pride should demand our elected government correct this atrocity promptly.

The elected MP for my riding is well aware – no commitment by him and his party to “resolve” this problem – means no vote for them from me, my family, my friends or anyone else I can influence in the coming federal elections.

Your MP should be informed likewise.

Victor Drummond (c)

A POLITCAL APTITUDE TEST..

A POLITICAL APTITUDE TEST
For Canadian Federal Members of Parliament

by Victor Drummond (c)
June 2009

The following multiple choice questions are designed to reveal the extent of the knowledge our elected representatives possess about the guidelines for providing every Canadian with fair laws and equal treatment by those who administer those laws and those who have been elected to serve and protect the best interests of all Canadians. The source document is a Canadian Government publication named: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice”

This document can be viewed at:-
www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/just/img/courten.pdf

but try answering the questions before peeking at the source document.

Also: Try rating your local Member of Canada’s Parliament, and/or Canada’s Minister of Justice and/or Canada’s Minister of Finance -- by applying the answers you feel he, or she would select.

The truth will shock you.

Test Questions:-

(1) Is “Fairness” stated as a primary objective of Canada’s System of laws, as described, in the document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice?

(a) No but “Fairness” in Canada’s system of Laws is implied in several places.

(b) Yes “Fairness” is stated in a paragraph on page (2) along with other qualities such as liberty and equality.

(c) No it is not required to mention “fairness” as the staff working in the office Minister of Justice takes care of fairness in the administration of Canada’s Laws.

(d) No Canada’s laws are inherently “fair” and applied fairly in keeping with the “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (CCRF) and “The updated Taxpayers Bill of Rights” (TBOR)

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

(2)Does the government document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” offer Canadian Taxpayers protection against being intimidated by more powerful , unscrupulous people, groups of people, or organizations?

(a) Absolutely not. What possible reason could there be for making such a commitment in that document. There would be no reason for any Canadian group or organization to intimidate individual honest, hard-working Canadian taxpayers into paying
conventional income tax.

(b) Yes. Again in the same paragraph on page (2) there is a statement saying: “our laws ensure that stronger groups and individuals do not use their powerful positions to take unfair advantage of weaker groups or people.”

(c) Definitely not. Canadians are automatically protected against intimidation by more powerful people, groups of people and/or organizations. Such tactics would amount to extortion which is illegal in Canada.

(d) No. There is no need to provide such protection. Honest, hard-working Canadians do not require protection against more powerful, people, groups of people or organizations because they pay their taxes without such tactics being required.

Although several Canadian Politicians, including the current Canadian Minister of National Revenue, and the Minister of Finance, have recently stated “Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation is “fair” because it has been on the books and in operation for a decade or more." REALLY?

We all know the longer an item of law has been in operation the greater the probability it is no longer a good law.

So that argument used to justify Canada’s flawed taxable benefit legislation is an oxymoron.

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

(3)When a law creates more problems than it solves and the legislation requires change how might that change be brought about – according to the document: “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice?

(a) In my opinion only the only people that can initiate change to a problem law or have it cancelled are those who have been duly elected to represent the best interests of all Canadians. i.e. Members of the House of Commons . In some cases members of Canada’s Senate may introduce a bill to have a law changed or cancelled.

(b) Anyone from an ordinary Canadian citizen, and/or to a social group and/or to a decision by a judge in conventional court of law, may request that a problem law be changed.

If members of Canada’s House of Commons agree then a bill will be introduced in
Canada’s Parliament and after due consideration a defective law may be changed or
cancelled.

(c) There is no mention of how changes may be made to Canadian Laws in the subject
document. Only the Judges on the Supreme Court of Canada can strike down a problem
law. The issue then reverts to the House of Commons to decide if an amended or replacement law is required.

(d) Identifying problem laws is in the jurisdiction of the Minster of Justice. The Minster of Justice has a competent staff of legal experts to keep him informed when any of Canada’s laws become obsolete or need to be updated. When such a change is needed the Minister of Justice will introduce a government bill to initiate the change.

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

Canadians are assured of “fair” tax treatment by both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the more recently updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights”.

(4)As the updated “Taxpayers Bill of Rights is newer than the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the Taxpayers Bill of Rights supersedes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should any conflict ever arise between “RIGHTS” as they are provided by the two documents.

(a) Definitely yes. The Taxpayers Bill of Rights must take precedence over the older Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is newer and was created by the Canadian
Government specifically for the protection of the Canadian people.

(b) Rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms takes precedence over any and all RIGHTS offered by the “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” because the Rights provided in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are enshrined in Canada’s constitution.

However Canadians who believe they are guaranteed “fair” treatment in respect to
Income Taxation are in for a shock. If your RIGHT to fair taxation has been violated by Canada’s Revenue Agency, (CRA) neither document will automatically protect you from intimidation and extortion. The best support you can expect from the office of the “Taxpayer’s Ombudsman” is for that office to reprimand the CRA if they used abusive and/or offensive language in their communication(s) with you – the victim.

Unless you have the financial resources to fight your case through the courts and/or you have the right political connections you do not stand a chance of getting a “fair” deal.

(c) The question of RIGHTS document precedence is a pointless question as Canada has a Department of Justice – and a Minster of Justice -- which automatically guarantees the RIGHTS of all Canadians and protects their best interests according to the laws of the land.

(d) Neither document takes precedence as they both guarantee all Canadians fair and equal treatment under the laws of Canada. Consequently they compliment one another and no conflict could ever arise between them.

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

(5)There is a well known universal “RIGHT” that states every person accused of a crime has the right to be assumed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Is this right mentioned in the reference document?

(a) No it is not. The presumption of innocence, when a Canadian is accused of committing a crime, does not exist. It is a phrase used mainly on American TV dramas to impress TV viewers and is not really a guaranteed right for anyone, anywhere.

(b) Yes the presumption of innocence of a crime, until proven guilty is stated in the document “Serving Canadians – Canada’s System of Justice” on page 13 under the title “Legal Rights”.

It is a “RIGHT” imbedded in the Canadian Constitution but unfortunately not a right applied, or honoured, by the CRA or by Canada’s Minister of Finance, or by Canada’s Minister of Justice. When it comes to taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on money that never actually existed: i.e. phantom income: the victims and their “rights” are totally ignored by their elected representatives in government.

When the taxpayer is a buyer of their employer corporation’s shares via an Employee Shares Purchase Plan (ESPP), or an Employee Shares Option (ESO) agreement and they fail to sell their purchased equities when these equities are delivered to them,
(the exercise date), the CRA and Minister of Finance “ASSUME” these people are guilty of deliberately playing the stock markets in the hope of making more profit and on that unproven assumption -- of some kind of guilt -- they levy a fine, in the form of taxes, on “income” money that never actually existed. In many cases this fine is financially devastating to the victim and family.
Can anyone, or anything, justify this policy? Not in my opinion.

Even if such a buyer did deliberately hold their equities -- in the hope of making a bigger “taxable capital gain” on equities -- which they purchased with their own money -- Just what crime has been committed ?: no one has explained to date.

Probably: because there is no logical explanation for this abusive, unfair, outrageous tax policy.

(c) No: The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a universal right applied by the governments of all civilized countries. So there is no need to include this statement in the reference document.

(d) I think the “right” to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is mentioned somewhere in the reference document – but if it is not -- it should be.

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

That concludes this political aptitude test. Write down the question numbers, and write the letter of the answer (a), (b), (c) or (d) you pick for yourself, and/or your selected MP’s, for each question.

Then visit this blog page again in a few days to see how you, and/or your selected MP’s, performed.

Victor Drummond (c)

MY PRE-ELECTION ---

MY PRE-ELECTION PLATFORM
A tongue-in cheek parody on Canadian Politicians
and Canadian voters to illustrate the way it really is.
by Victor Drummond (c)
June 2009

Note:- The series APPEALS TO REASON has been temporarily suspended pending results of a motion submitted by MP, Thomas J. Mulcair at the 33rd meeting of the House of Commons standing committee on Finance (FINA) to amend Canada’s defective taxable benefit legislation and to refund adjusted taxes on phantom income. Nothing would please me more than to be able to post an article announcing the Canadian government has passed this motion by a large majority in the House of Commons and taxation on phantom income is now history.

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

Now here is what I would do for Canada and all Canadians if elected.

(1) The very first thing I would do is to take immediate action to deliver a budget surplus at any cost.

I would even go so far as to tax everyone on any excuse what-so-ever including market investors and speculators on gains they could have made – whether or not such potential gains ever materialized.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) could defend that action on the same grounds they now justify taxing honest, hard-working Canadians on potential gains related to Employee Shares Purchase Plans (ESPP’s) and Employee Shares Options plans, (ESO’s).

And now the CRA needn’t try to justify this taxation by way of a one-sided, unproven, assumption the taxed market investors/speculators has made a deliberate decision to play the markets with their own money.

Their guilt in this case is perfectly obvious by the fact they didn’t take the profit that was available to them and have thereby cheated the government out of it’s share of the possible gain.

(2) I would spare no expense to advertise the implementation of the office of the “Taxpayers Ombudsman” as a puppet of the CRA together with an equally useless “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” which the Taxpayers Ombudsman has no power to enforce.

This scam will fool the average Canadian into thinking they now have a guarantee of fair taxation not realizing that even if violations of one or more of “Rights” as listed on their “Bill of Rights” is reported to the Ombudsman that absolutely nothing will be done to correct the violation.
(With the possible exception of the use of abusive language by employees of the CRA in their letters of intimidation.)

Few, if any, Canadians will actually realize what a low opinion I have of their basic intelligence and most of those that doo see that fact will be too lazy or too busy to bother to do anything about it.

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

So if I ran on those two policy planks alone would anyone vote for me? I would not expect any votes. Who in their right mind would support such a political policy?

Yet the taxing of honest, hard-working Candains, on money they never saw, has been an on-going reality since the Hi-Tech Market crash of the year 2000.

Perhaps the fall of the federal liberal government, in the year 2006 election, happened partly because Canadians were being ripped-off by the ESPP/ESO tax policy and the Conservatives were promising reduced and fair taxation for all Canadians.

The exclusive Tax Remission Order (TRO) the Conservative government delivered to “resolve” the ESPP phantom tax issue for some 37 former SDL Optics (JDSU) employees in Saanich Gulf-Islands was all the “resolving” accomplished by this government so far.

Unfortunately this token effort to “resolve” the situation only made the issue more unfair to those thousands of phantom tax victims who were, and still are, excluded from the tax/penalties reprieve.

Now my question to all Canadians is this:

If you would not vote for me on the basis of the above pre-election promises why would you vote for those who have sat in the House of commons for years, ignoring all appeals for justice – fully aware of the financial devastation being imposed on honest, hard-working Canadians and doing absolutely nothing to “resolve” the problem?

If you are in favour of restoring truly “fair” taxation, and furthermore not being played for a fool, then there is something you can do about it.

Contact your local riding MP’s (all federal parties), and inform them you demand they give you a commitment to support correction of the defective taxable benefit legislation and those already victimized by this legislation have the related taxes and/or penalties levied, revoked, and related taxes/penalties already paid refunded.

The Unite States Government has done this and Canada can – and should -- do the same

Remember: Those are your “Rights” that are being subverted not just the rights of those who have been directly victimized. The “RIGHT” to fair and justified taxation belongs to all Canadians.

See you at the voting polls for the next federal election O’Grady.

Victor Drummond (c)