Finally....

[mcfarms]

Personally I suspect we will see some adjustments to the proposals following the "consultation " period but something wicked this way comes.. I spent the morning at a town hall meeting listening to MP Pierre Poilievre CPC finance critic he had some interesting insight into this . Came away feeling about the same as I went in not great.
I was impressed by his knowledge and ability to answer the questions posed to him on the subject. He managed to quickly set aside the political questions and focus on the tax changes as proposed. No question after hearing him I have to think it has alot more to do with paying for a social agenda than it does with fairness. He had some comments that the passive income thing is actually worth more gov't rev. over the long term but the libs want that tax rev. now to help defray some of this spending. sprinkling isn't the key part of this move it is the passive thing that could generate them the most.
Frankly think alot of this isnt targeted at us in the ag business but we are going to get swept up in the big net like a dolphin on a tuna boat unless things get adjusted.
Also don't think Bill Morneau has a bloody clue about what a incorporated family farm looks like after hearing some of his comments over the past week he keeps saying these changes wont affect the family farm.
As proposed they sure as hell will.

[Braveheart]

Is like to know who the ****head was that came up with this idea? Which prick civil servant said, "let's go after farmers, small business owners and the like"?

[LEP]

I think people are looking at this passive income thing wrong. So say a guy has a Napa franchise and is going to retire so he sells his business and inventory and keeps the building and rents it to the new business operator.

So he has any working capital from the business and sale proceeds from the sale of the business and the building in the company. So let's say he has run the business for 25 years and outside of a few rasps the sale proceeds are his retirement. His plan was to invest the money in the corp plus collect rent on the building and pay out dividends on an annual basis to live on for the next 25 or 30 years.

But because the Liberal Government can't keep the government spending in control want to tax him at 73% on any "passive income" because they want their money now. He is now in the position of taking a huge tax hit any way he turns.

This is the thing pissing business owners off to no end.

[tweety]

So if you own 1000 acres in a corp, and rent for 70 an acre, after tax income of 20k. Minus land tax, about 15k. Corp filing fees, maintenance.......

Modest 300 an acre value, pretty bad return on 3 million dollar asset.

[Oliver88]

Read an article I can no longer find. Morneaus' company stands to make a killing with some pension products with the changes?


Whatever buys votes right?

This whole tax change is looking like a very big conflict of interest for Bill Morneau.

[grassfarmer]

On and on it goes, fear mongering based on made up facts and mis-contrived scenarios. They did not decide to "come after family farms and small businesses". 75% of farms will be totally unaffected by the proposed changes as they are not incorporated - likely only 5-10% of all farms will pay more tax as a result. Even if all 25% were affected it would only account for 2.4% of corporations affected on a national basis - this is not about targeting farmers.

"The proposed changes do not raise the very low 10.5 % tax rate on the first $500,000 of net income that currently applies to small businesses that are set up as private corporations." Source NFU.ca

So it isn't going to hit all the small Mom and Pop franchise businesses in town either.
Enough with making up stories

[zeefarmer]

Is like to know who the ****head was that came up with this idea? Which prick civil servant said, "let's go after farmers, small business owners and the like"?

The same one/ones that think it's ok to take taxpayers money and instead of investing it back into the country, throw it at Middle Eastern countries, the Clinton foundation, their own special interests, etc, etc.

[farmaholic]

So if you own 1000 acres in a corp, and rent for 70 an acre, after tax income of 20k. Minus land tax, about 15k. Corp filing fees, maintenance.......

Modest 300 an acre value, pretty bad return on 3 million dollar asset.

Is the math right? 1000 acres @ $300 value = $300,0000 asset. Am I misunderstanding this post. $300 an acre land? Where?

[Hamloc]

On and on it goes, fear mongering based on made up facts and mis-contrived scenarios. They did not decide to "come after family farms and small businesses". 75% of farms will be totally unaffected by the proposed changes as they are not incorporated - likely only 5-10% of all farms will pay more tax as a result. Even if all 25% were affected it would only account for 2.4% of corporations affected on a national basis - this is not about targeting farmers.

"The proposed changes do not raise the very low 10.5 % tax rate on the first $500,000 of net income that currently applies to small businesses that are set up as private corporations." Source NFU.ca

So it isn't going to hit all the small Mom and Pop franchise businesses in town either.
Enough with making up stories

In Jan Slomp's overview he said something to the effect of how our federal government prudently spends our money, on this he is totally wrong so imo why would any of the rest of his analysis be correct. He is coming at this from the same ideological slant as our Prime Minister.



If this was truly about revenue and not progressive class warfare why not raise the GST by 1%? This would bring in $5-6 billion in revenue instead of the $500 million the proposed changes to how corporations are taxed. The Liberals raised the highest personal rate by 4% soon after being elected and this increase actually decreased revenue so now they are on a witch hunt.

[LEP]

On and on it goes, fear mongering based on made up facts and mis-contrived scenarios. They did not decide to "come after family farms and small businesses". 75% of farms will be totally unaffected by the proposed changes as they are not incorporated - likely only 5-10% of all farms will pay more tax as a result. Even if all 25% were affected it would only account for 2.4% of corporations affected on a national basis - this is not about targeting farmers.

"The proposed changes do not raise the very low 10.5 % tax rate on the first $500,000 of net income that currently applies to small businesses that are set up as private corporations." Source NFU.ca

So it isn't going to hit all the small Mom and Pop franchise businesses in town either.
Enough with making up stories

Typical grassy maneuver. I don't think one of us have argued that the small business rate is being touched but you mention it because you have no defence on the other comments. My example of the Napa small business owner selling out is what people are upset about and they will be affected. Passive income is an issue for retired farmers and attribution rule changes will be an issue for succession planning. You obviously haven't talked to an accountant about this and continue to talk about something you know nothing about. There seems to be a trend there.

Oh and going to H and R block doesn't count as getting good tax advice.

[SASKFARMER3]

I phoned a Lawyer friend in Regina discussed moving assets bought a liberal membership and transferred a bunch of wealth to Cayman islands Today. I love that place any way.

You idiots like grass don't get it. He floated the farmer and DR thing first as a test to see how pissed people get then the inheritance tax will come in next budget because the idiot has spent so much were now close to Greece. So he needs cash and cash fast. Guess what the real rich have moved money out in huge amounts since this happened. Were well on our way to being F$%Ked as a country.

Idiots running the asylum

[blackpowder]

I wonder if Grass has ever had hypothermia. Tax changes like that.