Lost Ramblings

By now everyone knows about income trusts.  The Conservatives said that they would protect their “tax free” status (more on that later), and then last year they decided that they couldn’t keep that promise.  The Liberals of course have jumped on this, which is rather odd, since before the last election they planned on doing exactly what the Conservatives did, and for the same reason.

 People think that income trusts are not taxed, but that is not quite right.  They are not taxed directly, it is the individuals who receive the pay out who are taxed on the money.  With two noted exceptions: low income persons, and those outside the country.

So instead of focusing on the multibillion dollar corporations who managed to get away tax free this way, the Liberals instead decide to focus on the low income seniors (cause the Liberals aren’t pro big business are they?) for their responses to the Conservatives using a Liberal plan.

Interestingly the only people who really lost money are those who jumped out of income trusts when it started crashing.  On the other hand, those seniors who were smart bought as soon as it started an upswing.  Honestly, it’s like investing in anything else.  It’s gonna crash sometimes, and often the crash is caused by some government decision.  Are we going to base our government decisions on how it might effect something as fickle as the stock market?

The Liberals want to rework how the taxing of income trusts works now.  Why?  Those who lost money are out of the market already, and, since the market is recovering now, doing that would only artificially inflate the price of getting in and then people would loose money again after the market started correcting its self.

But what about those people who put all of their money into income trusts?  I’m sorry, but the government can’t legislate intelligence, good business sense, or the ability to pick a good investment advisor.  People who put all of their money into income trusts based on their own ideas shouldn’t be playing with them.  They should put it into a high interest account because they aren’t smart enough to play with the big boys.  And those who did so on the basis of their advisor?  Get a new advisor.  It’s not the government’s fault you put all of your eggs in one basket.

And what about those people who count on the monthly pay out to buy things like groceries?  Again the government can’t legislate intelligence (though I sometimes wish they could).  If you think it’s a good idea to base your ability to live off something as fickle as the markets then I have a bridge to sell you.  It’s really a very nice bridge.  The tolls alone will make your investment back to you.

Those low income persons who will be hurt by this, have been hurt.  The Conservatives made a stupid mistake by making this happen so quickly, but it’s done.  Changing it now won’t actually help those low income persons very much.  It will though help big business and their tax sheltered investors. 

This is why the Conservatives did this in the first place.  Tellus and several other large companies were about to convert to income trusts and that would have made a large portion of the corporate income tax (which is the only reason why our taxes are low… ish… kina… it would be worse if there was no corporate income tax) disappear. 

On Friday some Liberals had a rally to protest the current tax and to offer up an alternate plan.  Who was there?

“About 150 investors, Bay Street professionals and Liberal supporters were at the meeting. ” -National Post: Liberals will make trusts an election issue

And who was the grand speaker?

“Mining billionaire Seymour Schulich” -Globe and Mail: Liberals, others gather, to protest trust decision

Sounds like they’re in it for the little guy doesn’t it?  Can’t we all just do some straight talking?  We get it, the Liberals want to help big business.  Just like the NDP want to help unions, and the Bloc want to help separatists, and the Conservatives want to help… conservatives… uh… someone help me out on this one.  Anyway I’m not saying it’s bad that the Liberals care about what big business says, I just want to know why the Liberals think it’s bad that they care.

But in regards to income trusts I think that Donald Fletcher said it best when he said “Government can never build policy to protect that kind of risk taking,” and he’s right.  Investing is gambling, there’s no doubt about it.  Again, that’s not a bad thing.  It just is.

If you want a more in-depth look check out Jeff Jedras’s blog.  It’s an old post, but it sums up the issue pretty well.  Also do your self a favor and read the comments there.  I found them very enlightening.

Enjoy.

 -Noah

Everyone now knows about what happened in Blacksburg Va.  A terrible tragedy.  I felt that I should take this time to bring up something my grandparents and I were talking about.

First a bit of background on the situation that may have slipped by you.  The shootings were done with two 9mm handguns.  One of which is believed to be owned by the shooter (they haven’t said yet if there was a second shooter).  The shooter’s fingerprints were on both guns, and the gun believed to be owned by the shooter was used at both shootings. 

From Adam Geller (AP):

“One law enforcement official said Cho’s backpack contained a receipt for a March purchase of a Glock 9 mm pistol. Cho held a green card, meaning he was a legal, permanent resident, federal officials said. That meant he was eligible to buy a handgun unless he had been convicted of a felony.”

Ok, so he was legally able to buy a handgun, so what?  Well he may have been legally allowed to buy a handgun, but he also lived on campus.  And there is a law (upheld in state court) that no one may bring a handgun onto campus.  The problem with this law?  It’s difficult to stop people from bringing handguns onto campus since they are so easily concealable.  So why not make it the responsibility of the people selling the guns?  Because though there is a criminal records check mandated by Va. law, there is no licence needed; this means that the sellers do not have much information on those buying guns.

And on to the point of this posting.  Why are handguns necessary?  There are apparently 65 million privately owned handguns in the states.  I can only think of two possible reasons to own a handgun.  1) target shooting 2) shooting people.

I view target shooting as a valid pastime, much as I view archery.  I enjoy it, and it is a good sport.  But I think Canada has a better method.

My brother has his gun licence.  He is allowed to purchase and own handguns.  In order to get that licence it took two courses, a bunch of money, and about 5 months.  I believe he also had to have a background check.  If he buys a handgun he will need a background check, and have to wait over a month.  When he gets the gun he will only be allowed to take it out of it’s case when at a registered shooting range.  Essentially the Canadian government is trying to limit the use of handguns to only sporting.

In the states though they have something called the second amendment.  Apparently allowing everyone to buy as many guns as they can.  So why don’t we actually look into that.  Following is the second amendment as passed by congress.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Yep.  That’s it.  That’s what all the fuss is about.  One sentence.  Ok, so let’s examine it.  First section: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State” this seems fairly straight forward.  It says that in order to maintain security of the State you must have a regulated militia.  I don’t know if this implies a State army, or individual town and county militias, but regardless it does not imply individuals, but rather something organized by the State.  Next part: “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that’s the part that gets quoted the most.  Except they tend to forget that People is capitalized.  That is important, because by making People a proper noun it refers to the People as a whole, or the nation, not the individual.

Lets rephrase the amendment:  “Because an organized militia is needed to maintain security, those in the militia are allowed to own and train with weapons.”  Nothing about high school and college students, nothing about handguns, let alone automatic weapons, and nothing about private citizens with no tie to the State.

I’ll leave the rest up to others, but I have one final note.  Though I realize the uselessness in calling for a banning of guns,  I feel that weapons which are only designed for killing humans should be heavily restricted.  No more selling at gun shows which sneak past the laws, make people wait at least a month before they can take their gun home, and most importantly, make all gun owners register guns at the time of purchase.  We here in Canada have learned how hard it is to register all guns, but at least add more paperwork for new ones.

 Enjoy.

“The president’s right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience.”

There is currently a court case going on in the states about two people who were not allowed in to a public presidential forum because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.

Yes, you heard that right.  Public presidential forum.  As in open to all.  As in this is where you go if you want to hear from the horse’s mouth, and then maybe be given a chance to ask a question.

But they weren’t thrown out for asking a question.  Oh no.  It was because they had view which were contrary to the presidents.

To be fair the president had no clue that this happened.  The people being sued are the organizers of the event (read: government lackeys), since it is the organizers who determined that these two people should be thrown out. 

And their defence for throwing out two people on the suspicion that they might not be loyal bushies?  Remember the quote at the top?  Yes, that’s the official defence.  Here, let me restate that.

“The president’s right to control his own message includes the right to exclude people expressing discordant viewpoints from the audience.”

Yes, the president’s right to free speech apparently overrules that of those who may have a different view.  Somehow I thought our southern neighbors were a democracy, or at least a republic.  The only time someones free speech is overruled is when you are 1) Lying, 2) Defaming 3) Prejudicial statements (racist, sexist, religious persecution).  Having a bumper sticker stating your personal view on something isn’t one of them.

Well if the organizers of the event win based on that statement then I guess they need to bring some of that exalted freedom home.  Cause without the freedom to express your opposition we quickly become a single party state, and that is not beneficial to democracy.

Enjoy.

I read an interesting post today (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-02-18-1.html) which got me thinking.

Why on earth would people attack Israel?  Hasn’t anyone noticed what happens when you do?  In 1948 when it was first created they were attacked from all sides by countries who thought that Israel (and Palestine, which was supposed to be created at the same time) should not exist.  So they invaded.  The fledgling country fought back.  Egypt took large chunks of what was supposed to be Palestine, and a bit of what was supposed to be Israel, Jordan did the same, and so did Syria.  Israel beat them back and took more land than they were originally supposed to have.  Well, there went Palestine.  Had they not been attacked Palestine would have been created at the same time as Israel.

But it happened again and again.  Every single time someone has attacked Israel they have been beaten back, and lost land.  Not only that, but eventually Israel gives it back (though it usually takes at least a decade).  So why on earth do people keep attacking them?  Are they slow learners?  Jordan seems to have learned.  Egypt finally learned (kinda), but Syria, and now certain pro Syrian groups in Lebanon, haven’t picked up on this yet.  I refuse to believe that they have missed this.  It’s kinda obvious.  Israel nearly always comes out on top, and they don’t start the wars.  Come on people, leave them alone and everyone will be better off.

Feel free to send comments or flames.

Enjoy.