Your View

The CON-Borgs still want readers to drink the Flaherty KoolAid and believe what is written in the Blacked-Out/Redacted Flaherty justification docs.

The evil lying CONS know their unfair taxing of income trusts inside RRSP's not once but taxed twice gives a huge advantage to those with defined benefit pensions.

The rest of us the 73% majority know what we have to do next election.

Spread the word to family and friends.

These liars will never see a majority.

Pretty sad when you can call your Prime Minister a LIAR and CONTROL FREAK and there is no rebutal !!!

Looks like Mr. Harper is spoiling for an election, money is starting to flow to all kinds of causes, he even let the press talk to him and it wasn’t scripted.

I’m sure all kinds of PROMISES will be made, just as before the last election.

The first anniversary of what has been the cruellest act of any Canadian Government to it’s seniors, who he encouraged to invest for yield, was on Oct. 31st.

“Don’t forget, don’t forget” he said before the last election, Don’t forget, don’t forget, the Liberals were going to tax Income Trusts, don’t forget we will never let that happen, we will never raid seniors hard earned money.

Well guess what? He lied, betraying seniors meant nothing to the Conservatives.once they had what they wanted, this was just one of the many broken promises the Conservatives made.

Accountability means nothing to them, patronage appointments number in the hundreds.

His own Pension Fund is one of the beneficiaries of the attack on seniors with no pensions, their friend, Manulife has gained the most from the broken promise, days after the betrayal they popped up with Income Plus. Coincidence???? Hardly !!!!

Let us, the voters not forget broken promises and betrayal.

Mr. Dion has been chastised by the press for not being strong, but he has not lied to me. Would you buy a used car from Harper? I know where my vote is going.

The evil lying CONS know their unfair taxing of income trusts inside RRSP's not once but taxed twice gives a huge advantage to those with defined benefit pensions.

The rest of us the 73% majority know what we have to do next election.

Spread the word to family and friends.

These liars will never see a majority.

Due to illness I had to take early retirement.

My company pension was not enough for me to live but I had a little money put away for rainy days, so I decided to invest some of this money in income trusts. I have always known, that there is risk in the stock market but i did not take into consideration the political risk, especially when the Prime Minister of Canada promised not to tax income trusts.

After all, he was elected on this broken promise.

I am glad that this Chicago couple are suing the Canadian GOV.

At least now they have to provide an analysis of the TAX LEAKAGE instead of 18 pages of blacked documents.

What has bothered me the most is the callous way, the gov. behaved.

There were many other ways to resolve this problem, but the Gov decided to act without any consultations, thus destroying many seniors nest eggs that THE PM promised not to touch.

This decision to tax income trusts and the royalty issue in Alberta will have serious consequences for Canada as many Canadians and foreign investors do not consider Canada a stable place to invest.

A lot of people are still buying the tax loophole or tax leakage claim, and why wouldn't they?

We should be able to believe our government.

Unfortunately its just not true, as I mentioned earlier there are over a dozen reports from credible source like PricewaterhouseCooper, RBC BMO, HDR economics and others proving the case and nothing but blacked out pages from the government!

These reports are available at several websites on the net, CAITI would be a good place to start.

The income trust file did need a little attention, perhaps the only issue should have been limits to the type of company that should be allowed to convert.

A little bit of research and open public consultation could have avoid a world of hurt.

Not just to investors but to the governments reputation and now as a result of the disastrous policy en-acted to fix the alleged problem, to the pocket book of the average Canadian who was never even invested in income trusts, but now gets to pick up the bill.

You CON supporters are missing the point.

SH promised not to tax IT's and created his own dilemma, only then to tax them.

I care not about folks investment strategies, but would rather focus on the word or truth of our Prime Minister... either he was stupid to promise no tax (but he is a self proclaimed economist), or he is a liar... never voted liberal in my life (but may have to): steve in cowtown...

I must say there are a variety of opinions here, but, unless you are an informed, careful investor, who has an awareness of the risks of investing in the stock market, then most of the comments amount to balderdash.

We managed the buying and selling of our own stocks, which included Income Trusts.

Anyone using an excuse that they invested in Income Trusts because the Prime Minister promised this or that, is a classic example of Canadians not taking responsibility for their own actions.

Would you go out and buy an expensive home without checking out the risks to your bottom line because some Prime Minister said you should?

Not likely!

So, Prime Minister Harper declared if elected he would not change Income Trusts, and after a short time in government he made a different decision! Did he lie to Canadians?

Maybe not!

We are retirees who invested in Income Trusts. Were we shocked when this announcement was made?

Yes, but not surprised.

It was out there that the Liberal Finance Minister Goodale was ready to close down Income Trusts in November, 2005.

However, documents were leaked before his announcement could take place, and he could no longer go ahead because the stock market would have been adversely affected.

An election was called shortly thereafter, which his party lost.

Really, what choice did Prime Minister Harper have based on what the previous Liberal government was ready to do themselves?

Ask yourselves this question, maybe your anger is misdirected.

Trusting any party on a tax loophole as it relates to investments is silly.

This was already a huge issue the preceding fall, when the Liberals were forced to make a decision. If they had decided to tax then, it would have had exactly the same effect.

Too bad for those who made losing bets.

That's what happens when you play the market and "trust" a government.

That goes for any government.

I love the Harper Tories for the most part, but government is government is government.

We're all corrupt and liars to a certain degree, and they are certainly no exception.

With that said, it's just a minor blip in the grand scheme of things.

Your other choice is to vote Liberal.

And no, there won't be an "Angry Income Trust Investors Party" running in the next election.

If this is the WORST that the Harper government has done, then it must be doing something right.

I own units of 3 energy trusts and I am still down 50%.

I still can't believe how the government could do this to their own people.

I also have hard time to believe that their opinion on this matter could change in a matter of one month.

It just does not look right to me.

Harper is right.

Most Canadians are totally clueless about income trusts and he can easily afford to ignore the damage he has done to seniors by lying to them.

For the umteenth time, income trusts do not pay taxes because income trust holders do, at their personal tax rate, which is usually higher than the corporate tax rate.

For those of you who go on and on about diversification, be aware that seniors without goldplated pensions that have saved for their whole life suddenly saw 20 to 30% of their savings disappear through no fault of their own, while pension plans are exempt.

Should seniors they be living off Canada savings bonds or GICs that pay less than 4%?

How about investing in growth stocks that pay no dividends, or speculating?

The government has yet to substantiate their claim of tax leakage caused by income trusts, unless you believe Flaherty's contention that the present value of future taxes paid by seniors as they deregister their RRSPs is zero.

Now there is real tax leakage resulting from the increasing number of income trusts picked up cheap by private equity or foreigners that will never pay a cent in taxes.

What about the BCE travesty that will result in the the government foregoing nearly a billion dollars in foregone taxes per year?

Please inform yourselves, the ignorance of most posters here is breathtaking.

Wow, there are some ill informed (read stupid) people making comments.

First, lets agree that the Conservatives are liars.

There is no doubt about that.

Lets also note the the Finance Minsters only education is as a divorce lawyer with some financial experience provincially (I don't think his record was good, but that is my opinion).

This incompetent boob (and lets face it, he is going to be the most incompetent finance minister in history) decides to make this stupid decision last Halloween.

He wipes out peoples savings (and I would agree with a few that placing all eggs in one basket is dangerous - which is why you need to invest in more stable countries like Venezuela and China) because he makes a snap and retarded decision.

There were a number of other options for handling his concern over Bell, etc.

Yes, it is the best of times.

When things go south though, Canadians will no longer own their own destiny.

You think Chrysler is a problem? Wait till resources turn cheap again.

I liked the response of the investment community in the U.S.

One of them was practically rolling off his seat laughing at how stupid Flaherty is.

Well this SHOULD prove one thing to Liberal supporters which it probably won't, the Conservatives aren't helping out the rich boys.

The Liberals haven't been able to spin this because it's an assault against the rich man, not the poor.

Where are the Liberals to defend us?

As we are in the tax payer funded CBC time machine going a year back in time, can we discuss a topic such as how the CONSERVATIVES introduced the GST in the 80s?

And the LIBERALS in the 90s eliminated it for not only the betterment of Canadians as a whole but as their primary election promise?

Let's get some dialogue on that.

Oh wait I'm wrong the CONSERVATIVE GST still holds (minus 2%).

So the rich took a small hit cry me a river, the poor had nothing to gain or lose.

The Conservatives broke one promise, deal with it.

That's what happens when you gamble, sometimes you lose.

Rules are always changing just like mortgage rates, too bad if you lock in high and the rates fall.

Anyone who has cash in the market has disposable income so you're not doing so bad.

All these whiners because of a change in the rules?

Is it causing you to lose your home, not able to put food on the table?

Or just preventing the purchase of the BMW 500 series.

Suck it up stuff happens.

Take solice in the fact that it had an effect on you, many of us wish we could have a stake in the matter.

One week before this government changed their income trust policy I purchased, upon the advice of my financial advisor, over $20,000 in an oil & gas, and a gas distribution income trusts.

My advisor and I discussed the risk in detail and, knowing that the government had promised not to tax trusts was a key determinate in our evaluation.

I have lost, to date, more than a third of this investment not including the corresponding loss in distribution fees.

It was appropriate for the government to review their tax policy, particularly given the announcements by Telus and Bell.

Nevertheless, a 'heads-up' on pending changes, particularly when so many would be affected, would have been appropriate.

We'll never recover, through tax reduction, what we lost with the government's sudden change of tax policy.

As a result, I cannot bring myself to support the Conservative pary in future elections.

Once bitten, twice shy.

People should stop crying.

If you put your money into a speculative investment because you are chasing higher return on your money, then risk is part of that return.

If you didn't want risk then you should have put your cash into a GIC.

Aren't the losses some people took able to be carried over to offset the gains in their other investments in terms of tax ?

If you didn't diversify your portfolio it's your own fault.

Here in Alberta there is a saying "If you play with the Bull, sooner or later you're gonna get the horn" same with a bull market.

I have read a lot of greed and sore losers in the comments on this story.

The October 31 announcement overnight reduced the value of my income trust holdings by $30,000 and then by another $30,000 in the next few days.

Yes, I could have sold during the initial panic and mitigated the loss but I need the trust distributions for income so other forms of investment were not feasible.

Following the announcement, one my main trust holdings, True Energy announced that, due to the new policy, it would be converting to a corporation.

This caused investor panic and I quickly saw another $30,000 in value disappear.

This was a direct result of the announcement. Suddenly all of my capital gains had become sizable losses.

This represents tax revenue the government will now not collect and the losses will also reduce future gains.

Paper losses are serious because selling results in less capital to reinvest which in turn means less income and, of course, less tax to pay on the income.

The beaten down trusts also severely curtailed their distributions although weakness in natural gas prices played a large part in this.

The net result was that my pre-tax income was cut in half.

I cannot know what the government will gain from the new taxation policy which comes into effect only in 2011 but I know that, between the capital gains losses and reduced taxable trust income, I shall owe thousands (perhaps tens of thousands of dollars less in future taxes.

The fallout from the announcement has resulted in the takeover at fire sale prices of many trusts and has had a chilling effect on how trusts raise capital.

It has had a terrible effect on seniors who are major trust investors.

All of this stems the Conservative government breaking its own stated policy to not touch the trust structure.

I cannot imagine a policy more counterproductive and, considering that all of this was easily foreseeable by government economists, is surely folly.

The main point is that the government went back on their word. Was it a real problem they were addressing or the Halloween bogeyman. Here we are one year later with
massive surpluses, was it really necessary to kill the income trust sector.

No one seems to agree on this tax leakage and the companies sold their taxes are gone forever. Probably a lot of overkill by those with new found power and a desire to expose it!

WOW. People are sure cynical here. So quick to think everyoe else is either a liar or a crook. Or both.

Personally, I don't like Flaherty. I don't think he's smart enough to be Minister of Finance. And,sooner or later, that will become more obvious.

On this issue, I think he made the right decision. This loophole was far to large to remain unplugged. What he did wrong,was promise not to tax these trusts. He opened his mouth before he got a handle on the situation. When he made the original promise, he had no idea what he was talking about. Not a good quallity for someone in such a responsible position.

My conclusion = he wasn't lying. Just stupid. And it was an error in judgement that could not stand. He had no choice but to make the change. However, he should have resigned as Minister of Finance. Of course, a standard like that became obsolete a long tome ago.

To Gord Jennings-

Gord while this is an unfortunate result to you personally i would suggest you get a new account as yours knows nothing about Portfolio Theory and how to invest. If you asked his thoughts on Markowitz he would probably respond Markowitz who?

Too many people believe accountants are trained in portfolio management when the reality is they have very little knowledge when it comes to the complexities of managing a portfolio and the measurement of the inherient risk. Be it unsystematic or systematic risk.

In a nut shell most accounts are great for tax planning and the intricies of this, but puting them in front of an investment portfolio is only asking for trouble. I know my accountant does not even know what duration measures on a bond

Good luck with your future investments.

Putting all your investments in Income Trusts, as some have indicated they did, is only slightly better than investing exclusively in BreX, as I know some did. The arrogance of this is their belief that "this is the only way to get the return I deserve", a position that seemed to be encouraged by the 90's bubble where any idiot could be genius stock picker. When this era ended, they lost all patience and prudence.

Its a shame that income trusts quickly went beyond their limited legitimate purpose: providing a steady income on assets for older investors who wanted this and allowing companies to divest of assets they didn't want to manage.

It became another tax scam that reduced active management in the Canadian economy and allowed foriegn owners to avoid corporate taxes and withdraw their earnings into tax havens at very low rates.

To be reasonable to all Canadians, trusts should have had a limited life, only be open to Canadian tax payers and be limited to assets to be divested such as oil wells, rental property and similar income producing assets.

Greed and averice killed the goose........

Why is it people think that trusts don't pay tax, we all pay tax every year. All we were doing is trying to support ourselve in to our old age and not let the Canadian government look after us. Why is this wrong? People who spend everything and never save are the ones who feel we deserve to loose our hard earned cash. All that has happened is the money i would normally have given to charity is now supporting me, let the government support the rest.

From all I have read it was the conservatives giving in to the big pension funds, they want to control your money.

But then again my be JIM can really show us the figures, or should we ask his aid? no he got promoted....

Job for the boys again

Have 2 income trusts. Both are above what we we paid for them before the tax change. While we didnt like it at the time, I believe it was a responsible move that the government made.

No matter whether you think Trusts are good or bad the entire issue should have been handled with due care and consideration for the people. It is the obligation of the government to enact legislation in a way of mitigating damage and harm to citizens. This was not done. Flaherty outright refused to listen to anyone.

There were option available to make changes that would have prevented further conversions without harming so many people's life savings. Harper and Flaherty chose to ignore these options...that was careless, callous and unfounded. Harper continues to show that mean streak daily.

Starting 2011 income trusts will pay out 31.5% of their income to the Federal Treasury.

However, since trusts distribute 100% of their income, this will have no direct financial effect on the trusts themselves. It is merely a diversion of money from unit -holders to the Treasury.

In fact the tax will be paid entirely by Canadian registered accounts and foreign accounts. Canadian taxable accounts will recoup all, or almost all, of the tax via the dividend tax credit.

Is it "tax fairness" to punish savers and pensioners in this way?!

I think Canadian Government did right thing.
We all have to pay tax so why they should have
exeption?

I invested $500,000 directly into approximately 10 different Oil and Gas trusts. These investments were performing very well and by all accounts were expected to continue to do so. I made the decision to invest in these trusts in conjunction with advice obtained by my accountant.

I also did so based on the clearly communicated announcement by our now Prime Minister Steven Harper that he would not tinker with Trusts.

The announcement October 31st 2006 by our finance minister Jim Flaherty to change the taxation rules relating to Income Trusts came right out of left field.

This decision was in direct contradiction to Steven Harper's clearly communicated announcement his government would not tinker with these trusts. This decision relating to trusts wiped out tens of billions of dollars in investors value. It was a compete betrayal to trust investors.

As a result of these implimented changes to how these trusts are taxed and the resulting decline in trust values, my personal loses are currently at $90,000 not factoring in what other investments would have yielded over this time frame.
I estimate my loses factoring in lost opportunity on these funds would be well in excess of $100,000.

The current tax cuts announced within the past couple of days do nothing to appease me. I feel that I have been betrayed by Steven Harper and his government and this one decision has cost me in excess of $100,000.

My loses are as a direct result of this poorly concieved decision. This government "Changed the rules in the middle of the game" wiping out tens of billions of investors dollars. This single decision has significantly affected my finances and the finances of thousands of other investors.

I emailed my local South Surrey/White Rock MP Russ Hiebert about this issue and never got as much as an acknowledgement of my email. It just further indicated to me "How little concerned both he and his government were about this issue".

Gord Jennings

Glen of Toronto, the GST was brought in by Mulroney, not Paul Martin, and the Liberal child care strategy was far superior to the bribe that the Conservatives paid out in lieu of a childcare program.

I didn't invest in income trusts so I lost nothing. I was defending the position of seniors who are being ridiculed and attacked by Conservatives in order to cover up their lie regarding income trusts.

As to your contention that you were a liberal for 13 years, that sounds the same as the Conservatives saying they would never eliminate income trusts. Dishonest.

1 Year later ...
the the sky is still there, the TSX is substantially higher and investors are still making money .

Really, the issue had to be addressed and the right choice was made, the only people who are upset about it are those who were hoping to get great returns on their investments with very little initial capital.

Truth be know the income they would have made had the income structure stayed the same would have been at the expense of the canadian taxpayer.

Jim said: "It took guts and strong leadership"

You forgot to mention that it also took a lie to the people of Canada and an assault on the retirement portfolios of many Canadian seniors.

Not to mention the subsequent and still on-going Conservative campaign to ridicule seniors and other investors who were caught up in this fiasco.

You may call that guts and leadership, I call it cowardice and dishonesty.

The governments biggest problem was that it failed to consult because it was afraid of having a leak like the Liberals, instead it relied on one flawed source of information.

There never was any tax loophole or tax leakage, over a dozen reports since then from experts such as PricewaterhouseCooper, RBC, BMO, HDR Economics, Cannacord, Fortin, Tait and others have proved this.

Perhaps the most telling is a real world analysis by BMO of the tax revenue generated for the government by 126 corporations before and after conversion to income trusts. The conclusion trusts generate 2.4 times the revenue for the government as do corporations.

Worse yet the policy en-acted to fix the alleged problem is encouraging these trusts to convert back to corporation or be taken over by private equity or privileged pension funds who won't pay any tax.
If the present trend continues $7.5 billion in tax revenue will be lost

Even if you never invested in income trusts this affects you.
$7.5 billion is equivalent to a 1.5% cut in the GST or $375 on your personal income tax.
Or in the terms politicians like to use $3750 out of your pocket over the next 10 years.
Do I have your attention yet?

Brian R of BC,

Unless I misread people's comments below, I don't think anyone is apologizing for the Conservative about face or flip-flop. Were they liars? This would require an intent to deceive at the time they originally made the promise, which I doubt was the case.

The comments you're seeing below reflect the fact that you are completely responsible for your investments and the decisions that you take to manage them; unless of course you have an arms length investment relationship, which means you're not in control.

I don't buy into our growing culture of blaming someone else for my pour or ill-informed decisions. Blame the Conservatives for the flip, but blame yourself for a decisions about your portfolio. Thus, you are correct in your 3rd paragraph about your own stupidity.

As to your 4th para...As a Liberal supporter for their 13 year reign, I would say basically the same thing about the Liberals being power hungry during that same period. Let's see GST, child care, tax cuts, blah blah blah. Except for deficit cutting, not much happened in those 13 years to benefit me as an individual.

There shouldn't be any tax benefit whatsoever to any one legal classification of Canadian Business over another.

The Conservatives realized this and fixed it for the general benefit of the country (although some lost money in the short term). Paul Martin's Liberal's weren't all bad but the Income Trust policy as I understand it was fundamentally flawed.

Would it be fair if hourly employees paid less income tax than salary employees? Everyone would ask to be an hourly employee, much like a lot of businesses tried to convert to be income trusts. The whole idea was stupid from day one.

One thing that I do have to say, however, is that there should have been clearer warning or perhaps a transition period to protect investors.

The Conservatives saw major companies using income trusts to do an end-run around fair taxation, and stopped them in thier tracks.

It took guts and strong leadership - something their Liberal counterparts "abstain" from acknowledging or employing.

Despite the ramblings from the usual Conservative apologists, the real issue here is the dishonesty of the Conservative government.

I find it absolutely outrageous but typical for the Conservative hacks here to be berating seniors who may have lost substantial amounts of their retirement nest egg due to the lies of the Conservative government regarding income trusts.

Basically what these individuals are saying is that anyone who lost money because of the governments about face on this issue are the victims of their own stupidity.

What arrogance! Once again conservatives show us their true colors, they don't care about the poor, the elderly, the mentally challenged, or the sick. They only care about power.

I'm not an income trust investor. I lost no money due to the 180 degree turn by Harper's conservatives.

What bothers me is the way trusts were devalued and are now being bought up by foreign companies as a direct result. Our energy companies being taken out just when they are going to be really valuable.

Who's side is this government on?

Well a year later and some of my investments have recovered but not to the pre announcement levels. I know several people who hit the panic button and bailed out and lost alot of money.

Investors tend to be like birds, one flies and they all go if startled. Harper should have implemented these changes without the shock factor.

Unfortunately I don't think the general public nor the government can see the big picture, in Alberta we have had great prosperity because of the tax and royalty structures in oil and gas.

Harper is working to screw things up on taxes Stelmach on royalties. Our Alberta advantage has provided alot of work and income for the average guy, but as with all Canadian politics federal or provincial when a good thing is going they decide they have to tax it more and make companies less profitable which leads to cutbacks which affects the average guy.

People are kidding them selves if they think they will ever see any real benifit from increased taxes on trusts, it will go into the federal tax vacuum never to be seen again.

Glen in Toronto.
You are absolutely, 100% right. Even I, as someone who doesn't pay all that much attention to markets and investments knows the basic rules you point out.

If I were to add one point to yours, it would be that people should also keep themselves informed and aware of the political considerations.

If people were paying attention at all, they would have know long before Flaherty made that announcement that this was coming. It was about the only safe bet out there.

Now many who lost everything want to point the finger of blame somewhere, when in fact they have only themselves to blame.

I feel bad for them, but only in the same way I feel bad for someone who breaks their leg sky diving.

On Halloween 2006, Flaherty had the choice to grandfather the existing trusts and prevent the conversion of future trusts.

If he had simply done that we would not be here one year later still angry with this Conservative government.

Right now, the Finance Minister has the choice to reduce the impunitive tax of 31.5% coming into effect in 2011, it is not too late.

I was co founder of an oil and gas company that converted as an income trust in 2003. I invested my life and my savings in creating this company that has achieved first quartile results since its inception.

The conversion triggered a "deemed disposition": without having actually sold a share, CRA was getting its share first, not me. Then on distributions I was paying on the highest tax bracket over 40%.

I never sold significant shares because I had no reason to: this is a trust that distributed only 50% of its cash flow, the first one to do the hybrid model, and kept the other 50% to grow, build gas plants, drill wells etc... employ people etc.

After Halloween the stock went from $23 to $16 thanks to Flaherty and Harper's lie. It has virtually never recovered. After realizing Harper was the Chavez of the North, I since then have retired and shall never again invest in Canada.

I have reduced my tax bill by 50% in 2007 and will again by 50% in 2008.

We created the wealth, Mr Flaherty created the tax leakage: he destroyed 30% of my wealth overnight and you so called conservatives, NDP under disguise, you whose envy drives your life should be concerned. Remember:

21% of the taxpayers are forking over 72% of the income tax burden and since we take steps to lower the amount of taxes we give Flaherty, YOU who condone the highway robbery will have to pay soon.

.. cont'd

So considering the gov't explicitly promised they would not interfere with income trusts --
was this in the best interest of the country?

They probably got Step 1 right and that could have been reasonably argued. But Step 2 -- no legitimate economist or financial expert could support this -- they'll always refer to the first step as being necessary!

Remember when judging this policy that is was the completely unnecessary Step 2 that caused the pain. This suggests, at best, incompetence. Canada's international financial reputation has also taken a battering and the results of the class action suits in the US should be fascinating.

P.S. I have no party affiliation whatsoever.

It is almost amusing listening to the uneducated & party spinners going on about how the gov't was doing what was best for the country.
In reality the gov't did 2 things:

1. Stopped any further corporations becoming income trusts (incl Bell, Telus, banks etc.). This effectively stopped the problem -- no more major drains on the revenues for the gov't.

This simple method taken alone would have had minimal impact on investors and solved the problem for the future. This step, on the whole, was logical and reasonable -- although there are some legitimate downsides to this noted in the previous comments.

Unfortunately, for some insane reason (certainly not fiscal as the dollars involved are considerably less than $0.75B/year by the most extreme of forecasters)the gov't also did something reprehensible.

2. Forced all existing income trusts (exc. REITS) to revert to effectively revert to corporations within 4 years as they would be fully taxed as such.

It was this completely unnecessary step that caused 99% of the losses for individual investors. Income trusts dramatically reduced their value overnight and are now no better than a short-term higher risk security hoping to be bought out or taken private.

At worst, the gov't should have followed other countries and given 10+ years for the changeover. The negative impact on the average investor is an order of magnitude greater than any tax cut (including the latest) could possibly compensate.

This could be classified as the largest targeted tax increase in our country's history. The idiotic thing is that these losses do not go to the gov't as tax -- they simply evaporate from the savings of Canadians. (The gov't may actually lose when holders sell for capital losses!) ..cont'd

Let's see now...sit on a stool with only one leg supporting it and you're bound to take a fall. Sit on one with multiple legs, then should one break, the others will sustain you until you fix the broken one.

Sure, I too lost money on paper because of this change, but I also lost money when the techs fell. And, I probably lost more this past October from market instability.

In my reading of investment literature not once did I come across any advice that said income trusts were low risk or equivalent to bonds in their risk profile.

So this begs the question, what the heck is a retiree doing investing everything in income trusts?

This breaks two rules of investing 1) has to do with baskets and eggs, I'm sure everyone knows what that is, and 2) invest in lower risk instruments as you get close to and in to retirement.

Not a lot of sympathy here.

I think closing this big tax loophole was, at the end of the day, the best thing to do.

however, I think it should have been implemented in a better way.

Putting your complete trust in a politician during an election campaign is akin to believing a used-car saleman that the old clunker he is trying to sell you still has a lot of good miles left in it.

Face it, the investors claims of money lost are a result of greed. Piling everything in a deal too good to be true, was truly a deal too good to last. Its over, get over it.

My wife and I lost about 6-7% of the value of our RSP's and non-RSP assets as a direct result of the tax. To be honest, the loss is probably greater since I have been overly conservative in my investing since then.

Anyone who thinks that the CONS did the "right" thing is either seriously misinformed or a Conservative party member.

Mr. Flaherty did not address the root of the problem, which was (and still is) high taxation in Canada and double-taxation of corporation profits.

Many people on this forum 'feel little or no sympathy' for the people who lost money because of this outright LIE from the mouth of Steven Harper.

Shame on you. The people who lost money were not greedy mega-millionaires. They were ordinary citizens, like you, trying to get a little ahead. These were not people taking their savings accounts and betting it all on roulette (at least, they were led to believe it wasn't roulette) ... they were listening to the advice of so-called investment professionals and following the laws made by the government of Canada.

The few high and mighty on this forum can mock and laugh all they want ... the fact is this:

Harper stood there and claimed he was going to restore trust in government. He stood there and said he was going to bring back transparency in government. Free Votes. BLAH BLAH BLAH - LIE LIE LIE

People are not angry because a loophole was closed. People are angry because a LIAR LIED ... and it cost them dearly.

To my detractors, who seem to be many:

1. Show me the 'lost' money - provided the underlying investment was sound.

2. Show me an income trust that has become a 'dog' - again, provided the underlying investment was sound.

3. Show me a 'wise' investor who puts ALL of their money in one vehicle - regardless of the underlying investment is sound.

What part of panic selling causing people to lose money do you seemingly not get or even want to try and understand?

Enough from me on this topic - you can lead an investor to water, but you can't make him think!

If Harper had not explicitly promised to protect income trusts this story would be long over. Investors would have been more vigilant and cautious. It w

as Harper who said don't worry, I'll protect your savings in Income Trusts. There will be no political risk if you elect me.

It was Harper who set everyone up for the big fall. He Lied to people to buy our votes...or he was incredibly stupid when he made the promise. Either way, Harper has a responsibility to the people he betrayed. He should grandfather existing trusts and keep his word.

Peter from Winnipeg,
I think you're coming across a little harsh on people. Even though, I was not affected by income trusts as much as others, I understand their frustration when governments suddenly flip the tables.

Your argument makes no sense as the government can change taxation on any investment in Canada. So, what are people to do? Not invest at all?

Peter, there's a difference between not keeping a promise and being outright mislead. The public was outright mislead.

Quite frankly, I hope the class action lawsuit coming from the US is successful against the Canadian government. Standards need to be set so that international investment continues in this country instead of being swayed away.

Like I said before, it's not the decision on taxing income trust that was bad, it is how it was done that was criminal. And if you don't think the process was criminal, I would like to hear why you think so.

Wakey,wakey.

This is not about individuals that lose by believing in government promises so much as it is the transfer of assets and wealth from individual savings and ivestments of Canadians to MLP's and private and Canadian Gov't pension plans-which pay no tax.

So,there goes the wealth and future tax base of the country and let's just keep on bickering.

So let's get this straight.

Steve from Hamilton says it's all the investors' fault for buying an investment vehicle a politician promised he wouldn't amend.

Well, not quite. Steve, perhaps not wanting to alientate any more disgruntled voters, pulls back from slamming the books shut on the hapless investors by suggesting it's all the work of their investment advisors.

I guess the moral here is to ensure whoever you get financial advice from, make sure they do not listen to Conservative politicians.

But, if that's the case, would it not be simpler to just drop the advisor and ignore any of Stephen Harper's promises yourself?

Beaconsfield Ray

Trust is the keyword here.

Canadian investors "trusted" the Harper Government to honour their committment not to tax income "trusts". Tens of thousands of Canadians would not have invested in income "trusts" if Harper/Flaherty had been honest. The Harper Governemt broke their promise, Cnadians lost money and Harper/Flarethy proved they could not be "trusted".

Harper, while campaigning and in writing, also promised to honor the Atlantic Accord Ammendment that Paul Martin signed with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland Labrador. The Harper Government not only broke that promise but they reversed the ammendment unilaterally and once again proved they could not be "trusted"!

Harper/Flaherty are not to be "TRUSTed".

I "TRUST" you have been enlightened?

Really people, how naive would you have to be to believe a politician?

They broke their word? The horror! Who would've thought it?

I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone on this. You can develop a multitude of health symptoms for reasons beyond your immediate control. If 9/11 destroyed your net worth, you have my sympathy.

But when BCE, RBC, CIBC et al start rumblings about becoming income trusts therefore shifting the tax burden further to the individual - you were going to lose your money one way or another.

It's not my fault you weren't diversified. It's not my fault you didn't listen to the markets.

We had a government sponsored fund, the Crocus Fund, which all the investors lost their shirts, my family included. I told them not to invest in venture capital backed by a socialist government. They didn't listen. They lost a lot. I laugh at them.

Get mad at politicians, sure. But when did they keep there promises? And like I said before, who would've paid the taxes after the corporation to income trust conversion?

Income trusts were flawed from the start.
Remember, they were invented to take advantage of a loop hole in the Canadian tax laws.

We had little exposure to them and we sold them and reinvested in the banks long before the government closed the loop hole.

My research on the income trust system proved that this strategy was doomed to fail and I realized that it wouldn't be long before my banks stocks would reap the benefits of a mass sell-off of income trusts, and they did.

I would agree that this is a classic example of not what the government did that caused people to lose money in their investments but more the all to common fact that most people and advisors try to be their own portfolio managers which is something they are not properly equipped to do.

That's right advisors are not portfolio managers.. but they have to do something since they don't usually give good advice and plan effectivly with thier clients.

I was wary of income trusts and did not invest until the government assured Canadians that the taxation of income trusts would not be changed.

I lost money because of the Conservatives' broken promise and will never vote for Harper regardless of anything positive he may do.

Ray Beaconsfield, the wisdom of investing in an income trust changed overnight with that BROKEN PROMISE. What was once a good investment became a dog.

The government broke thier promise after spending 2 years going at the Liberals for breaking much less catastrophic promises.

They promised a new style of government and transparancy. Do you call refusing to meet with the press transparancy? These guys are so full of secrets and secret agendas it's scary.

I say this party should go back to where the progressive conservatives ended up in 1993. That would send a clear message.

Once again, as a rational investor, I have to ask, "How did you lose money?"

What is the value of your income trust today compared to the value prior to the changes?What is the payout? How much income did you make compared to other investment choices?

If you lost money because of a bad investment choice, seeing the fund cut payments and/or plummet in value because of underlying trust financials, that is not the government's fault.

If you lost money because you sold in a panic, before having any idea what the 'changes' would mean medium and long-term, that again is not the government's fault.

It seems most posters want somewhere to place the blame for bad financial decisions. Somewhere, anywhere, as long as it isn't on the shoulders of those responsible - the investors themselves.

My wife and I are both retired and we each lost a substantial amount as a result of Flaherty's Folly. There is clearly no doubt that Flaherty lied about "tax leakage".

While Harper grovels to find every possible vote to give him that "elusive majority government", he should realize that those who lost because of income trusts will never support the Conservatives.

In addition many of their friends and family members will not be supporting the Conservatives.

All Canadians, both current and future, will bear the burden of the tremendous tax loss that Flaherty's policy on Income Trusts has caused!

Flaherty did the wrong thing in introducing double taxation on trusts held inside rrsp's. Income trusts created more tax revenue not less. That is why the 18 pages of proof are blacked out.

This was entrapment and a betrayal of the 70% of Canadians who do not have defined benefit pensions. History will show this to be one of the biggest financial blunders of all time. Disgraceful.

Bottom line? I have less money... this from a government that promised I would have MORE money in my pocket.

How much did taxing income trusts bring in last year?

Because when I see Harper and Flaherty announce that Canadians were getting tax cuts because we had such a huge surplus, kind of makes me wonder how much those cuts were necessary (when you hear Flaherty talk about it, he sounds like he had no choice on the matter and that Canada would have gone into economic turmoil had we not started taxing them).

At least the Liberals had said they planned on taxing them... so they gave fair warning... with the Conservatives... BOOM!

Just like that, they said we weren't going to do it (actually, they promised) and they did. Lost my vote forever Mr. Harper (and Mr. Flaherty, if he's Harper's successor).

Just a quick question for all those who say they will never vote for the Conservatives again because of this income trust decision:

Who will you vote for?

I would curious to see which party you think will champion the idea that money should be sheltered from taxes because that would be a losing campaign.

What party are you going to?

You would have thought most reasonable people and the media would have been all over this story when the government tried to prove its tax leakage claim with 18 pages of blacked out documents.

There never was any tax leakage or revenue loss in fact quite the opposite! There are now over a dozen reports by independent experts that prove this case, which strangely enough the government does not wish to discuss!

Income trusts are structured such that they have to pay out most of their earnings to shareholders unlike corporations, in exchange for this structure the government did not tax them, but instead taxed the shareholders at a higher rate that corporations (no dividend tax credit).

Studies have shown the government collect 2.4 times as much revenue as a result!

The present policy has resulted in the take over of income trusts by private equity and privileged pension founds who can now restructure these now cheap assets in such a way that they pay NO TAX.

So far this has resulted in $60 Billion in take overs and a loss in tax revenue of $2 billion, the bill could reach $7.5 billion a year if nothing changes.!

Instead of fixing an alleged problem this policy has created a black hole which is sucking in all the tax revenue income trusts used to create.

The governments idea of tax fairness is one in which we all get to pay, whilst fat cat private equity and privileged pension funds make of like bandits. Great policy!

personaly i directed my entire RRSP into income trusts after the conservitives gave everyone the green light as a result of there lie i lost 50% of my savings.

they lied outright and destroyed peoples lives with no repercusions they will not admit there mistake and should be held accountable for there actions.

i have followed the efforts of the income trust community lobby the goverment to no avail they do what they want and from what i see the only choice is to change power to anouther party.

I always supported the Conservitives however after they took away my future i opose them at every chance even to the point it has alienated me from friends and family that support the conservitives.

I was raised by my father who always said stay away from investing in anything which has a tax strategy as its principal investment advantage.

I said for years that income trusts didn't feel right even as most of my friends in Calgary were busy buying everything that looked like an income trust I stayed away so I did not loose any money.

When Telus, Bell, Encana and others were about to convert to income trusts the government had no alternative but to close the tax holiday and level the playing field. This was a very difficult and courageous decision.

In Alberta the income trusts with this advantage were in a position to pay much higher prices for assets and as a result everything from realestate, oil and gas properties and everyday consumer purchases became inflated and unless you were an income trust you just couldn't compete.

This decision by Mr Flaherty and Mr Harper will go down in history as a difficult yet necesary step in the evolution of our economy.

Thanks for your leadership Gentlemen !!

I am a retiree who invested part of my severance pay in Income Trusts, mostly in the oil sector. I invested on the advice of my brother-in-law in 2004. He has been investing in Income Trusts for years since losing his job at age 43. He has made substantial income as a result.

We both had losses, as a result of the announcement last year, but, we both have recovered nicely.

Prime Minister Harper and his Finance Minister could have decided to not make this decision and keep the promise not to touch Income Trusts, which would have been a politically correct decision.

Instead he took the high road, although he knew it would bring much anger he made the right decision for our economy and all Canadians. Now that's what is called a real Leader.

Last year my Reit income trust was bought out.
In one, I was in a DRP since 1998. We had a sustantial amount of capital gain on that one.

A lot of people only look at the income now, but when the time of selling does come, a lot of them will have a shock anyway. Perhaps more so under the old way, than under the new regulations.

This is part of investing in the stock market.

The lie of the income trust impacted my family. The loss of even an income of $5000.00 a year made a difference, especially since they are in their 80's and don't want to leave their home yet, and it made it hard for them to hire someone to come in daily.

The burden fell on me.

But it wasn't only the loss, but the way the so-called pretend Conservative party did it. They could have started out taxing the income trusts at 7% instead of 35%, it reminds me of the disaster of the Harris government in Ontario.

It was not the idea but the inept way they implemented it.

Not only that but now many US equity firms have been in Canada buying up the devalued income trusts and taking their tax money out of Canada.

The government has now lost the taxes those companies would have brought in. Since 2006 Canada has been for sale and the pretend Conservative, really the reform party has promoted this.

How can anyone expect a government that doesn't believe in government be able to govern.

On this alone they should be brought down.

Most of the people who supported the government's move never understood the degree to which the distributions were taxed in the hands of the recipients, and thus thought that there was something unfair. They got sucked in by the government's rhetoric.

But take a look at the government's supposed motivation: "The Tories... have argued that the tax measure was necessary because otherwise too many large corporations would have made the switch."

Now look at Bell Canada, one of the 'trigger' corporations. As Bell Canada is drawn into the portfolio of the Ontario Teachers' pension plan, Bell will NO LONGER PAY any corporate income tax, although the earnings will be taxed when distributed as part of pensions.

The effect is the same as it would have been had Bell become an income trust; EXCEPT THAT the business profits are now the exclusive domain of Ontario's teachers, rather than being available to investors of all stripes.

Several high quality trusts have similarly disappeared from the open market into private hands, and the government will now net far less of their earnings; and investors/pensioners have fewer quality sources of income; thus increasing the probability of less claw back of OAS (because of lower private income) putting more strain on government resources.

As with the current plan to reduce the GST rate, this government demonstrates that it has no understanding of the natural laws of economics.

Harper and his Hoods do, however, know well how to manipulate a generally ignorant public (how else can one explain the general public support for their economic and tax measures).

The greatest danger to any nation's economic well-being is politics, and that's all we seem to have in Canada - lots of politics, but little leadership or stewardship.

I'm a retiree whose total income comes from my investments, and I was fully invested in a broad portfolio of income trusts (not mutual funds). While the net value of my holdings dropped, my income continued unabated. I did not voluntarily seel any of my holdings.

The most significant problem that I have encountered is that I have lost several great trusts from my portfolio because the government's action made them bargains to be taken private.

I then had to look for quality investments to replace those that were lost. For the mostpart, I bought more of some of those that were left.

I lost nothing myself,when the Harper government broke a really BIG promise on Income Trusts, but my wife lost a pretty big chunk of her retirement portfolio and she didn't have a lot in the first place!

She probably should have got rid of them sooner,but hey,Harper said they would NOT hit them and unfortunately,we believed him. BIG MISTAKE!

But then, that isn't the point now is it? The point is, they lied.
They just plain lied and to me and many others, that is what we will remember for a long time to come.

In the begining with Canada's "new government",I was willing to give them a shot and now, nothing they do will ever make me trust them again! Nothing. Or vote for them.

At least with the Liberals, I KNEW they were liars and never trusted them no matter what they said! Silly us for thinking Harper was different.

The worst thing about what they did to Income Trust's was the fact that it was mostly seniors and people who were close to retirement who got hit the hardest. The Conservatives knew that would happen when if did it, but they did it anyway.

Now, I hope their heads fall through their butts and they all hang themselves!!!! And most liars eventually do self-destruct!

I barely noticed. I had nothing invested in income trusts, so, aside from a slight dip with all the sell-off activity immediately following the announcement, I lost nothing. That dip has come back to me and then some in the past boom year, so I'm doing fine, thank you.

No question the C's broke a seriously big promise, which they knew would haunt them forever and a day and then some.

That said, they stood up and did what was RIGHT and had to done for the GOOD of the country and not was right/good for the C party.

It time for all of the Liberal leaders to stop the double talk, were not all stupid.

If the throne speech is so bad, say so, if the GST cut is so bad, say so. Feeding us the same old crap us insulting. Take a lesson from the Prime Minister, that is if you believe something so strongly is bad, then stand up from what is right for the country, even if it is polictically incorrect.

If there anyone in the Liberal Party (anyone) willing to put the country ahead of the party, if so it time for a revolt.

AS a result of the double-speak of the Finance Minister, aided and abetted by the Prime Minister, I have lost appoximately 25% of my investment portfolio. For someone like myself, who is solely responsible for ensuring I have financial security in my retirement years, this is a significant loss. I am closing in on retirement age so do not have the luxury of time, or a politians pension, to soften the blow.

This one action is without a doubt the worst betrayal by a politician and political party I have ever experienced, and that says volumes!

I am still worse off today than I was last year at this time. It is the price I have paid for trusting a government to keep the promises they made. It may have been foolish, but I thought they would keep their word. It kind of frustrates me now when they have a budget surplus and keep lowering taxes, but do not keep the promise they made on income trusts. If they have so much extra money, why not reverse the decision on income trusts?

It seems to me that too many people are worried about paper losses without asking whether the income distributions have been affected at all. In most cases they haven't, and I'd still bet that there will be some restructuring of these trusts or further tax concessions before the new rules kick in, especially since there will be at least one federal election between now and 2011.

People could be criticized for putting too many eggs in one basket if they over-invested in these vehicles. They would have been better diversifying with trust-of-trust funds, which are split among, real estate, energy, and business trusts. They should have also considered blue-chip, dividend-paying equities which are certainly more stable than trusts and whose dividends receive more favorable tax treatment. Another option is exchange traded funds (ETFs) with their rock-bottom management fees.

The facts are that a well-diversified portfolio has been shown to outperform an unbalanced one over the long term in every real and hypothetical scenario, and investors who fail to learn this inevitably get burned.

Aside from the fact that it was something that the Liberals should have done when they were in government and would have if they hadn't leaked their plan. But what people are saying here is true - the stock market is risky if you don't pay attention.

At one time I had a financial adviser who wanted to push me into income trusts - but I could never understand how income trusts would be sustainable. They just didn't make any sense from a sustainable business perspective. And even it they did, it was a sure bet that at some point any government would need to close the loophole to level the playing field. And I refuse to invest in anything that I don't understand. So I changed financial advisors since he wasn't listening to me.

So if you are going to be in the stock market you need to have at least a basic understanding of what constitutes a sound, long-term investment - or put your retirement money into something safer (CSB,GIC - your returns will be lower, but you will not have to worry).

I really wonder how many people 'lost' money on this - we hear from the financial industry who earned a lot of revneue from income trusts, companies that were operating as income trusts, and maybe a few little old ladies as examples. Its not a big deal

Having gone through law school in the three years before this announcment, I had heard from at least 3 tax professors, all experts in the field in Canada, that it was only a matter of time before the income trusts loophole was closed.

That is how tax law evolves: tax lawyers and accountants create new structures to avoid tax, and as they become popular, the government closes them.

Quite frankly, though not normally a fan of the Conservatives, I don't feel sorry for anyone who lost a lot of money with this announcment. It was the only rational thing to do, and you could see it coming a mile away.

pssst... GTA Fred.

Where do you think the money would come from to pay such a billion dollar settlement? Not Flaherty's personal bank account, I'm afraid.

Wouldn't Canada's money be better spent elsewhere, like in Canada for example?

Yes I did lose money and not happy at all. The fact that this Tory government lies is really no suprise.

What really makes this intersting is the law suit comeing out of the U.S. The government could have to shell out some 5 plus billion to foregin investors who actually believed Jimmy and Steve.

Depending upon the court decision this could be the end of the tory rule in Canada and I for one can't wait for that day!!!

One can argue that closing that lophole was a smart thing to do. However, what angered alot of investors was Flaherty's outright lies that income trusts were safe leading alot of people doing alot of investing.

Then, he turned around and pulled the pin costing these same people their investment. These were not stupid people, as some posters have suggested. These were people who with all the given data available to the public made a decision. Flaherty chaged that data with no reprocussions.

Although I did not vote for Harper, I have become a supporter of his government. However, what they pulled with the income trusts would have landed them in prison if they were in private practice and is a black mark that will always tarnish their record. Maybe not for doing it, but in how they did it.

I knew from the comments in the 2004 Liberal budget that a tax or restriction was coming so I had cleaned out many of the trusts by this time last year from my portfolio, but I still took a 2% hit right away, although a year later the market has erased those loses and I am back where I should be for the end of 2007.

Once I read that CIBC and TD were considering a Trust Conversion I really in hindsight am glad that something was done,

All the banks as a trust would have cost the Federal and Provincial Governments nearly 10-14 billion in revenue, although it would have benefited those who actually held shares in the banks, and I am not sure how many Canadians do.

It had to be done, the market did not crash and burn and now we have closed a loophole that made certain corps not have to pay taxes.

I guess time heals all wounds.

At the time, I had something like 12% of my portfolio in income trusts. Some of those were even REITs. When the announcement was made that 12% went down 20%, so to about 10%.

My entire portfolio therefore took about a 2% hit. Not a fun day, but not that big a deal.

The next few days, my REITs all recovered completely, after people figured out they weren't the same as income trusts. Some of my other stocks had gone up...within a week I was back even. I still have the same income trusts, and enjoy the 8-12% payouts I am getting.

Now with oil, gold and the rest of Canada's vast resources going up and up, the income trust thing is a real non-story for me. The last couple years have been wonderful.

I do feel bad for people that had all their investments in the income trust sector. However, in all fairness this was and is a very foolish investment strategy. Anyone who invests everything into one small sector, should not be investing at all.

Rule number 1 for investing always has been and always will be DIVERSIFICATION. Even for myself owning 12% in this sector was way overweight, I was in love with the payouts too.

Realistically a proper portfolio should have 70% fixed income/bonds 30% equities. The 30% equities should probably be at least half outside Canada, leaving 15% of your portfolio in Canadian stocks, probably 2-3% should be in income trusts at the most. NOT 100%.

We were pretty upset this time last year over the announcement on Income Trusts, but, as they say time heals everything.

As we did not panic (as some did) and we stayed the course, our paper losses have been fully recovered over the past year. We have until 2011 to make decisions, which we are slowly doing.

Most investors suffered paper losses like us, and have most likely recovered the same way we have. These are the stories that are not been told.

Sure there were substantial losses on accounts managed by brokers, did they advise their clients adversely? Who knows! Should some have put all their savings in one pot? of course not!

Playing the stock market is a risky business, and one can lose their shirt in a flash, it's not for the weak of heart that's for sure.

I agree that its tough to have sympathy for those who got pounded on the income trusts.

My own investments are not that big and none of them are, or were in income trusts. Yet, despite that I was able to forsee the inevitable decision to tax them.

Goodale wanted to do it and would have if it wasn't a minority government. BCE was a biggy, but when RBC made the announcement that they were not opposed to becoming an income trust, anyone with a clue should have got out then, because that was truly the last straw.
I don't think the government had a choice ultimately, but it sure took guts.

I've recovered MOST of my value.I kind of think Cait (Ott) has the right idea.I don't see how any government could leave that big of a hole in the tax system.It meant to many would not be paying their fair share.

Having said that,I am still not a fan of Mr.Flahery.He did go back and correct a huge mistake.But I still think he's an idiot.I offer no apology for being angry with his initiakl stupidity in making a ridiculous promise in the first place.

I confess,even as I moved to take advantage of the loophole,I really don't think I believed it would go on.
Poor judgement on my part,I know.

No intelligent person actually believes the drivel that "...the Conservatives cost seniors (and presumably others) millions of dollars...".

The only people who 'lost' were those misguided or, sorry to say, stupid enough to sell on the basis of no knowledge - no knowledge of the true impact of the changes, no knowledge of the future implications, no knowledge of what the affected companies would do, no knowledge in fact of the basics of investing in certain types of vehicles.

Not to be mean-spirited, but even the most basic investor knows that, within limits, "...when everyone is selling, buy...". To those who possessed the typical Canadian knee-jerk reaction to financial news, I say "Thank you, very, very much!" As YOU were selling, I was buying. Thanks to your generosity, my retirement date has been moved up significantly.

In other words, the impact of the 'income trusts' has been truly outstanding (not to mention just and proper from the giovernment's side).

I didn't have very much invested in Income Trusts, so I didn't impact on me too much. Most people who had a balanced portfolio should have more than recovered by now.

As Cait said, if you put all of your eggs into the income trust basket, you really weren't following a very sound financial plan in the first place.

The government really had no choice but to take these steps, otherwise every large company in the country would have become an income trust.

They had to put their foot down at some point, and the BCE announcement of their conversion was the last straw.

Investment horror story on Halloween?

Au contraire, Our Government's logical and practical decision to tax income trusts THE SAME AS ANYONE ELSE already made total sense to me, therefore when the income trust inevitable tax rate hit, my non-income trust investments increased dramatically.

This was the best financial decision ever made by a Government, based on my investment portfolio. I can now retire (in a few years) in a very comfortable manner, probably spend much time in the U.S. enjoying their lower prices and warmer weather.

I had a slight dip, but really no problem because I wasn't foolish enought to put all of my eggs in a rickety basket like that.

Flaherty did the right thing. If you are going to believe a politician's promise of keeping them, even when it was so very obvious that they were unsustainable, you got what was coming to you.

I give them more credit for doing the right thing financially instead of sticking to an election promise that no longer made sense giving the changing times.