Hi Linda.
In case you haven’t heard, your Leader, Tom Mulcair, has just issued a letter to a lot of us concerning the NDP’s position on FATCA, in tandem with a letter to Jim Flaherty by Murray Rankin, your party’s Revenue Critic. See link here http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2013/10/04/ndp/
Hmm … how does this match your published statements on FATCA?
My colleagues and I at Isaac Brock Society and Maple Sandbox cordially invite you to dinner, with the set menu depicted in the following photograph.
Sorry it’s not exactly haute cousine; we couldn’t find a better recipe on short notice. I think this one suits you to a “T.”
You are welcome to bring your spiritual buddy, Diane “merger” Francis, along with you.
Enjoy the crow. Bon appétit!
Cheers.
Your Canadian neighbours at Isaac Brock Society and Maple Sandbox
Poor crow. Cockroaches a la carte would have been a much better meal for Linda McQuaig.
@ Animal
Yum, yum! Better yet, as an appetizer to the main course.
Anyone have suitable dessert suggestions?
@ schubert1975
I love the graphic. It is a very appropriate main course for FATCA-phile Ms. McQuaig and as long as she gets her “just desserts” I have no preference for that part of the menu — although humble pie might be a good choice.
Humble pie with a good pouring of maple syrup on it, Em!
…and for added ambience, a nice fire made with unsold copies of “Merger of the Century” smouldering away in the fireplace.
Shubert, best laugh I’ve had all week. I hope Ms. McQuaig will accept your invitation. If not she and Diane can always permanently remove themselves from Canada and return to the U.S.A. forevermore.
@ bubblebustin
Perfect. Both the menu and the ambiance.
I almost feel sorry for her (Linda). Linda, now is your chance to explain. We’re listening.
Diane is hopeless.
@WhiteKat
Reserve your compassion until you know she has some for you. When can a tiger change its stripes? When it’s a puddytat.
US Chocolate coated cockroaches would be a fitting desert, along with a one-way ticket to the US.
Article at the Post says that Mulcair dodged a question on McQuaig’s “70% tax on the rich” and gave no indication he was going to make her toe the NDP line on taxing corporations more rather than individuals. Be interesting to see what line he lets her spew on FATCA in light of this.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/06/mulcair-says-no-to-wealth-tax-despite-star-ndp-candidate-advocating-70-tax-on-rich/
McQuaig is quoted as saying; …..”The NDP is the only party that has solid ideas to address the dramatic rise in income inequality, through strengthening public programs, creating quality jobs and increasing the fairness of the tax system. There are many ways to do this,” she added, without mentioning the wealth tax….”
I emphasize the words; …”and increasing the fairness of the tax system…”
And so, will she make a public statement about where she stands on the ‘fairness’ of Canada’s tax treaty with the US, which is so inadequate that it allows for the extraterritorial US taxation of the TFSAs, RESPs, RDSPs, capital gains on the sale of our Canadian principal residence, punishing US taxation on Canadian mutual funds, the Obamacare investment tax, and other instances of double taxation of Canadian residents?
I don’t think it will go over well if while eager to enter into discussions of what constitutes a ‘fair tax system in Canada, there is any mealy mouthed repetition of the ‘we respect the right of the US to enforce its own tax system… blah blah….’ when it comes to Canadian citizens and permanent residents living in Canada – who already report and pay taxes in full to Canada where they live, but are being aggressively pursued by the US tax system to report and pay another set, plus penalties, plus FBAR, plus file endless forms for our Canadian made savings, mutual funds, etc. to the US IRS and Treasury.
FATCA is the attempt to impose and enforce that US system extraterritorially. Thus, anyone, like Linda, who says they believe in a ‘fair’ tax system should be willing to state whether they think it is fair for the US to force that on Canadian resident people who don’t have any economic relationship with the US, have already paid taxes in full to Canada, and who are being taxed by the US only on the basis of a birthplace or parentage.
I regret the tone and content of these remarks.
Whatever Linda McQuaig may have said, it would be more useful to us to persuade her of the validity of our concerns than to insult her. I don’t think that anything is gained by the original post or the following comments except cheap self-indulgence. The recipient should be expected to pay back, when the opportunity presents itself.
An objective outsider reading some of these remarks would think that Canadians who are opposed to FATCA are a bunch of jerks. They are then justified in discounting any of our concerns.
@northernshrike, It’s McQuaid’s job to understand the issues, before taking a public stance on them. That’s what she signed on for. Hopefully, in future, she will research a little harder rather than espousing something she appears to know little about. The commentary here may seem rude; I feel bad for her too, but hopefully there is a lesson here for her, as well as for those of us who criticize. Soon, we will see what she is really made of. Don’t disappoint us Linda!
@northershrike
I appreciate your comment – the post should instead maybe read “Open season on Linda (FATCA) McQuaig”, but I don’t see how she’s been insulted in our comments, maybe a little vengeful but I don’t believe any of the comments constitute an ad hominem attack. Her failure is in holding FATCA up as a model to improve upon in Canada and she must pay the price for that viewpoint. Great if we can dissuade her – it’s certainly worth the effort, but do you think a tiger can change its stripes?
Politics is not for the faint of heart. We will see if hers lies in Canada, with Canadians.
northernshrike, I understand your concerns but WhiteKat is correct that it’s Mcquaig’s job now to know facts and, from what I understand about political unity in Canadian, stick to the party talking points and agenda. And one could also point out, correctly, that the NDP didn’t vet her properly if they were unaware of her contrary opinions and stances.
But I don’t know that I feel all that bad for her as she signed up for the scorn that goes along with being a politician. From my reading on Canada’s political history (and watching some rather interesting youtube vids of “discussions” in our parliament) this is simply par for the course and if you can’t stomach it – you should probably not pursue a career in politics. The book I am currently reading on Sir John A discusses how newspapers used to print verbatim the discourses in parliament and they were quite colorful and delightfully inventive in terms of insults levied. I wouldn’t mind reading about the PM, Mulcair and JT having a rousing debate where terms like “cur” and “blackguard” were flung about with the occasional challenge to a duel (or a boxing match) thrown in for good measure.
However you make a valid point about the content of posts here. We are striving to inform and “reform” view points. A jokey post now and again is not the end of the movement but we probably shouldn’t over indulge.
@yogagirl
LOL! Sir John A’s day saw MP’s willing, able and even eager to strike blows both physically and verbally (and rather eloquently by today’s standards) against their opponents. Having women elected to Parliament probably put an end to that kind of behaviour. Pity.
bubblebustin, oh, I don’t know that women put an end to it. There was apparently some female MP back in the early 90’s who was part a “rat pack” that regularly caused a ruckus during question periods. Shelia Copps, I think was her name. That time period seemed particularly vulgar in terms of discourse on the floor of parliament. We are just cursed with too much political correctness today and not enough imagination in our MP’s or party leaders.
As the “first” person to bring to light McQuaig’s views on the issue I am going to side with Northern Shrike. Given recent events i.e. email from Mulcair it is clear now where the NDP stands on the issue thus it is unlikely that if McQuaig were to be elected there would any leeway for her to take a different position from a significant portion of the NDP caucus(Mulcair, Rankin, Scott, Dewar, Leslie, Mai and on) in what appears to be more entrenched opposition to FATCA despite a long period of silence on the issue.
So while I think McQuaig is still fair game in the issue I don’t see her as all that important to our endgame anymore. Our primarily goal at this point should be uniting all three opposition parties firmly against FATCA. The only use I see in bringing up McQuaig at this point is for greater publicity and to force the Liberals and Chrystia Freeland to take a firmer stand against FATCA.
One reason too I personally have taken a breather on McQuaig is we still don’t even have a date set for the byelection.
@YogaGirl
That’s some good reading you’re doing, thanks for sharing. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that the women themselves sought to put an end to the ruckusing, but perhaps having women in the legislature had a psychological effect on the men.
@Tim
Many people are the “first” to bring information to this forum. How does that give anyone special powers to close a conversation?
How does she propose to address income inequality AND endorse something like FATCA at the SAME time! FATCA is going to harm low and middle income people who would never owe a dime in tax to the U.S. most. It’s going to impose a constant regime of prop up the tax attorney industry upon the people who can least afford them. It’s going to make it increasingly impossible to not have to employ one of these expensive professionals even if you are the lowest of the low in terms of income. Even if you are elderly and poor and incapacitated. In Canada where there are NO U.S. tax helpers at our consulates anymore this becomes even more onerous. And even if they were there some older people would have a hell of a time to travel to them every year.
She speaks of income inequality out of one side of her face while talking about imposing a complex and expensive U.S. law all over the world for little to zero gain to most countries. I don’t think she is ready for prime time to represent anyone. Especially since the way she proposes her ideas sound like they come right out of the thinking of a very, very well to do person telling everyone else who they should behave.
Bubblebustin:
I am not trying to close off the conversation. I personally would not vote for McQuaig although I would vote for other NDP MP’s. McQuaig is not the main problem or player with FATCA. My goal is to drive a steak knife through FATCA. At this point I don’t see McQuaig making that much of a difference either way.
As I pointed on Joe Smith’s new post there have been private high level contacts between people allied to our side and Murray Rankin. This has been one of the reasons for the shift in position by the NDP.
@Tim
I can see how you might feel bad how introducing us to McQuaig’s POV has resulted in a bit of a feeding frenzy here, but if she is a proponent of FATCA it’s open season on her as far as I’m concerned. What I’d like to know is with all of her admiration of the US would she disagree with her dinner companion, Diane Francis, about CBT and whether or not she too thinks it would be a model for Canada to pursue. There is the possibility (probability?) that she may not have even been aware of the US’s extraterritorial taxation of Canadians when she expressed her opinion on the merits of FATCA. I’m sure US persons in her riding who are aware of it would want to know.
McQuaig could make a difference for us if she advocated against CBT as being the biggest impediment to enforcing anti-offshore tax evasion measures in that it hurts everyday Canadians.
I meant to thank you, Tim, for introducing us to Linda McQuaig, because in some small way our awareness of her point of view may have played a part in the NDP adopting a position on FATCA.
Indeed. Thanks from me also, Tim. I had never heard of Linda McQuaig and her support of some US beliefs regarding taxation. For me, Linda McQuaig is filed in the same category as US Person, Diane Francis.
bubblebustin,
Linda McQuaig has neither said nor done anything to express if her opinion on FATCA has changed. She has certainly been asked. Not a word from Ms McQuaig. Wonder if anyone from her riding questioned her on the issue of FATCA and if, in her role as a candidate for whom they might vote, she communicated with them.