Everything You Have Ever Learned is a Lie


Stretch
#1
Everything You Have Ever Learned is a Lie


Monday, 22 March 2010 08:21


YouTube - Everything you have ever learned is a Lie3

 
Spade
#2
No, I've learnt some people are bigots.
 
Johnnny
#3
i learned that water is made up of a oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, was i lied too?
 
Stretch
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by JohnnnyView Post

i learned that water is made up of a oxygen and two hydrogen atoms, was i lied too?

did you know water has a memory?
 
darkbeaver
#5
they won't like that stretch
 
GreenFish66
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by StretchView Post

did you know water has a memory?

I know water's friendly ..Cuz it's always waving ..( booh ..Bad jk)
 
Dexter Sinister
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by StretchView Post

did you know water has a memory?

What does it remember?
 
CDNBear
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

What does it remember?

Mostly the sad times.
 
GreenFish66
#9
How do you know there not tears of joy? Waving hello .I'm Over here.Not goodbye..Yet ..More likely a little of both ..Remembering both the good times and the bad/sad..(ok sorry ..now I'm just gettin sappy )....Enough ..What's this thread about again?..Oh yeah .."Everything you have ever learned is a lie"...How sad ..and that's the absolute truth ..

Oh ..I just happen to have written a song called "Absolute truth "..And here it is for anyone interested .Don't forget to read the lyrics...

Odds R Evolution on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads ( yet another thankless Self Promotion)
Last edited by GreenFish66; Mar 22nd, 2010 at 11:01 AM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

Everything you've been told is a lie...How sad ..and that's the absolute truth ..

Including that statement?
 
GreenFish66
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Including that statement?

What you talkin about Dexter Sinister ?..Where'd you get that info?


Quote: Originally Posted by GreenFish66View Post

..Oh yeah .."Everything you have ever learned is a lie"...How sad ..and that's the absolute truth ..

Oh ..I just happen to have written a song called "Absolute truth "..And here it is for anyone interested .Don't forget to read the lyrics...

Odds R Evolution on MySpace Music - Free Streaming MP3s, Pictures & Music Downloads ( yet another thankless Self Promotion)

 
Dexter Sinister
#12
Made it up, just like the people Stretch likes to cite do.
 
GreenFish66
#13
lol
 
Cliffy
#14
What Canadians don't want to accept is that it is no different here, except that we passed a law saying we had to pay income tax even though the original constitution forbade the federal government from passing laws or collecting taxes. The sad times are just beginning.
 
Dexter Sinister
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

... the original constitution forbade the federal government from passing laws or collecting taxes.

No, in the original constitution, the preamble to section 91 empowers the federal government to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada on all matters not assigned exclusively to the provinces (which are enumerated in section 92), and section 91(3) empowers it to raise money by any mode or system of taxation. Those provisions are still in force.
 
MHz
#16
Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act of 1867 sought to divide these powers of taxation fairly. The Provinces wanted to ensure that they had a source of tax revenue in order to carry on the business of government at the Provincial level while, at the same time, recognize that the newly created Federal government needed a source of revenue to carry out its obligations. Under Section 91, "Powers of the Parliament" Section 3 gave the Federal government the power to "the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation".( It is interesting to note that during the Quebec Conferences in 1864 and 1865, leading up to the passing of the BNA Act in 1867, this phrase was originally written as "the raising of money by any other mode or system of taxation.") This authority pertains only to the indirect "field" of taxation as intended under Section 91 of the BNA Act of 1867. Under Section 92, "Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures" section 92.2 gave the Provinces the exclusive authority to "direct taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial purposes." The phrase "for provincial purposes" was clarified in an earlier court case as "an explanation and not a limitation" on the authority of the Provincial legislatures. Direct taxation is exclusive to the Provinces and the Federal Parliament has no authority to levy such a tax. It seems, by this explanation of direct and indirect taxation and by the Sections 91.3 and 92.2 of the BNA Act of 1867, the federal government has invaded an area of provincial authority in the levying of federal income tax and the GST. A direct violation of the Constitution. Now, lets look at some of the historical evidence. The second reading of the BNA Act of 1867 in the British Parliament gives convincing evidence of this violation.
IMPORTANT!! When a bill reaches second reading, it cannot be changed in any way. It cannot be added to, deleted from or revised in any fashion. It must pass, as is, or the bill is dead.
In February of 1867 the second reading gives the following evidence;
Lord Carnarvon the Fourth stood before the house and delivered the reading:
"In this Bill the division of powers has been mainly affected by a distinct classification. That classification is fourfold; first, those subjects of legislation which are attributed to the Central Parliament exclusively; second, those which belong to the Provincial Legislatures exclusively; third, those which are subjects of concurrent (joint) legislation; and fourth, a particular question which is dealt with exceptionally. To the Central Parliament belong all the questions of the public debt or property, all regulations with regard to trade or commerce, customs and excise, loans, the raising of revenue by any mode or system of taxation, all provisions as to currency, coinage, banking, postal arrangements, the regulation of the census, and the issue and collection of statistics. To the Central Parliament will also be assigned the enactment of the Criminal Code."
"The principal subjects reserved to the local Legislatures are the sale and management of the public lands, the control of their hospitals, asylums, charitable and municipal institutions, and the raising of money by means of direct taxation."
"The several Provinces, which are now free to raise a revenue as they may think fit, surrender to the Central Parliament all powers under this head except that of direct taxation. But there is, as I have said, a concurrent power of legislation to be exercised by the Central and Local Parliaments. It extends over three separate subjects - immigration, agriculture and public works." (There is, therefore, no shared authority over direct taxation.)
Lord Carnarvon continues by saying: "As I have said, it is proposed that the Provinces shall surrender to the Central Parliament all powers of raising revenue except by direct taxation. In return for this concession the Central Government will remit to the Local Legislatures certain fixed sums and proportionate capitation payments, in order to enable them more conveniently to defray the costs of local administration." (These transfer payments, with no strings attached, have been discontinued through the repeal of Section 118 of the BNA Act)
There have been a number of cases since confederation, which support the Province's exclusive authority over direct taxation. In the case Citizens Insurance Co. v. Parsons and Queen Insurance v. Parsons, 1881, His Lordship, SirMontague Smith, of the Privy Council of England made the following statement in his decision; "So,' the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation' is enumerated among the classes of subjects in Section 91; but, though the description is sufficiently large and general to include 'direct taxation within the Province, in order to the raising of a revenue for Provincial Purposes,' assigned to the Provincial legislatures by Section 92, it obviously could not have been intended that, in this instance also, the general power should override the particular one." He continues by saying; " It could not have been the intention that a conflict should exist; and, in order to prevent such a result, the two sections must be read together, and the language of one interpreted, and, where necessary, modified, by the other. In this way it may, in most cases, be found possible to arrive at a reasonable and practical construction of the language of the sections, so as to reconcile the respective powers they contain, and give effect to all of them."
In another case, Bank of Toronto v. Lambe, 1887, Lord Hobhouse, of the Privy Council of England, stated the following in his decision; " It is impossible to give exclusively to the Dominion the whole subject of raising money by any mode of taxation, and, at the same time to give to the Provincial Legislatures, exclusively or at all, the power of direct taxation for Provincial or any other purposes. Their Lordships adhere to that view, and hold that, as regards to direct taxation within the Province to raise revenue for Provincial purposes, that subject falls wholly within the jurisdiction of the Provincial Legislatures."
Again, it seems clear that the federal government has gone beyond its legislative authority by invading this area of (direct) taxation exclusive to the provinces.

Federal Invasion

Any changes to the constitution requires a vote by the people. I'm not sure this part can even be changed by doing that. Since a direct tax is illegal by the Fed then any income-tax based on that levied as a % of that tax is also illegal, that is our Provincial tax. A paycheck is a trade, labor for money, it does not qualify as a 'gain in wealth'.
 
TenPenny
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Any changes to the constitution requires a vote by the people.

Do you have a source for that?
 
Cliffy
#18
Well, I stand corrected, although income tax is still not legal. It was a temporary tax instituted during WWI and was supposed to be rescinded at war's end. That is the stipulation that got it passed, but was never rescinded. So it is illegal. All amendments to the BNA act, according to the article posted by Mhz, seem to also be illegal since they were never voted on by the citizenry.

And for that matter, since we were not given the opportunity to vote on Trudeau's constitution, it is also illegal.
 
MHz
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Well, I stand corrected, although income tax is still not legal. It was a temporary tax instituted during WWI and was supposed to be rescinded at war's end. That is the stipulation that got it passed, but was never rescinded. So it is illegal. All amendments to the BNA act, according to the article posted by Mhz, seem to also be illegal since they were never voted on by the citizenry.

And for that matter, since we were not given the opportunity to vote on Trudeau's constitution, it is also illegal.

That actually goes as far back a having a vote to join the Sovereign Provinces (Country) into one single country called Canada. There is no record of the citizens voting for or against that proposal.
 
selin
#20
how funny...
 
Cliffy
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by selinView Post

how funny...

Yup. In international politics, Canada is a joke. We don't even have a legal constitution and our government is operating illegally. How ridiculous is that?
 
MHz
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Do you have a source for that?

With the precedent of the 1992 referendum, many believe that a future package of constitutional amendments could not be passed without popular approval through another referendum. Indeed, both Alberta and British Columbia have legislation that requires the holding of a referendum in those provinces on constitutional amendments. In the case of Alberta, the referendum must be held before a vote is held in the legislature on the resolution to amend the Constitution. The B.C. government has to put any proposed amendment to a referendum even before introducing a motion in the legislature. A number of citizens' groups have emerged since the Meech Lake negotiations to demand that future constitutional renewal not be left to the first ministers alone. They suggest that a constituent assembly (sometimes called a citizens' forum or constitutional convention) be created with representation from various groups in Canadian society. For information on this idea, connect to:

Political Science

I can keep looking if you need more details.
 
MHz
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Yup. In international politics, Canada is a joke. We don't even have a legal constitution and our government is operating illegally. How ridiculous is that?

I hear that topic is already top of the list in places like Haiti.
 
TenPenny
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

With the precedent of the 1992 referendum, many believe that a future package of constitutional amendments could not be passed without popular approval through another referendum. Indeed, both Alberta and British Columbia have legislation that requires the holding of a referendum in those provinces on constitutional amendments. In the case of Alberta, the referendum must be held before a vote is held in the legislature on the resolution to amend the Constitution. The B.C. government has to put any proposed amendment to a referendum even before introducing a motion in the legislature. For details, see Alberta's Constitutional Referendum Act and B.C.'s Constitutional Amendment Approval Act.
A number of citizens' groups have emerged since the Meech Lake negotiations to demand that future constitutional renewal not be left to the first ministers alone. They suggest that a constituent assembly (sometimes called a citizens' forum or constitutional convention) be created with representation from various groups in Canadian society. For information on this idea, connect to:
Political Science
I can keep looking if you need more details.

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
No that's fine, because you've just shown that a change to the constitution does not require a vote by the people; some provinces have Provincial legislation 'requiring' it, , so in reality, it's not a requirement.
 
MHz
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

No that's fine, because you've just shown that a change to the constitution does not require a vote by the people; some provinces have Provincial legislation 'requiring' it, , so in reality, it's not a requirement.

Apparently more is required. It does require a vote by the people, who cares if it only applies to Alberta and BC.

A check into how it was taken away from the other Provinces is your part in this conversation.

Amending the Constitution

See also: Amendments to the Constitution of Canada Section 52(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982 says that constitutional amendments can only be made in accordance with the rules laid out in the Constitution itself. The purpose of this section was to entrench constitutional supremacy and remove the ability of legislators to amend the constitution using simple legislation.
The rules for amending Canada's constitution are quite dense. They are laid out in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982.
There are five different amendment formulas, each applicable to different types of amendments. These five formula are:
  1. The General Formula (the "7/50" procedure) - s. 38. The amendment must be passed by the House of Commons, the Senate, and at least two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population. This covers any amendment procedure not covered more specifically in ss. 41, 43, 44 or 45. The general formula must be used for any of the six situations identified in s. 42.
  2. The Unanimity Procedure - s. 41. The amendment must be passed by the House of Commons, Senate, and all provincial legislatures.
  3. "Some-but-not-all Provinces" (or "bilateral" procedure) - s. 43. The amendment must be passed by the House of Commons, the Senate, and the legislative assemblies of those provinces that are affected by the amendment.
  4. Federal Parliament Alone (or "federal unilateral" procedure) - s. 44. The amendment must only be passed by the House of Commons and the Senate.
  5. Provincial Legislature Alone (or "provincial unilateral" procedure) - s. 45. The amendment must only be passed by the provincal legislature.
Various other sections of Part V lay out such things as compensation for opting out, when and how a province may opt out of a constitutional amendment, and time limits for achieving a constitutional amendment.
Supremacy clause

According to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Constitution of Canada is the "supreme law of Canada", and any law inconsistent with it is of no force or effect. This gives Canadian courts the power to strike down legislation. Though the laws will remain in the books until they are amended, after being struck down they cannot be enforced.
Before this provision, the British North America Act was the supreme law of Canada by virtue of s.4 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, a British Imperial statute declaring that no colonial laws that violated an Imperial statute was valid. Since the British North America Act was an Imperial statute, any Canadian law violating the BNA Act was inoperative. There was no express provision giving the courts the power to decide that Canadian law violated the BNA Act and was therefore inoperative; up until 1982, that Court power was part of Canada's unwritten constitution.
Definition of the Constitution

Section 52(2) of the Constitution Act, 1982 defines the ?Constitution of Canada.? The Constitution of Canada is said to include:
(a) the Canada Act 1982 (which includes the Constitution Act, 1982 in Schedule B), (b) 30 Acts and Orders contained in the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982, and (c) any amendments which may have been made to any of the instruments in the first two categories. Section 52(2), in addition to containing many Imperial Statutes, contains eight Canadian statutes, three of which created provinces, and five of which were amendments to the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Canadian courts have reserved the right to add and entrench principles and conventions into the Constitution unilaterallly. Although a court's ability to recognize human rights not explicitly stated in a constitution is not particularly unusual, the Canadian situation is unique in that this ability extends to procedural issues not related to human rights.
In particular, in New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly), the Supreme Court of Canada said that s. 52(2) was not an exhaustive listing of all that comprised the Constitution. The Court reserved the right to add unwritten principles to the Constitution, thereby entrenching them and granting them constitutional supremacy (in this case, they added parliamentary privilege to the Constitution). The Court did note, however, that the list of written documents was stagnant and could not be modified except for through the amending formulas.


Province of Alberta
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000
Chapter C-25
Current as of January 1, 2002
© Published by Alberta Queen’s Printer
Queen’s Printer Bookstore
Main Floor, Park Plaza
10611 - 98 Avenue
Edmonton, AB T5K 2P7
Phone: 780-427-4952
Fax: 780-452-0668
E-mail: qp@gov.ab.ca
Shop on-line at Alberta Queen's Printer:

CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
Chapter C-25
Table of Contents
1 Holding referendums
2 Referendum to precede constitutional change
3 Question to be asked
4 When referendum binding
5 Time of referendum
6 Application of Election Act
7 Application of Local Authorities Election Act
8 When councils to conduct vote
9 Results of referendum
10 Regulations
11 Appropriation
12 National referendum
HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the
Legislative Assembly of Alberta, enacts as follows:
Holding referendums
1 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may order that a
referendum be held on any question relating to the Constitution of
Canada or relating to or arising out of a possible change to the
Constitution of Canada.
1992 cC-22.25 s1
Referendum to precede constitutional change
2(1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall order the holding
of a referendum before a resolution authorizing an amendment to
the Constitution of Canada is voted on by the Legislative
Assembly.
RSA 2000
Section 3 Chapter C-25
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
(2) The motion for the resolution may be introduced in the
Legislative Assembly before the referendum is held.
1992 cC-22.25 s2
Question to be asked
3 The question or questions to be put to the electors at a
referendum shall be determined by a resolution of the Legislative
Assembly on the motion of a member of the Executive Council.
1992 cC-22.25 s3
When referendum binding
4(1) If a majority of the ballots validly cast at a referendum vote
the same way on a question stated, the result is binding, within the
meaning of subsection (2), on the government that initiated the
referendum.
(2) If the results of a referendum are binding, the government that
initiated the referendum shall, as soon as practicable, take any steps
within the competence of the Government of Alberta that it
considers necessary or advisable to implement the results of the
referendum.
1992 cC-22.25 s4
Time of referendum
5 An order under section 1 or 2 shall specify whether the
referendum is to be held
(a) in conjunction with a general election under the Election
Act,
(b) separately on a date provided in the order, or
(c) in conjunction with the general elections under the Local
Authorities Election Act.
1992 cC-22.25 s5
Application of Election Act
6(1) If a referendum is to be held in conjunction with a general
election under the Election Act or separately on a date provided for
under section 5(b), the Election Act and the regulations under it
apply, with all necessary modifications, to the referendum except
as otherwise provided by the regulations under this Act.
(2) The persons eligible to vote at a referendum to which the
Election Act applies are the persons who would be eligible to vote
RSA 2000
Section 7 Chapter C-25
CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
at an election under the Election Act on the day the referendum is
held.
1992 cC-22.25 s6
Application of Local Authorities Election Act
7(1) If a referendum is to be held in conjunction with the general
elections under the Local Authorities Election Act, the Local
Authorities Election Act and the regulations under it apply, with all
necessary modifications, to the referendum except as otherwise
provided by the regulations under this Act.
(2) The persons eligible to vote at a referendum to which the Local
Authorities Election Act applies are the persons who would be
eligible to vote at an election under the Local Authorities Election
Act on the day the referendum is held.
1992 cC-22.25 s7
When councils to conduct vote
8(1) When a referendum is to be held under the Local Authorities
Election Act, every council shall conduct the referendum of the
electors residing in the municipality, except as otherwise provided
in this section.
(2) The council shall conduct the referendum notwithstanding that
a general election under the Local Authorities Election Act is not
required in that municipality.
(3) If a council has entered into an agreement with one or more
elected authorities in the same area for the conduct of a general
election under the Local Authorities Election Act, the elected
authority that is responsible for the conduct of the general election
under the agreement shall conduct the referendum and has all the
rights, powers and duties of the council to conduct the referendum.
(4) The Minister of Municipal Affairs is responsible for
conducting a referendum of the electors residing in improvement
districts, special areas, Metis settlements, summer villages, Indian
reserves and national parks and for the purposes of the referendum
has all the rights, powers and duties of a council to conduct the
referendum, including the authority to appoint returning officers
and other election officers.
(5) The Minister of Municipal Affairs may enter into an agreement
(a) with any elected authority in the area or in an area
adjacent to an improvement district, special area, Metis
settlement, summer village, new town, Indian reserve or
national park, or

(b) with the advisory council of an improvement district or
the advisory committee of a special area, the settlement
council of a Metis settlement, the board of administrators
of a new town or the council of a summer village
to conduct the referendum on the Minister’s behalf, and the elected
authority, advisory council, advisory committee, settlement
council, board of administrators or council has authority to enter
into such an agreement.
(6) An elected authority, advisory council, advisory committee,
settlement council, board of administrators or council that enters
into an agreement under subsection (5) has all the rights, powers
and duties of the Minister of Municipal Affairs to conduct the
referendum.
(7) In accordance with the regulations, payments must be made to
elected authorities and other bodies that conduct a referendum.
( In this section, “council” and “elected authority” include the
council of the City of Lloydminster.
1992 cC-22.25 s8;1994 cM-26.1 s642(12)
Results of referendum
9(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall announce the results of a
referendum in accordance with the regulations.
(2) The Minister responsible for the administration of this Act
shall report the results of a referendum to the Legislative Assembly
as soon after they are known as practicable.
1992 cC-22.25 s9

Regulations
10 The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) modifying the provisions of the Election Act and the Local
Authorities Election Act and the regulations under those
Acts to make them applicable to the requirements of a
referendum, including adding to and declaring any
provisions of those Acts and regulations to be or not to be
applicable to the referendum;
(b) prescribing the duties and powers of the Chief Electoral
Officer in connection with referendums;
(c) respecting amounts that are payable to elected authorities
and other bodies conducting a referendum under section
8;

CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM ACT
(d) prohibiting or regulating, for the purposes of campaigning
for or against any question put to the electors at a
referendum,
(i) contributions that may be made to political parties,
persons and groups of persons, and
(ii) expenses that may be incurred by political parties,
persons and groups of persons;
(e) generally respecting any other matters and things relating
to the holding and conduct of a referendum that the
Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary to
carry out the intent of this Act.
1992 cC-22.25 s10
Appropriation
11 The cost of conducting a referendum may be paid out of the
General Revenue Fund.
1992 cC-22.25 s11
National referendum
12 This Act does not apply to a particular proposal to amend the
Constitution of Canada if the Legislative Assembly, on the motion
of a member of the Executive Council, approves the substitution of
a referendum on that proposal held under the Referendum Act
(Canada), but
(a) the question on the referendum under the Referendum Act
(Canada) must be acceptable to the Legislative Assembly,
(b) that referendum must be held before the resolution
authorizing the amendment to the Constitution of Canada
is voted on by the Legislative Assembly, and
(c) the result of that referendum, as determined by the
majority of ballots validly cast in Alberta, is binding on
the Government of Alberta, which shall, as soon as
practicable, take whatever steps within its competence
that it considers necessary or advisable to implement that
result.
1992 c36 s2


Alberta Queen's Printer: Legislation PDF
 
Dexter Sinister
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

... income tax is still not legal.

Yeah, I've been hearing that for at least 15 years. The people who think that need to stop all that pointless analysis and blogging and putting up web sites they can all cite in support of each other, and get it before the courts. What it all looks like to me is a group of poorly informed people who've convinced themselves that something they desperately want to be true is in fact true, but don't have the nerve to test the claim.
 
MHz
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

Yeah, I've been hearing that for at least 15 years. The people who think that need to stop all that pointless analysis and blogging and putting up web sites they can all cite in support of each other, and get it before the courts. What it all looks like to me is a group of poorly informed people who've convinced themselves that something they desperately want to be true is in fact true, but don't have the nerve to test the claim.

Wasn't there something called 'for the common good' that was used as the 'workaround'. Income tax should be collected by the Provinces. Who has the money to take on the Fed anyway, they have unlimited funds (taxpayers to boot, lol) and they have unlimited time. (20 years for treaty cases is nothing compared to the delays this sort of case would bring).
If personal income was not taxed there would just be other taxes. Wages are still not 'income' no matter how it is twisted.
 
Dexter Sinister
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by MHzView Post

Income tax should be collected by the Provinces.

Just what we need, double tax returns for everybody and a collection and enforcement bureaucracy in every province. All provinces but Quebec let the CRA collect it on their behalf and send it to them.
Quote:

Who has the money to take on the Fed anyway, they have unlimited funds (taxpayers to boot, lol) and they have unlimited time. (20 years for treaty cases is nothing compared to the delays this sort of case would bring).

If all they're going to do is endlessly recycle complaints and sloppy, ill-informed analyses about the illegality of income tax, and never try to take action on it, what's the point?
 
AnnaG
#29
*shrugs* If we didn't have such a thing as income tax, they'd figure out something else to call it: wage tax, salary tax, etc. but we'd still be taxed. I don't mind paying income tax, I just wish we could find a batch of people that are good at applying it to what Canadians need, and we haven't even come close to doing that. IOW, what they do with a lot of the money collected is an extremely massive waste. And that is the main reason a bare bones gov't is so attractive to me (I'm a minarchist AKA minimal statism).
 
MHz
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaGView Post

*shrugs* If we didn't have such a thing as income tax, they'd figure out something else to call it: wage tax, salary tax, etc. but we'd still be taxed. I don't mind paying income tax, I just wish we could find a batch of people that are good at applying it to what Canadians need, and we haven't even come close to doing that. IOW, what they do with a lot of the money collected is an extremely massive waste. And that is the main reason a bare bones gov't is so attractive to me (I'm a minarchist AKA minimal statism).

All personal income tax collected from Canadians goes straight to the Rothscild bank as part of out interest payments. That it, there is nothing left, that payment is optional, our leaders gladly pay it even tough it makes the people perpetual debtors. We have the right to print our own money.
 

Similar Threads

60
Canada Has Not Learned Yet
by Musicman | Sep 27th, 2005
191
Ten things we learned in 2004 about 9/11
by Stretch | Jan 8th, 2005
13
Things I've learned on TV
by Reverend Blair | Nov 15th, 2004
no new posts