Ban personal income taxes

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Thanks china. I read a lot of stuff like this ten years or so ago.

People really need to clue into the BNA. I used it in the 70s to get rid of agovernment bureaucrat who was threatening to burn down my cabin when I lived (squatted) in the forest. The government agent turned me on to the BNA because in it, squatting is legal; it is how this country was built. I waived that document in that bureaucrat's face and he left. Also, in BC there were no treaties with the indigenous peoples so in fact, the crown is squatting on indigenous ground and have no right to issue fee simple title to any land or allow the exploitation of any resources. One of the stipulations for entry into confederation was that the land claims issue with indigenous people be settled. The government decided that just claiming the land without treaty or compensation was the way to deal with it, but it has come back to bite them on the ass. It is BC and its government that is illegal and they have no right to allow logging, mining, commercial fishing or hydro electric exploitation of our water ways.

The treaty process being implemented today to rectify the situation is a complete fraud and is as illegal as income tax.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
"Own nothing, say nothing, see nothing, pay nothing."

Nothing is certain but death and taxes." But wait. A hero emerges from the wings. Wrapping himself in the Union Jack, not-so-mild-mannered Gerald Hart becomes "Taxfreeman". Faster than a speeding bureaucrat, more powerful than a bailiff's seizure order, able to leap oppressive tax collectors in a single bound, Gerald Hart fights for truth, justice and the free man's way. Says Hart, "I have, sir, the distinction of being a person who has not filed or paid a cent to these greedy grasping vermin in over 40 years."
Sixty-nine year old Hart is a Winnipeg businessman, the founder of Hart Electronics Limited, Avtek Systems Engineering Limited and Presto Manufacturing Company Limited. Like Hart, his companies neither pay nor collect taxes. Taxes, he says are illegal and immoral. "I don't evade tax. I simply refuse to pay it. There's a difference."
To battle municipal, provincial and federal tax collectors successfully, Hart has employed a shrewd understanding of the law and an uncompromising belief in the rightness of his actions.
He has been in and out of court so many times he has lost count. And except for a few minor setbacks, he has won every battle.
In 1959 he was charged with two counts. A charge of failing to file a Tax Deduction Information Return for employees was defeated by Hart's argument that he had no employees. All work for his companies was done on a piecework basis by self-employed agents.
At the same time, he pleaded "not guilty" to a charge of unlawfully refusing to file an income tax return. Hart told the court that he was not a bookkeeper, had no experience and couldn't afford to hire an accountant. The case was deferred to teach him accounting at government expense. He never heard from them again on that charge.
Indeed his failure to keep even the most elementary bookkeeping system has been largely responsible for his success. Hart himself doesn't know how much he earns but it has been estimated that he has successfully avoided tens of thousands of dollars in income tax over the years.
Hart's particular accounting system has had other side effects. He is fond of telling the story about a visit paid by two tax assessors to his store a number of years ago. The only documents available were some invoices relating to work in progress located in a box in the unlit attic. When the intrepid government snoops went to investigate, their fingers set off large rat traps. Barbed wire shred their clothing. "They both left in high dudgeon with hands badly swollen," relates Hart. "The idiots never came back."
In 1962 came the court case that made Gerry Hart a legend. He was charged with failing to file an income tax return for Avtek Systems. He had, in fact, filed one. It contained no financial information, just a running commentary. The top of page three specified how the schedules should be attached: "indexed in the top right corner with the number as indicated under the Attachment Number column." Wrote in Hart, "Quite so, but all the same, up your posterior."
To the question "has the corporation a permanent establishment in more than one jurisdiction?" Hart replied, "Only the backhouse."
"Is this the first return of a new corporation?" demanded the form. "Who knows or cares," responded Hart.
The return was ruled valid in magistrate's court and upheld in the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Lawyers and agents for the Department of National Revenue left the court "fuming and frothing at the mouth in unrighteous anger on sighting myself with thumb at nose and extended pointing at them," recalls Hart.
The Department threatened to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada but eventually backed down. Hart has been filing similar commentaries since then.
When Manitoba introduced a Sales Tax in July 1967, Gerry Hart put a huge sign in his window saying "Positively NO Sales Tax Collected Here". He advised customers who wanted to pay the tax to go to the tax office.
"I am not a tax collector," says Hart. "But you must!" insisted the Crown and Gerry Hart was hauled into court several times for his refusal to accept the task. The cases were usually dismissed for insufficient evidence..
Hart was finally convicted, however, on a sales tax charge in 1970 and fined $1,500. He opted to go to jail for ten days at government expense. He was let out in five days for good behaviour. "I told the court I was not going to be press-ganged into this job," he says. "I got ten days for calling the prosecutor the Crown prostitute. It was worth it."
In 1969 the City of Winnipeg tried to seize goods from Hart's store to satisfy a claim of $293 for an unpaid business tax. However, mortgaged property cannot be seized in Manitoba and it turned out that all of Hart's property was mortgaged. This practice is part of Hart's philosophy for co-existence with the government: "Own nothing, say nothing, see nothing, pay nothing."
When compulsory hospital insurance was introduced in the 1950's, Hart declined to pay the $4 per month premiums. He called it "nothing but another form of tax, disguised in order to dupe the apathetic public." However, it wasn't until 1962 that he was finally charged with failing to register and failing to pay.
In a stirring speech, Hart told the court, "The Hospital Services Act is socialistic and dictatorial. It allows the individual no choice between its highhanded plan and insurance of the same type available democratically through many insurance firms who have years of experience in the field."
"I did not personally request this service. I was not permitted to vote upon its acceptance or otherwise, and in fact I have coverage which is quite satisfactory to myself. Consequently, the provincial plan is quite unnecessary. As a supposed free citizen of what is thought to be a democracy, I resent this encroachment on my personal freedom of choice. I protest this being rammed down my throat in spite of my feelings, conscience and ability to think as an individual."
Hart was convicted and sentenced to three months. He was out in three days when friends paid the back premiums for him. But his short stint in jail did not persuade him to change his ways. He continued to refuse to pay hospital premiums. Six years later he was again convicted and this time sentenced to two months.
Despite these occasional setbacks, Hart continues to prosper in the tax-free enclave he has built for himself in Manitoba. But the denizens of the bureaucratic jungle also continue to encroach on citizens' liberties.
Just last year a new building was opened by the Department of National Revenue in Winnipeg. The director must have been seized by a fit of masochism for he sent an invitation to attend the grand opening to Gerald Hart.
Hart spoke for a great many oppressed taxpayers when he wrote back to the Directory, Tax Thievery Brigands, Department of Infernal Revenue.
"Sir," he wrote, "returned herewith your slimey invite to attend the opening of your den of thieves, hypocrites, and bloodsuckers." He signed it, "with utmost disgust, Gerald A. Hart."
In an age of conformity, when far too many acquiesce slavishly to the dictates of the bureaucratic state, Gerald Hart stands out as a non-conformist par excellence. He calls himself Gerald Hart, Taxfreeman, and not even kryptonite can stop him.
 
Last edited:

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
The use of personal income tax to gather revenue for a government to pay for public programes needs to go the way of the Dotto Bird.

Dodo Bird, not Dotto.... nor Blotto.

right now the average Canadian is paying about 46 % of his or her income in taxes of some sort. the more you work the more you are taxed so how can you get ahead. A push for the ban of taxes on your income must be instituted. how do we pay for all our social programs you ask. We pay with an all level tax replace all provincial taxes and government taxes with an all level tax. a tax of about 18% on all items bought by company's and personal items. The money you earn is not taxed until you spend it User fees on health care and basic government services would be increased. All money you make you can save or spend it as you will. All Ltd companys would go from 28 % tax to a 10 % income tax. The whole country would benefit from such a tax structure. Its time Canadians stood up for them selves.
Now, if it was really that simple, don't you think someone else would have brought this up years ago and changed the whole process?

The problem is that making some 18% tax to toss on everything, thus equal for all, isn't equal at all when you consider the single parents working, low income, people doing two part time jobs to make ends meet, students, etc. ..... will suffer more of an impact in increased prices on the products they buy, then the big wiz in a suit who got to keep all their millions of dollars with nothing being touched.

As it stands now, anybody making less then a certain amount of money a year do not have any taxes taken off of their yearly income..... BECAUSE THEY'RE PISS-ASS POOR!

And that is also why the more rich you are, the more taxes you have taken off....... call it a redistribution of wealth if you want, but for the longest time, the government only taxes people what they should be able to afford.

What you're proposing is a much larger divide between the rich and the poor, because that's exactly what would happen with your wonderful idea.

And since the majority of Canadians are not rich and since the majority of Canadians would be negativity affected by your idea more then they'd benefit, chances are, that's why your idea isn't being used already.

Thanks for playing though.

Whose cherry-picking? One consumption tax and that's it.

Bullshyt. Just try and stop buying food or clothing. Think it through.

And yet, if people took the time and effort to train themselves, they could not only grow and cook their own food, but also make their own clothes, thus avoiding a crap load of those taxes......kind of like how the government couldn't figure out how to properly tax and regulate marijuana, minorities were growing it and selling it themselves, it was simple and easy to reproduce...... so since they couldn't get control over it, they labeled it evil and banned it..... citing that it was just as bad as Heroin, Cocaine and would turn people into insane sex crazed murderers.

And yet people still grow, sell and use it and nothing really changed except the government labeling these people as horrible criminal scum out to ruin society.

Now some in here propose that they get rid of property taxes and income taxes..... and make one large tax on everything you buy.

Guess what happens in that environment?

Society begins to look at what they can do for themselves to save even more of their money, they begin to grow and reproduce their own foods and products, you have someone selling decently designed and made clothes at the local flea market like an old lady and her knitted mittens..... they make even more money, then you head over to the next person who has all their fresh veggies and fruits to buy..... they're not a business, they're just your local Joe at your local flea market selling some of his stuff to other local fellows.

Meanwhile the government is freaking out, wondering where it's going to get the money it requires to fix our roads, schools and keep our hospitals running, so it either has to bring back the old way of taxing....... or they end up banning flea markets and un-registered trades and transactions between private citizens and turn your old lady selling her knitted mittens into a harden criminal out to destroy society.

Game Over.

Just look at the stink some local governments are making over people wanting to raise their own chickens and eggs.... citing crap like them attracting rodents (so do bird feeders), they're noisy (so are people's car alarms that go off every damn day or the neighbors' dog), they basically try to make these things out to be the worst scourge on society using baseless arguments and tactics because these people are starting a trend.

A trend that isn't much of an impact on company's profits and the government's taxes just yet...... but if about 50% of the population started doing this and going back to our old ways of being more independent...... what do you suppose would happen to those profits for the company selling farmed eggs and chickens, or the tax money the government takes for granted?

They'll start spreading the fear mongering that it's immigrants coming from 3rd world countries with their 3rd world ideas, quickly turning our country into a 3rd world..... citing how the roads are crap, medical treatment has sunken to a new low, companies are going out of business and people are losing jobs..... all because some people are going back to living in huts, burning their own wood stoves, growing their own food and practically living off the grid, thus no taxes.

They'll argue that without these taxes, we can not have a society..... so therefore anybody who is found doing any of the above acts and thus, not contributing to society via taxes, are criminals.

They don't want to do this and they wish these people would see reason..... but they have no choice because they have society's best interests at play and it's their duty to protect use simple folk from our simple selves.

Just like it's their duty to protect us simple folk from buying native/contraband cigarettes, because you don't know what's in them (most of us don't know what's in regular cigarettes either, besides tobacco), that 150% tax money per pack of smokes isn't going to roads and education and your money is going to criminals!

Sound familiar?
 
Last edited:

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Whose cherry-picking? One consumption tax and that's it.

Bullshyt. Just try and stop buying food or clothing. Think it through.

Hey, the average Canadian today buys about five to ten times the amount of stuff that is actually necessary- how much junk do we eat? How many people use a thread and needle? How old is the average vehicle on the road? Probably about 4 years. Take a look at the land fills.

You have it figured out Praxius. :smile:
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Dexter Sinister



Canada's Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional ...

by Murray Gauvreau

Mr. Gauvreau is wrong too, his claims are based on an incorrect understanding of Section 92(2) of the Act. Section 91(3) grants the Parliament of Canada the legislative authority for "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." That's it, the whole clause, there are no restrictions, and note the word "any." Section 92 lists areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and 92(2) says "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." He takes it as if it consisted of only the first five words and ignores how the prepositional clauses that follow qualify it, nor does he grasp that it doesn't restrict the federal parliament from raising money by direct taxation nationally for its own purposes. This little income tax revolt has been bubbling away for decades and going nowhere, if these people are so sure they're right they should take it to the courts. And in the meantime try not paying your income taxes and see what happens to you.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Mr. Gauvreau is wrong too, his claims are based on an incorrect understanding of Section 92(2) of the Act. Section 91(3) grants the Parliament of Canada the legislative authority for "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." That's it, the whole clause, there are no restrictions, and note the word "any." Section 92 lists areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction and 92(2) says "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes." He takes it as if it consisted of only the first five words and ignores how the prepositional clauses that follow qualify it, nor does he grasp that it doesn't restrict the federal parliament from raising money by direct taxation nationally for its own purposes. This little income tax revolt has been bubbling away for decades and going nowhere, if these people are so sure they're right they should take it to the courts. And in the meantime try not paying your income taxes and see what happens to you.

Yes, if you read the Act, it's fairly straightforward.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,152
14,847
113
Low Earth Orbit
The Act doesn't say that one of the means is creating non-fiat currency through Bank of Canada instead of that money being created and loaned to Canada by a private institution.

Our debt was bought by private interests years ago.

There is nothing stopping the Govt from buying it back through legitimate funds raised through Bank of Canada.

I'd rather own our debt than HSBC, RBC, RBS, ING, etc etc etc.

Real freedom is still possible. You just have to want it bad enough.

It seems people either don't want it or have no idea they lost it.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
petros
Real freedom is still possible. You just have to want it bad enough.
I do want freedom -I want Canada to be the best it can be-it has the potential -....let's plan ...ha!
It seems people either don't want it or have no idea they lost it.

Yes , they need a correct attitude without which nothing can be achieved .
 
Last edited:

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
Dexter Sinister ,
Mr. Gauvreau is wrong too, his claims are based on an incorrect understanding of Section 92(2) of the Act. Section 91(3) grants the Parliament of Canada the legislative authority for "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation." That's it, the whole clause, there are no restrictions, and note the word "any.
Mr. Hart for many years opted to take an aggressive and active position against oppressive government, and he has not paid income tax in nearly 50 years. During that time, he has been imposed upon, charged, harassed, his privacy invaded, and his person subjected to illegal search. But he has never given an inch. He has been to the Manitoba Court of Appeal 22 times, but has never lost.
The two documents - the Supreme Court ruling and the B.N.A. Act - have been the basis of his battle, and the only two cocuments he has needed. He has never had the benefit of legal counsel, and has chosen to appear in court by himself. His only evidence has been those two documents. Charges against him have been thrown out of court 22 times. The last time, some twelve or so years ago, Revenue Canada was told that if it ever brought Gerry Hart back into court, that Revenue Canada itself would be charged with contempt of court.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...well,the Canadian government was threatened with contempt of court ; someone's interpretation of the document must be correct Dexter .
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
56
Oshawa
Sounds like a plan that sticks it to the poor since they spend 100% of any income they get.

Also I have serious doubts that an 18% sales tax would generate enough income to pay for services.

I think a flat tax with a minimum excemption makes more sense although I'm not sold on that either.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
The two documents - the Supreme Court ruling and the B.N.A. Act - have been the basis of his battle, ...
You've provided an incorrect citation of that 1950 Supreme Court case, so it took me a while to find it. It's the Attorney General of Canada v. the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Lord Nelson Hotel was an intervenor, not one of the principals. The case has no bearing on income tax, it's about whether one level of government can delegate any of its powers to the other, and the Supreme Court said no. No court in Canada at any level has ever agreed that the federal government cannot levy direct taxes. See here, for instance: Media room - Debunking tax myths There have also been several direct challenges to the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of income taxes, and the court has found in favour of the federal government every time. I don't know what's going on with this Mr. Hart, and I'm not really inclined to try to find out, but it's clear that the situation is not as simple as your citations claim it is. He certainly has not managed to prove to a court that income taxes are illegal, but only that whatever chicanery he's up to is.

You might find this interesting too: Are Income Taxes Illegal? | Canadian Taxpayers Federation
 
Last edited:

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
67
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
As is usual for me, I cannot speak for Canada but you can bet we will always have an income tax in the States as this is what finances our incessant foreign wars and generates huge profits for the elites.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,342
113
Vancouver Island
Taxation is not the problem. The real problem is the inability of governments at all levels to control their urge to spend your money to buy your vote and the inability to eliminate waste. If both these items were cured taxes would drop on their own even with better services.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
120,152
14,847
113
Low Earth Orbit
Aren't they already setting up consumption taxes along side our current tax structure?

When those documents were written taxes were used to build things. What have we built worth noting lately?
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Aren't they already setting up consumption taxes along side our current tax structure?
There's no "already" about it, it's been going on for a long time. PST and GST are consumption taxes, and because lower income people spend a greater proportion of their income on consumption and save less than higher income people, consumption taxes tend to be pretty regressive. It's possible in theory to set up a progressive consumption tax, but it's extraordinarily complex. Economic theory doesn't often seem to have much to do with reality. I've seen analyses that suggest that if a consumption tax was to replace all other forms of taxation, to generate the same level of revenue the rate would have to be about 60%. I shudder to think how taxpayers would react to finding, after basing all their finance and investment and retirement decisions on a varied tax regime like we currently have, with taxes on income and property and investments and whatnot, that suddenly everything they have to buy costs 60% more. How could we possibly phase in something like that? To be fair, we'd have to apply different levels of consumption taxes to people of different ages and incomes until everybody who'd based their decisions on the old regime had died, an impossibly complex administrative task. It'll never happen, and it's a dumb idea.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
At one time I would have said Value Added Taxes were an abomination, that graduated income tax was the way to go........

But it seems the rich bend and twist and slither their way out of paying income taxes anyway........

I am disillusioned with their deductions.....back in the day....I discovered the bullet-resistant vest I wore at work to keep me alive was not a deductable item.....but the sailboat millionaire business guys used to entertain guests on was deductable.......


I know what you mean. When I was teaching I spent several hundred dollars a year on supplies that went into the classroom. That was not unusual as it was estimated about 20 years ago that the average teacher spent about $500 a year on supplies. I have no idea what it is now, but I suspect it has not gone down much. Of course, none of this expenditure is deductible.

A flat tax as suggest in the thread might work, but I suspect it would have to be much higher than the suggested level of 18%; either that or there would have to be a good deal more in the way of user fees.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
You've provided an incorrect citation of that 1950 Supreme Court case, so it took me a while to find it. It's the Attorney General of Canada v. the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Lord Nelson Hotel was an intervenor, not one of the principals. The case has no bearing on income tax, it's about whether one level of government can delegate any of its powers to the other, and the Supreme Court said no. No court in Canada at any level has ever agreed that the federal government cannot levy direct taxes. See here, for instance: Media room - Debunking tax myths There have also been several direct challenges to the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of income taxes, and the court has found in favour of the federal government every time. I don't know what's going on with this Mr. Hart, and I'm not really inclined to try to find out, but it's clear that the situation is not as simple as your citations claim it is. He certainly has not managed to prove to a court that income taxes are illegal, but only that whatever chicanery he's up to is.

You might find this interesting too: Are Income Taxes Illegal? | Canadian Taxpayers Federation


]I'd never make a good lawyer .