Role of government

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Re: china’s Ridiculous Comments

china, your arguments are ridiculous! Federal income tax is certainly not unconstitutional; the Constitution Act, 1867 very clearly grants to the Parliament of Canada any and all powers that are not expressly granted to the provincial legislatures. The Constitution Act, 1867 also grants to the federal Parliament the right to legislate within provincial jurisdiction if it is done so for the national interest. Perhaps you should read up on your constitutional documents, you seem to be a bit out of practice.

Just to be clear, it is Class 3 of s. 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that grants to Parliament the right to legislate for a federal income tax: “91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for [...] 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.”
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
United States:
AMENDMENT XVI Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Bar Sinister

Are you saying that Canadian Constitution has bin "shot down", changed ,rewritten or something ?
Do you know what the Canadian Constitution is ? Are you a Canadian and if so, how come you're so f .... ignorant of the fathers of this great country ?...are you a gutless liberal or something ?
I only pay what I believe that I am obliged to pay .I pay for what I purchase and I pay for sevices I receive from others .I pay my workers ,I reward them very handsomely. I also give allot to local charities ; wherever I might be .But one think I won,t do is to support some f....n political idiots whose only concern is to hold on to their gov. job.I think that 's what the great Canadian Constitution is tying to prevent.

PSI don't "try"things -I do it!

It is interesting to not that you appear incapable of replying to a post without resorting to verbal abuse. I suppose that somehow you think name-calling strengthens your arguments.

To reply to the only point you tried to make - yes, I am familiar with the Canadian constitution. Apparently your are not, otherwise you would know that it has nothing to with Canada's founding fathers. The Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedom were not created until 1982. I expect you may have been referring to the British North America Act which states in part that the federal government of Canada under Section 91 has the power to institute 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation.
It seems to me that income tax would be included in this category. However, as a free citizen of Canada I expect you have the right to challenge this section of the act in the courts any time you wish.

BTW I don't get involved in flaming matches. Some people seem to like them, but to me they are a waste of time. I participate in forums to put forth my views and read those of others provided they are intelligently and politely stated.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
Bar Sinister ,First excuse me from "resorting to verbal abuse" ;sensitive aren't we ?
The Constitution Act and the Charter of rights and Freedom was written in 1982 by PET and the then liberal party- for the liberal party ; it has nothing to do with freedom .The Citizens of Canada did not have any input in forming the Acts .It is a product of ( written by )the then liberal government to give them more ways to control the citizens of Canada.

Yes ,I was referring to the BNA act as a Canadian Constitution ,a mistake?
The BNA act has never bin amended as far as the taxing of the people is concern .
 
Last edited:

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
Bar Sinister ,

....yes, I am familiar with the Canadian constitution. Apparently your are not, otherwise you would know that it has nothing to with Canada's founding fathers. The Constitution Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedom were not created until 1982​


Our Constitution
The British North America Act of 1867 is an act of British Parliament and has never been "accepted" as our Constitution by the Canadian people through referendum. Black's Law dictionary describes "constitution" as being "a charter of government deriving its sole authority from the governed." The BNA Act of 1867 is not a constitution under this definition, it is simply an Act of the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain allowing for the creation of a federal union of the provinces to oversee matters of common interest such as a military and a postal service. The BNA Act of 1867 has been "conveniently adopted" by our "leaders" of the day as our constitution.
A constitution is supposed to do two things, protect the rights and freedoms of individuals and, more importantly, limit the powers of government .

_____________________________________________________________

 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
The BNA Act has been incorporated into Canada's Constitution and is now known as the Canada or Constitution Act. As for Canadains having no say in the charter that is not accurate. Prior to the Charter Rights and Freedoms being passed there was ample time for citizens to provide input into the Charter. This is one of the reasons why a clause giving women equal rights was inserted. Originally Trudeau thought that this was not necessary, but strong input from women's groups convinced him otherwise. Certainly there was considerably more input into the Charter than there was into the constitutions of most other nations. As for a referendum I can think of few nations that have held a referendum to ratify their constitutions, nor should it be necessary so long as adequate time is allowed for citizen input. Given the length of time it took to implement the charter there was more than adequate time for this to occur.

I also note that you do not refute the fact that Section 91 of the BNA Act gives the federal government the right to raise revenue in any way it wishes, which was the point of my earlier post.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
china, you may want to stop to listen to yourself.

The Constitution Act, 1867 isn’t a valid part of the Canadian constitution?

S. 91(3) of that document doesn’t apply to Canadians because you think it’s old?

Do you need a glass of water or something?
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
The Constitution Act, 1867 isn’t a valid part of the Canadian constitution?
This is a question ,not a statement .
S. 91(3) of that document doesn’t apply to Canadians because you think it’s old?
This is your statement and obviously it is not based on what I might be thinking.It looks like you need more than just a glass of water.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
It’s what you seem to be saying, china.

You’re saying that the Canadian people have never ‘ratified’ the Constitution Act, 1867 (which is completely unnecessary) and that, therefore, its provisions that enable the federal legislature to levy income taxes are unconstitutional; you’re saying that the Constitution Act, 1867 should be considered to have no force or effect on Canadians or the federal government.

Would you care to backtrack some more?
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
Direct taxation belongs to provinces
There are two specific sections of the B.N.A. Act that deal with the delegation of authority between the Federal and Provincial Governments. Sections 91 and 92 deal with authority for various types of taxation, who has authority to levy which taxes, and various other areas of jurisdiction.
The Act is very specific in its direction. The right to tax income, known as "direct" tax, was delegated to the provinces; and it was clearly indicated that any monies so raised must be raised provincially, and used for provincial purposes. The Federal Government was denied the right to levy income tax.
But the Supreme Court of Canada goes further. It states that no level or government is allowed to transfer its authority to another level of government, and if transfer were attempted by one level, it could not legally be accepted by another.
On October 3, 1950, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down a decision in the case involving the Lord Nelson Hotel of Halifax, Nova Scotia, against the Attorneys-General of Nova Scotia and Canada. The case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act. In a seven-judge unanimous decision, the highest court in our land ruled that power transfers cannot legally take place. The Federal Government was given until 1962 to remove itself from all such power-transfer agreements, including the Income tax business, and scrap the Income Tax Act...
Clearly, the Federal Government has no constitutional right to engage in the Income Tax business, or any other type of direct taxation, whether on behalf of itself or on behalf of the provinces. Therefore, the Income Tax Act is, in itself, unconstitutional, and need not to be obeyed...

The Federal Government can create its own currency It is interesting to note that the same sections of the B.N.A. Act that disallow the Federal Government the right to collect income tax, did however provide for a means whereby the Federal Government could raise capital. Sectons 91 (14, 15,16, 28, 29, and 20) give the Federal Government the authority, and the responsibility, for the control and issue of our currency, based upon the resources and wealth of the nation. They were given an unlimited supply of debt-free money with which to operate the contry. All they had to do was print it. And they did just that for the first 46 years of our country
.................(and then the liberals came and with their paradox brains fu...d it up again) .
 
Last edited:

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and-society-articles/
TAX INCOME SCAM SKIMS WORKERS’ WEALTH TO BENEFIT BIG BOYS

Posted: Dec 04, 2009

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/...ource.com.au/millionaire_phenomena/?investing


Copy to clipboard




As Canadian or U.S. citizens, we believe the law obliges us to pay. Yet in both countries this is just not true. In July 1992, “The Canadian Intelligence Service” published an article by Murray Gauvreau clearly arguing the unconstitutionality and legality of federal taxation. (Read the article at Thirst for Justice — Canada's Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional.)
Gauvreau strongly states that, “The right to tax income, known as ‘direct’ tax, was delegated to the provinces.” According to Gauvreau it is clearly states that only the Canadian provinces can levy [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]income[/COLOR][/COLOR] taxes, not the federal government.
In the U.S., the tax is unconstitutional in most cases as well. Furthermore, a number of former revenue agents have turned whistleblower, denouncing the lack of any obligatory [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]personal [COLOR=#009900 ! important]income [/COLOR][COLOR=#009900 ! important]tax[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] laws on the books.
Joseph R. Banister is one of several United States tax officials who have publicly exposed the illegality of this income tax scam to rip off working people. Banister’s blog is found at Joseph R. "Joe" Banister.
Of course you may not believe me when I say to you as U.S. taxpayers that your [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]money[/COLOR][/COLOR] isn’t even paying for government service. It is only going to the Federal Reserve Banks (FED) to pay [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]debt[/COLOR][/COLOR] instead of providing services.
If you don’t believe me maybe you’ll believe the conclusions of the Grace Commission report issued in 1984 under President Ronald Reagan.
The Commission found that 100% of collected taxes collected go strictly to pay interests on debt. According to the Commission’s chair, “… all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."
“Well wait a minute,” you might ask, “isn’t that debt created from funding important services to the people?” What you will find is that the government takes its tax income from you so it can pay this debt back to banksters. They have hi-jacked our money for mountainous profits.
The U.S.A’s founding fathers wisely fought to stop currency control by private profiteers. This was later opposed by Andrew Jackson, who shut down the second central bank in the country’s history. Many believe Abraham Lincoln was killed for his attempt to put the brakes on these big boys as well.
Decades after the assassination of the 16th president, in the wee hours of a December night in 1913, the U.S. Congress kowtowed to industrialist interests. With the support of then-President Woodrow Wilson, they handed the economic keys of the kingdom to a cartel of kingpins. U.S. congressman Louis B McFadden of Pennsylvania was one of the few brave congressmen to decry the deceitful swindle.
McFadden explained, in 1934, the Federal Reserve Banks, “…are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money [COLOR=#009900 ! important][COLOR=#009900 ! important]lender[/COLOR][/COLOR] {sic}.”
The FED fraud is startlingly simple. Privately owned banks print dollars on paper. This money is not based on gold, silver or any thing of real value. It is only a mutual agreement that this paper has the value of the numbers printed on it. It takes just pennies to print this paper. It is then sold, at face value with interest to the United States Government by these big banksters.
In the United States, the federal income tax scam is a cornerstone of a trickle up economic apparatus aimed at siphoning your money into the pockets of the rich. You are being forced to feed the FED, despite the fact that there is no law to oblige you. Isn’t it time to halt the hoax?

Retrieved from "TAX INCOME SCAM SKIMS WORKERS’ WEALTH TO BENEFIT BIG BOYS"
(ArticlesBase SC #1542862)
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
:canada:Windsor Optometrist Jack Klundert, who argued that the federal government had no constitutional right to go after him, refused to pay nearly $348,231 in income taxes from 1993 to 1997 while earning $1,474,389.

He told the jury in his last trial that he wrote zero income on his tax forms because disclosing his earnings to the government would be like "sitting down with thieves" and telling them where his valuables are kept.:canada:

[[[[ In the latest Ontario Court of Appeal ruling dated Nov. 14, it...
Privacy Type:Open: All content is public
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
A third trial has been ordered for a Windsor optometrist who was twice been found not guilty of income tax evasion.

Jack Klundert was acquitted on March 14, 2002, but the Crown appealed and a second trial was ordered after the Court of Appeal found fault with Superior Court of Justice Steve Rogin’s instructions to the jury.

He was acquitted again by a jury on June 26, 2006, and the Crown again appealed saying Superior Court Justice Joseph Quinn erred in his instructions to the jury.

Klundert, who argued that the federal government had no constitutional right to go after him, refused to pay nearly $348,231 in income taxes from 1993 to 1997 while earning $1,474,389.
He told the jury in his last trial that he wrote zero income on his tax forms because disclosing his earnings to the government would be like “sitting down with thieves” and telling them where his valuables are kept.

In the latest Ontario Court of Appeal ruling dated Nov. 14, it was noted that Klundert “formed the opinion that the federal government did not have the legislative power to impose or collect income tax.”

He argued this at both trials, testifying that he was neither a “person” nor a “taxpayer” as defined in the Income Tax Act.

“The respondent’s explanation of his understanding of the Act and why it does not apply to him is convoluted to the point of being incomprehensible,” the ruling states.

Klundert testified at both trials that he was a tax protester. The judge at his second trial told the jury that it was the defence’s position that “they should acquit unless they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his stated intention to solely protest was not his honest intent.”

The court of appeal found that the judge erred in law in stating that position to the jury. The ruling said the trial judge “should have instructed the jury that the only issue with which they should concern themselves was whether the respondent was guilty or not guilty of tax evasion.”

Klundert did not respond Monday to a message seeking comment. But his British Columbia lawyer, Douglas Christie, said he is “seeking instruction” on whether to seek leave to appeal the Ontario court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

He has 60 days to file an application to the court.

Christie said he didn’t agree with the appeal court ruling ordering a third trial.

“I don’t think it was justified, but we are prepared to defend the action again,” Christie said.

“There was clearly no criminal intent in Mr. Klundert. That’ll be the position we’ve taken in the last 10 years.”

A spokesman for Revenue Canada did not return a call seeking comment. Christie said at this point he does not know when a trial would take place.© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.
 

china

Time Out
Jul 30, 2006
5,247
37
48
74
Ottawa ,Canada
The secret to tax-free living

How to leverage the dividend tax break

Globe Investor Magazine, Nov. 21, 2007

THAT OLD SAW ABOUT death and taxes being inevitable is only half true: If you live in Canada, you can earn a tidy five-figure income without paying any tax. And you won't have to open an offshore bank account or work a single job under the table, because it's perfectly legal in the eyes of the Canada Revenue Agency.

How is this possible? Dividends.

Though the CRA is greedy when taxing employment and interest income, it's uncharacteristically generous when it comes to dividends of publicly-traded Canadian corporations. By taking advantage of the dividend tax credit, an investor with a sizable nest egg can live off the dividend income without sending a penny to Ottawa. Here's how.

Suppose you've worked hard, saved diligently and have a million dollars. You decide to invest the money in a portfolio of dividend-paying Canadian stocks that yields 4.5%. Let's further assume the $45,000 in dividends that rolls in every year is your sole source of income. Now, let's examine what happens to those dividends at tax time. The first thing the CRA does is apply a "gross up" to the dividends. Specifically, it multiplies the $45,000 by 1.45, for a total of $65,250. This is your taxable income. So far, things look pretty bad, right? The CRA is making it appear you earned more money than you actually did.

Including the basic personal exemption, your federal tax owing would be about $10,550. But-here's the key-because you're earning dividend income, you qualify for the generous dividend tax credit, which equals the grossed-up amount multiplied by 18.97%, or $12,375. Now for the best part: Subtract $12,375 from $10,550 and what do you get? That's right, a negative number! Translation: You don't owe any tax to the CRA. And because provinces offer their own dividend tax credits, depending on where you live you might not have to pay any provincial tax either.

In Ontario, for example, it's possible for an individual to earn up to $48,000 in dividends without forking over any federal or provincial tax, apart from a $600 Ontario health premium. In British Columbia dividend tax credits, an investor can earn up to $66,000 essentially tax-free, according to Michael Smith, an analyst with National Bank Financial. And the tax-free thresholds are set to rise over the next few years as provinces boost their dividend tax credits.

Though the tax-free dividend strategy is powerful, few people know about it, Smith says. "I've shown it to at least a dozen people in the financial industry-portfolio managers, investment bankers, analysts. Basically, they all say, 'Wow!'"

It's especially appropriate for retirees with significant savings and no other sources of income.
Now, let's look at what would happen if, instead of earning dividend income, you invested the $1 million in a bond or guaranteed investment certificate that yields 4.5%. Because interest is taxed at full marginal rates, if you live in Ontario you'd end up paying $9,050 in tax on $45,000 of income.

From a tax perspective, dividends are the clear winner. But dividends are at--tractive for another reason: Many companies-including banks, insurers, pipelines and utilities-raise their payouts once a year or more. Manulife Financial, for example, has hiked its dividend at an annual rate of about 25% over the past five years.

A bond or GIC, on the other hand, pays a fixed amount of interest. If you can stomach some volatility in the stock market and have a long-term investing horizon, dividends are the better choice, in my books.

That's why, for my own portfolio, I buy nothing but dividend stocks with rising payouts.
 

gopher

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 26, 2005
21,513
66
48
Minnesota: Gopher State
''Should read lifetime welfare recipients won't want to lose their handouts from the politicians. ''


It does - that is, for corporate welfare bums.
 

sejenny

New Member
Jan 8, 2011
3
0
1
You sir are a obviously a wide eyed innocent young right wing utopian. Of course what you propose is the idealized mechanism of good governance which fails totally to appreciate the deviant nature of the upper classes which has always proved to be undoing of all such systems. What deviant would institute their own destruction. Always they infiltrate and subvert untill we have what we have today well meaning intelligent people suggesting just what you have suggested and always their finger points at government as if it were the prime mover of our society. It is not possible to rely on law and regulation that's the first to be infiltrated and subverted. That's what they say anyway.


Completely agree, privatizzation equals corruption,,,, there somebody said it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Government should be like a referee in a game; seen, but not involved unless there is an infraction of the rules; definitely not a player. It should look after currency, armed forces and transportation and that's about it. For the rest of the services we need it should set the regulations and guidelines but should not be involved as a provider.

I like the idea in principle, but the problem is that the left and the right are both for big government. Here's how things likely often work in Parliament:

Joe Dipper, MP: We need to cut back on spending on the military and law enforcement for minor drugs like marijuana. We should reduce immigration bureaucracy, Official Bilingualism, etc.

John Con, MP: I totally disagree. If anything, we need to increase military and police spending and more immigration and border personnel, etc. but cut back on education, healthcare and other such funding.

Joe Dipper: I totally disagree. If you present a Bill to cut those things, I'll vote against it.

John Con: Fair enough. And if you present a bill to reduce military spending, I'll vote against that too.

Joe Dipper: OK, then let's a gree to disagree. You don't cut our pet projects, and we won't cut yours.

John Con: Agreed.

Until the right and the left can join together to propose cuts across the board with no sacred cows for either camp, the above will remain the norm.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I believe government must be a ref, in terms of ensuring competing forces are kept in check and
balance. I do believe that sometimes governments must take an active role to ensure that all of
the citizens have a measure of equal status. Medicine is a right up to a point but at what point do
we say part of the medical condition you have stemmed from the actions that caused the illness?
In addition we hear people whining about taxes and people shouldn't have to pay for this and that.
First I believe we don't spend the tax money collected properly and that in turn make the tax
burden rise to account for waste.
In the final account, there are financial and social issues that face any nation and our government
is charged with the responsibility to manage them it is why we elect these people to do the job.
The biggest problem I find is at the core. We vote for people who are conservative, Liberal, or
Socialist. Not because they are good people but because they wear a specific label. If we actually
paid attention, we would find there are people in all parts of the spectrum that are good people
but because they are in a conservative or Liberal or NDP riding those people will not be elected.
The time has come when voters must actually listen and make their choices based on what the
person can do, and or, advocate for that is reasonable. There are all kinds of ideas that come from
all political parties that never see the light of day because we as voters are concerned with labels
instead of solutions that benefit the country as a whole. The purpose of Government is to provide
a Level Playing Field for OPPORTUNITY, governments are not there to hold our hand through
every issue of our lives. People on the other hand are supposed to do their part in doing their best
to be a productive citizen and advance the society. Good citizens create opportunities, they work
hard and they are supposed to be socially responsible to the people and communities they serve.
Good citizens are prepared to pay their share of taxes, not all of the taxes, or none of the taxes, but
their fair share to ensure the community has what it needs to sustain itself and to ensure that the
future generations have a solid base on which to make their contribution and carve their own future
out of the economic wilderness they enter. Companies have to make a profit, working people
must produce, and everyone must share the burden of supporting society and the Government is
supposed to ensure that happens, without pitting people off against each other and that is why
today we have a dysfunctional govenment and society in general.