what canada is not- a democracy

[bk59]

So all the other countries that have no personal income taxes are much smarter than you ; because they have demonstrated how to operate a government without imposing any personal income taxes. Financial slavery replaced manual slavery because it is a much easer form of control. I have never advocated no form of taxes , just no personal income taxes.

But haven't you said on here that any money taken from your earnings is the same as slavery? So isn't all taxation slavery? If you are required to pay any tax, income or otherwise, is that not your definition of slavery?

some are Anquilla- Bermuda-Dubai-Qatar-Oman-Brune_Panama-Belize-Caymine islands-Turks and Caicos Islands-and the constitutional monarchy of Monaco. And some American states have no personal income taxes.a

Don't you think that maybe there are a number of differences between Canada and the countries you listed? Some important ones being population and geographic area. Don't you think it is a bit more persuasive seeing that most countries have some form of income tax? (Interestingly enough, some of those countries that have income tax are not even ruled by a monarch!)

[bk59]

http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/tax.htm

This link you have given is so full of mistakes it's not funny.

The Canadian Constitution was not changed or altered when it was brought home by Mr. Trudeau, as some suggest. However, there was a very important addition made to it at that time. That addition was the Canadian Bill of Human Rights. Today the Canadian Constitution, as we know it, is comprised of the original B.N.A. Act, and the Human Rights Act, together...

It was altered slightly. Just look at how the Constitution can now be amended. And it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms NOT the Bill of Human Rights.

Not a good start...

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.

Not true. The provinces have the right to legislate for "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes" (s. 92(2)). The federal government has the right to legislate for "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation" (s. 91(3)). That includes income tax.

...the Lord Nelson Hotel... case involved the transfer of powers from the Provincial to the Federal Government, and was directly related to the income Tax Act.

No where in that case does it mention the word "income" let alone 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...

Wrong. Especially given that courts have declared the Income Tax Act constitutionally valid many times. Since you are fond of cases, see Winterhaven Stables Limited v. The Attorney General of Canada, 1988 or Hoffman v. Canada, 2004.

And that's enough of that. I don't need to waste any more time on an article written by someone who could not spend 10 minutes to check his or her basic facts.

[jbg]

Oh, c'mon. Don't you know the Governor General is fitted with a Queenly mind-control device and is a government paid poster just like the rest of us?

Do most provincial health plans cover psychiatry, at least at the psychotic level?

[jbg]

Oh, c'mon. Don't you know the Governor General is fitted with a Queenly mind-control device and is a government paid poster just like the rest of us?

Brings this to mind (link to lyrics):

Remember when you ran away

And I got on my knees and begged

You not to leave

Because I'd go berserk?

Well!

You left me anyhow and then

The days got worse and worse

And now you see I've gone

Completely out of my mind.

And

They're coming to take me away, Ha-ha

They're coming to take me away, Ho-ho

Hee-hee-haa-haa

To the funny farm

Where life is beautiful all the time

And I'll be happy to see those

Nice young men in their clean white coats and

They're coming to take me away, ha-ha!

[no queenslave]

This link you have given is so full of mistakes it's not funny.

It was altered slightly. Just look at how the Constitution can now be amended. And it was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms NOT the Bill of Human Rights.

Not a good start...

Not true. The provinces have the right to legislate for "Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes" (s. 92(2)). The federal government has the right to legislate for "The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation" (s. 91(3)). That includes income tax.

No where in that case does it mention the word "income" let alone the Income Tax Act.

Wrong. Especially given that courts have declared the Income Tax Act constitutionally valid many times. Since you are fond of cases, see Winterhaven Stables Limited v. The Attorney General of Canada, 1988 or Hoffman v. Canada, 2004.

And that's enough of that. I don't need to waste any more time on an article written by someone who could not spend 10 minutes to check his or her basic facts.

Said just like a dictator . sure you aren't one of Saddams former government members. In a dictatorship when you appoint corrupt judges to fix court cases for you what do you expect the judgment to be? If you have read the reports- Canada a country without a constitution and Alberta has the right to issue and use its own credit; instead of pushing government propaganda of the government as they have indoctrinated you. Saddam's courts operated with the same form of justice, as Canada's justice system does..

The water tight compartments refer to in the supreme court are as leaky as your pampers.

Refer to the queen's bench Winnipeg file no 05-01-43232 and you will see a demonstration of how corrupt he justice system is.

Read the preamble of section 91 which limits the federal powers.

Read the Statute of westmminster - No British law applies after the passing of it. The BNA.Act was a British law- and no longer applied after 1931.

Edited October 26, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

Tax Matters

http://www.constitution.org/cs_taxes.htm

What is the -Seperation Party of Alberta - dooing???

[g_bambino]

i don't file federal income tax returns

Okay, so you'll eventually be caught out and hauled before the Queen's bench to plead your case. But, hey, not my problem.

Question, though: do you pay provincial taxes? GST? Just wondering how far your "independence" goes.

[no queenslave]

Okay, so you'll eventually be caught out and hauled before the Queen's bench to plead your case. But, hey, not my problem.

Question, though: do you pay provincial taxes? GST? Just wondering how far your "independence" goes.

You haven't a clue how the system works.

You never have a chance to plead your case. They have perfected the corruption-its called supra-Their is no such thing as innocent till proven quilty in a court.

[bk59]

Saddam's courts operated with the same form of justice, as Canada's justice system does..

I must have got promoted. I'm not just a paid government poster, I'm also a former government member of Iraq.

Where do you get this idea that Canada's judicial system, and its judges, are corrupt? Any facts to back this up? (And no, you saying they are corrupt does not count.)

Refer to the queen's bench Winnipeg file no 05-01-43232 and you will see a demonstration of how corrupt he justice system is.

Do you have a link for this file? Google was not helpful.

Read the preamble of section 91 which limits the federal powers.

Read the Statute of westmminster - No British law applies after the passing of it. The BNA.Act was a British law- and no longer applied after 1931.

S. 91 shows everything the federal government can do. S. 92 is really the limit on federal powers because it shows what the provinces can do. S. 91 isn't much of a limit at all.

OK, let's read the Statute of Westminster... it says:

4. No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.

So only laws PASSED AFTER the Statute of Westminster have no effect. The older laws, including the BNA Act were still applied.

And just in case you missed it, the Statute even says that explicitly:

7. (1) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1930, or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.

You need to read your sources. They do not say the things that you want them to say.

[no queenslave]

I must have got promoted. I'm not just a paid government poster, I'm also a former government member of Iraq.

Where do you get this idea that Canada's judicial system, and its judges, are corrupt? Any facts to back this up? (And no, you saying they are corrupt does not count.)

Do you have a link for this file? Google was not helpful.

S. 91 shows everything the federal government can do. S. 92 is really the limit on federal powers because it shows what the provinces can do. S. 91 isn't much of a limit at all.

OK, let's read the Statute of Westminster... it says:

So only laws PASSED AFTER the Statute of Westminster have no effect. The older laws, including the BNA Act were still applied.

And just in case you missed it, the Statute even says that explicitly:

You need to read your sources. They do not say the things that you want them to say.

You need to understand what is written -section7.2

(2) no law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the parliament of a province shall be void or inoperative .

So any province can make a law declaring it a sovereign province.

You still refuse to admit the limited powers of the federal government by the limiting clauses that control section 91.

I exclusively own all rights to 1,2,3 and 4you own the rights of all other numbers to 9.

Does it give you the right to 123and 4 for your purposes? This is what you are arguing by not

understanding the preamble and post amble claues limiting section 91's limited powers.

the provincial government has exclusive powers of direct taxation for provincial purposes or what purposes do you think it should have the exclusive power for? If as you want then the federal government can say it has all provincial powers for federal purposes. Just like any other dictator, and by appointing corrupt judges that is what they rule., when they ruled the federal government has the power of direct taxation. What a bunch of corrupt judges that don't understand the term exclusive.

[g_bambino]

You haven't a clue how the system works.

You never have a chance to plead your case. They have perfected the corruption-its called supra-Their is no such thing as innocent till proven quilty in a court.

Uh-huh. Okay.

Again, do you pay provincial taxes, GST, and the like?

[no queenslave]

Uh-huh. Okay.

Again, do you pay provincial taxes, GST, and the like?

yes

[g_bambino]

yes

Then you do pay money to the Queen. What a mindless slave you are, just like all the other government paid posters out there. Don't try to delete my post and screw up my computer!

[no queenslave]

Then you do pay money to the Queen. What a mindless slave you are, just like all the other government paid posters out there. Don't try to delete my post and screw up my computer!

you have no understanding of a tax you have a choice of paying or one which you have no choice. I am not a mindless slave government paid posters like . if you dont even understant that then your name suits you as definition of bambino is baby, and your post demonstrates that.

[bk59]

You need to understand what is written -section7.2

(2) no law and no provision of any law made after the commencement of this Act by the parliament of a province shall be void or inoperative .

So any province can make a law declaring it a sovereign province.

READ THE STATUTE. The BNA Act is still in effect. This limits what the provinces can and cannot legislate. The BNA Act does not allow a province to declare itself a sovereign province.

You still refuse to admit the limited powers of the federal government by the limiting clauses that control section 91.

I will quote this for you again from section 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 the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces

Yes, the federal government is limited in its powers. It cannot legislate when the subject is a section 92 matter. It also cannot violate the constitution. But ALL ELSE can be legislated by the federal government. I never said they had unlimited powers.

the provincial government has exclusive powers of direct taxation for provincial purposes or what purposes do you think it should have the exclusive power for? If as you want then the federal government can say it has all provincial powers for federal purposes.

READ THE CONSTITUTION. The provincial government has exclusive powers of direct taxation FOR PROVINCIAL PURPOSES (see section 92(2)). This means that the federal government has powers of direct taxation for FEDERAL PURPOSES. Direct taxation for federal purposes is covered by section 91(3): ANY mode or system of taxation. The only thing the federal government cannot do is collect income tax and then spend it directly on the provinces.

Just like any other dictator, and by appointing corrupt judges that is what they rule., when they ruled the federal government has the power of direct taxation. What a bunch of corrupt judges that don't understand the term exclusive.

You haven't shown that Canadian judges are corrupt. They did understand the term exclusive. But they also happened to read the ENTIRE subsection. If you only read half of it, then you will get your answer. Luckily they read all of it, and came to the correct answer.

[bk59]

you have no understanding of a tax you have a choice of paying or one which you have no choice.

When you buy things, do you have a choice of paying the GST?

[guyser]

When you buy things, do you have a choice of paying the GST?

I recall reading or hearing that one could refuse to pay the tax upon furnishment of name and address that the retailor then submits.

I wonder if that is still available? Yes, I know I should look ....but I did not.

[bk59]

I recall reading or hearing that one could refuse to pay the tax upon furnishment of name and address that the retailor then submits.

I wonder if that is still available? Yes, I know I should look ....but I did not.

That does sound familiar. But for some reason I seem to think that you can only do that if your income is below a certain level. Like you I suppose that I should look, but like you I did not.

That being said, I am pretty sure that the government won't let you use the excuse "I didn't feel like paying taxes" to get out of paying the GST.

[no queenslave]

READ THE STATUTE. The BNA Act is still in effect. This limits what the provinces can and cannot legislate. The BNA Act does not allow a province to declare itself a sovereign province.

I will quote this for you again from section 91:

Yes, the federal government is limited in its powers. It cannot legislate when the subject is a section 92 matter. It also cannot violate the constitution. But ALL ELSE can be legislated by the federal government. I never said they had unlimited powers.

READ THE CONSTITUTION. The provincial government has exclusive powers of direct taxation FOR PROVINCIAL PURPOSES (see section 92(2)). This means that the federal government has powers of direct taxation for FEDERAL PURPOSES. Direct taxation for federal purposes is covered by section 91(3): ANY mode or system of taxation. The only thing the federal government cannot do is collect income tax and then spend it directly on the provinces.

You haven't shown that Canadian judges are corrupt. They did understand the term exclusive. But they also happened to read the ENTIRE subsection. If you only read half of it, then you will get your answer. Luckily they read all of it, and came to the correct answer.

you are a government poster who continues to misslead; you still refuse to post the first and last paragraph of section 91; because it limits the federal spending powers to that class of subjects that are not the exclusive power of the provinces - direct taxes- is the subject; the for provincial purposes is irrelevant, or more specific in that direct taxes are exclusive for provincial purposes, as explained by lord canarvin in the passing of the bill. you must be pushing your corrupt interrpitacion with the hope of becoming a supreme court corrupt judge.

What is the class of subjects reffed to?

Edited October 26, 2007 by no queenslave

[bk59]

you are a government poster who continues to misslead; you still refuse to post the first and last paragraph of section 91; because it limits the federal spending powers to that class of subjects that are not the exclusive power of the provinces - direct taxes- is the subject; the for provincial purposes is irrelevant, or more specific in that direct taxes are exclusive for provincial purposes, as explained by lord canarvin in the passing of the bill. you must be pushing your corrupt interrpitacion with the hope of becoming a supreme court corrupt judge.

Actually, that quote from my last post was most of the first paragraph of section 91. But if you think there is something in those paragraphs that prove your point, then post them. Show me where. Because it seems pretty clear that the bold writing in my last post lets the federal government legislate everything that does not full under the classes in section 92 - even if it is not listed explicitly in section 91.

The phrase "for provincial purposes" is not irrelevant. Without that phrase you could have provinces legislating direct taxes that they then spend on other provinces. For example, Ontario could legislate an income tax on Ontarians and all the money would go to Manitoba. Or the federal government. That phrase is just as important as the "within the province" phrase and the word "direct". Nothing in the BNA Act defines "direct taxation" as being exclusively for provinces. All it says is that provinces can only legislate "direct taxation" if they tax their own citizens and spend the money themselves.

Please also post this Lord Canarvin quote of yours. I would love to see it.

[no queenslave]

Actually, that quote from my last post was most of the first paragraph of section 91. But if you think there is something in those paragraphs that prove your point, then post them. Show me where. Because it seems pretty clear that the bold writing in my last post lets the federal government legislate everything that does not full under the classes in section 92 - even if it is not listed explicitly in section 91.

The phrase "for provincial purposes" is not irrelevant. Without that phrase you could have provinces legislating direct taxes that they then spend on other provinces. For example, Ontario could legislate an income tax on Ontarians and all the money would go to Manitoba. Or the federal government. That phrase is just as important as the "within the province" phrase and the word "direct". Nothing in the BNA Act defines "direct taxation" as being exclusively for provinces. All it says is that provinces can only legislate "direct taxation" if they tax their own citizens and spend the money themselves.

Please also post this Lord Canarvin quote of yours. I would love to see it.

Too bad you don't understand what you just posted "lets the federal government legislate everything that DOES NOT fall under the classes in sec 92." Direct taxation is the subject class; for provincial is not the subjet class in the sentance..

If you apply the same restriction then the federal government can collect income taxes from anyone in the world because they can collect by any and all means legal or unlawful. Love the power you think you have.

When are you going to start using the any and all means to collect $50 on every provincial drivers license , or any other provincial license?

Because the fee collected by the provinces on anything that does not say for provincial purposes it must be unlawful bu your reasoning, just another federal power..Have you posted enough government propaganda yet to get to be a appointed atax court judge. After all you have allready been told what the outcome of the case will be .

Provincial income taxes only for provincial purposes- then equalization payments have to be calculated withouth albertas income from income taxes; or better yet because it goes into general revenue all revenue is exempt from equalization payment calculations.

If you have no documents of the quebec resolutions or british hansard in the passing of the B.N.A.Act then do your DD, before you try and tell me what you think you know; it is all out of context.

Edited October 26, 2007 by no queenslave

[jbg]

When you buy things, do you have a choice of paying the GST?

Of ocurse she pays that. She pays no income tax since no one in their right minds would hire her (or is EI taxable in Canada?).

[no queenslave]

For all government posters who think the government has the power to raise money by any and all means; you only have to understand who wrote and requested such powers- lawyers.

As instructed by wanabe dictators.

I see nobody has disputed the fact the government can not raise money by any and all means.

Such as employing the hells ang..s to collect a fresh air tax on you for breathing.

Edited October 29, 2007 by no queenslave

[no queenslave]

READ THE STATUTE. The BNA Act is still in effect. This limits what the provinces can and cannot legislate. The BNA Act does not allow a province to declare itself a sovereign province.

I will quote this for you again from section 91:

Yes, the federal government is limited in its powers. It cannot legislate when the subject is a section 92 matter. It also cannot violate the constitution. But ALL ELSE can be legislated by the federal government. I never said they had unlimited powers.

READ THE CONSTITUTION. The provincial government has exclusive powers of direct taxation FOR PROVINCIAL PURPOSES (see section 92(2)). This means that the federal government has powers of direct taxation for FEDERAL PURPOSES. Direct taxation for federal purposes is covered by section 91(3): ANY mode or system of taxation. The only thing the federal government cannot do is collect income tax and then spend it directly on the provinces.

You haven't shown that Canadian judges are corrupt. They did understand the term exclusive. But they also happened to read the ENTIRE subsection. If you only read half of it, then you will get your answer. Luckily they read all of it, and came to the correct answer.

I did prove judges are corrupt =Court of Queens bench Winnipeg file no ci 05-01-43232.

No mater what they read they were appointed to get the judgment the government wanted; don't let facts or evidence have any influence. Saddam got all the judgments he wanted when he was in government ; and so does the government of Canada

By any and all means not only applied to raising money.

[no queenslave]

Of ocurse she pays that. She pays no income tax since no one in their right minds would hire her (or is EI taxable in Canada?).

self employed for over30 years with no intention of working for someone else.