• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Detax Canada

EldonG said:
I, Eldon Warman have no quarrel or obsession with the Roman Catholic Church. It mattes not to me how many beads they count or how much holy water they sprinkle, or the fact that they worship a pig (Iesus and later Jesus just means 'pig' in latin).

What I am concerned about is the secular or worldly claim to power that is by the Pontifex maximus (Pontiff) of the Holy Roman Empire, whose claim is to be Ruler of the World. That Rule was made perfectly clear when the Pope of Rome became overlord over England in 1213. And that treaty is FOREVER.

I could care less if any 'detaxers' decide to stay as a slave of the corporation owned by the pontiff of Rome. that is their free will right .
Click to expand...

I,Eldon Warman? Ooooh,get you!
 
Last edited:
fitzgibbon said:
Wanna bet he's trying to do 'Death by Mod'? That way, JREF can be part of his perceived problem instead of part of the solution.

Just askin'. ;)
Click to expand...
Yup. Declare victory and leave with delusions intact.
 
Question:


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a difference between a "fictional person" called JOHN DOE (who has to pay taxes), and a "free person" named John Doe (who doesn't).

Income taxes are paid on money earned (i.e. income).

In order to be paid, you have to be a recognized person. To wit, JOHN DOE is the one being paid. And thus JOHN DOE owes taxes.

It then follows that John Doe does not owe any taxes, because John Doe does not get paid. At all. JOHN DOE is the one making money, and paying taxes. John Doe is a bum, who, not being part of the state, does not even qualify for social assistance.


So, if EldonG wants to tell his employer that he is a free man, and thus exempt from the drudgery of income, who are we to stop him?

Do I have the right of this?

It really does seem to be supreme selfish hyposcrisy.
I take what suits me to take, but I don't want to give anything back, so I'll plead a special case when it suits me to do so.
 
tsig said:
Sovereign i believe.
Click to expand...

But as we all know, a rein is a control used on animals, and the obvious link of Sov with Soviet Russia can't be overlooked... is he admitting he's actually a pawn of the Communists?
 
X said:
Question:


Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is a difference between a "fictional person" called JOHN DOE (who has to pay taxes), and a "free person" named John Doe (who doesn't).

Income taxes are paid on money earned (i.e. income).

In order to be paid, you have to be a recognized person. To wit, JOHN DOE is the one being paid. And thus JOHN DOE owes taxes.

It then follows that John Doe does not owe any taxes, because John Doe does not get paid. At all. JOHN DOE is the one making money, and paying taxes. John Doe is a bum, who, not being part of the state, does not even qualify for social assistance.


So, if EldonG wants to tell his employer that he is a free man, and thus exempt from the drudgery of income, who are we to stop him?

Do I have the right of this?

It really does seem to be supreme selfish hyposcrisy.
I take what suits me to take, but I don't want to give anything back, so I'll plead a special case when it suits me to do so.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the idea of an individual doing business through a corporate shell is hardly new or revolutionary. If you need me to mow your lawn or to realign the dilithium crystals in your warp nacelles, you'd probably hire not me, but DRKITTEN, INC. (and make the check out to DKI), even though I would be the flesh-and-blood person pushing the mower. There are several very good reasons for doing this; it provides me with a certain degree of protection from lawsuits and, yes, tax benefits. Any of the lawyers on the thread could provide you with details at length.

Since I don't earn any money, I don't pay any taxes -- DKI pays the taxes by a different set of rules, and if I've played my cards right, DKI is incorporated in the Seychelles or Narnia or the Klingon Empire or something and owes a whopping 0.001% tax rate.

Is that "supreme selfish hypocracy," or simply an internet nerd with a good tax lawyer?
 
drkitten said:
Since I don't earn any money, I don't pay any taxes -- DKI pays the taxes by a different set of rules, and if I've played my cards right, DKI is incorporated in the Seychelles or Narnia or the Klingon Empire or something and owes a whopping 0.001% tax rate.

Is that "supreme selfish hypocracy," or simply an internet nerd with a good tax lawyer?
Click to expand...



That could be used to avoid a lot of taxes, but not all. At some point, if you want to use any of that money for personal needs like food and shelter, you'll have to pay money form the corporation to yourself, either as an employee income, or some sort of dividends, and that income will be taxable.

You could play a lot of games like leasing a vehicle as a work expense, so you wouldn't need the personal income to buy it yourself, but you can't do that with every expense you have, and there are still limits as to how much of that you can do, and stay within the law.
 
Horatius said:
That could be used to avoid a lot of taxes, but not all. At some point, if you want to use any of that money for personal needs like food and shelter, you'll have to pay money form the corporation to yourself, either as an employee income, or some sort of dividends, and that income will be taxable.
Click to expand...

Ah, but since DKI is registered in the Klingon Empire, money they pay me qualifies under the "foreign earned income exclusion," via the legal principle of "quia ego sic dico," and so as long as I don't earn more than $80k (US) in taxable benefits, I'm fine.

You could play a lot of games like leasing a vehicle as a work expense,
Click to expand...

Yeah, my lawyer is really good with games.

That's my question. I don't think that I'm being immoral by wanting to reduce my tax burden by every legal method that my lawyer can dream up. But is the only moral difference the fact that my lawyer knows the law and Rob Menard doesn't?
 
drkitten said:
To be fair, the idea of an individual doing business through a corporate shell is hardly new or revolutionary. If you need me to mow your lawn or to realign the dilithium crystals in your warp nacelles, you'd probably hire not me, but DRKITTEN, INC. (and make the check out to DKI), even though I would be the flesh-and-blood person pushing the mower. There are several very good reasons for doing this; it provides me with a certain degree of protection from lawsuits and, yes, tax benefits. Any of the lawyers on the thread could provide you with details at length.

Since I don't earn any money, I don't pay any taxes -- DKI pays the taxes by a different set of rules, and if I've played my cards right, DKI is incorporated in the Seychelles or Narnia or the Klingon Empire or something and owes a whopping 0.001% tax rate.

Is that "supreme selfish hypocracy," or simply an internet nerd with a good tax lawyer?
Click to expand...


Fair point.
But how many people who aren't self-employed work for companies via an intermediary incorporation?

I think I'd raise a few eyebrows at work I said to make my cheques payable to <name redacted>, Inc.
 
drkitten said:
But is the only moral difference the fact that my lawyer knows the law and Rob Menard doesn't?
Click to expand...
No. Your lawyer has a professional ethical requirement to represent your interests rather than his/hers, and a fiduciary duty to properly manage your financial affairs. He/she will face professional censure if he/she does not.

Menard does precisely the converse on both counts. The only interest he represents is his own and the only financial affairs he is concerned with are his own. That is the nature of his relationship with his "clients". He runs a con, not a professional service.
 
EldonG said:
A few years ago, Parliament/the corporate Crown enacted an amendment that made all lawyers and accountants pseudo-CRA agents, under penalty of a heavy fine for giving any meaningful advice to the Canadian people on how to avoid or escape taxation.
Click to expand...

An amendment to what? I find it amazing that someone would make a claim like this with so little detail. Obviously nobody is penalized for giving legitimate tax advice.

Your 'help' for those caught up in the distress of the legal system reminds me of the story of a fellow who comes out of the fast food restaurant with a sack of Big Macs, double fries, and a large mikkshake. Outside is a homeless man begging, and says the the fellow. I haven't had anything to eat in 2 days. The fellow with the sack of food says to the homeless man: "I sure wish I had your will power to resist food."
Click to expand...

Why would a lawyer helping someone with a legal problem remind of this story? In your story a man is begging for food, presumably an analogy to someone begging a lawyer for some legal assitance. And in your story he's begging for food from someone who has lots of food (including the apparently new menu item "double fries"). Presumably this would be analogous to the fact that lawyers have an abundance of "legal means" at their disposal while the person begging feels that they don't have the means. And then the lawyer says something like "I sure wish I had the ability to resist using the legal means at my disposal" presumably missing the point that the person has no such means. You must have had some unusual encounters with lawyers.
 
drkitten said:
Ah, but since DKI is registered in the Klingon Empire, money they pay me qualifies under the "foreign earned income exclusion," via the legal principle of "quia ego sic dico," and so as long as I don't earn more than $80k (US) in taxable benefits, I'm fine.
Click to expand...


Well, if you say so.....:D



Yeah, my lawyer is really good with games.

That's my question. I don't think that I'm being immoral by wanting to reduce my tax burden by every legal method that my lawyer can dream up. But is the only moral difference the fact that my lawyer knows the law and Rob Menard doesn't?
Click to expand...


I'd say, the moral difference isn't just that you know the law, but that you're willing to admit the law exists, and work within it. That's the difference between tax avoidance, using legal means, and tax evasion, using fraudulent means.

If they write the law in such a manner that it becomes fairly easy to avoid 100% of your taxes, and that becomes enough of an issue to impact their revenue, then they can simply amend the law to fix the problem. And anyone who is honestly trying to avoid taxes, within the law, would then start to pay the tax that is now owed. A tax evader would never do that, as they're already determined to ignore the law in order to secure their own profit.

Also note that legal tax avoidance usually involves some sort of additional burden on the taxpayer in place of the tax normally owed. In this case, you'd have to set up your corporation, and maintain all the legal requirements of that status. That may not be a large monetary burden for a small company, but it would require a greater investment in time and effort, as compared to just filing normal income tax.

Other legal avoidances, like charitable donations, child tax credits, and retirement savings have their own burdens. Evasion has no such burden - until caught, it's pure profit.
 
Seems that we have a plethora here of those who are parasites feasting on the blood of the Canadian victims of the income tax scam and extortion racket; or, we have a lot of slaves who suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome.

I guess, those with pockets full of money from their feasting on the victims would make such parasites do a lot of smiling and chuckling, especially when they do it is derision against someone who would show Canadians how they are not subject to the income tax, and how to avoid the scheme that supposedly makes them liable to the predatory acts by CRA. Wonder what ever happened to conscience?
 
EldonG said:
Seems that we have a plethora here of those who are parasites feasting on the blood of the Canadian victims of the income tax scam and extortion racket; or, we have a lot of slaves who suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome.

I guess, those with pockets full of money from their feasting on the victims would make such parasites do a lot of smiling and chuckling, especially when they do it is derision against someone who would show Canadians how they are not subject to the income tax, and how to avoid the scheme that supposedly makes them liable to the predatory acts by CRA. Wonder what ever happened to conscience?
Click to expand...
Welcome back.

Any luck with the T4 re-assessment issue yet? Or is your system still failing miserably?

P.S. Thanks again for paying income tax. You can enjoy your health care (which I gather you need quite a bit these days) guilt free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom