CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:18 am
 


baylee baylee:
Invade, occupy, force your way of life on them



sasquatch2 sasquatch2:
The vast majority of the UN membership are ruled by despots and dictators---hence the aversion to democracy.


And many many of them are suported and controlled by the Americans
Not the American people in general , just the same group control and use the American government , as their means.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:22 am
 


biopiracy biopiracy:
kal kal:
He thinks we shouldn't have to pay income tax.... I wonder if he thinks we shouldn't have healthcare or infrastructure or anything else that money helps pay for?


I'd be willing to move income tax to a higher GST rate.


Would save a crapload of paperwork and a lot of the cheaters would be SOL. You know people running paper companies just to claim a loss, people on welfare who earn more than people working and paying taxes.


We could easily cut taxes by 10% if Canadians had the balls to do without some bogus departments like immigration, status of women, but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
When will the auditor audit the tax department?


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 996
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 11:19 am
 


thelaw thelaw:
biopiracy biopiracy:
kal kal:
He thinks we shouldn't have to pay income tax.... I wonder if he thinks we shouldn't have healthcare or infrastructure or anything else that money helps pay for?


I'd be willing to move income tax to a higher GST rate.


Would save a crapload of paperwork and a lot of the cheaters would be SOL. You know people running paper companies just to claim a loss, people on welfare who earn more than people working and paying taxes.


We could easily cut taxes by 10% if Canadians had the balls to do without some bogus departments like immigration, status of women, but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
15 countrys have no personal income taxes ; so why do we; because ti is used by the government for political control, as a way of stopping people like me from telling and challenging the the federal governments propaganda.


You're an idiot. Income tax was brought in to pay for the costs incured during the first world war. So you are correct when you say a lot of it goes to debt load -it did originally and it still does. Besides, nobody in our government is smart enough to wage a propaganda campaign.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 2:41 pm
 


kal kal:
thelaw thelaw:
biopiracy biopiracy:
kal kal:
He thinks we shouldn't have to pay income tax.... I wonder if he thinks we shouldn't have healthcare or infrastructure or anything else that money helps pay for?


I'd be willing to move income tax to a higher GST rate.


Would save a crapload of paperwork and a lot of the cheaters would be SOL. You know people running paper companies just to claim a loss, people on welfare who earn more than people working and paying taxes.


We could easily cut taxes by 10% if Canadians had the balls to do without some bogus departments like immigration, status of women, but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
15 countrys have no personal income taxes ; so why do we; because ti is used by the government for political control, as a way of stopping people like me from telling and challenging the the federal governments propaganda.


You're an idiot. Income tax was brought in to pay for the costs incured during the first world war. So you are correct when you say a lot of it goes to debt load -it did originally and it still does. Besides, nobody in our government is smart enough to wage a propaganda campaign.
Befor the bna act the colonies
had all the taxing powers ,and if you read the Quebec resolutions on which the the colonies agreed to join together they kept income tax. If you understand the supreme court ruling -The lord Nelson hotel case,which said if one form of government has a power the other does not, each is exclusive .and that can not change without a referendum by the people .. The federal government can not have exclusive right to all forms of taxes; that would leave the provinces without the ability to fund its responsibilities. It would be nice if some of you understood the 100 pages of information instead of one sentence out of context.
Understand why the wording is what it is ; a form of deception by lawyers so lawyers can argue, job creation for lawyers and judges.. All federal powers are controlled by the preamble and post- amble. The powers of the provinces are exclusive and have no such limiting clauses.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 3:49 pm
 


thelaw thelaw:
Befor the bna act the colonies
had all the taxing powers ,and if you read the Quebec resolutions on which the the colonies agreed to join together they kept income tax. If you understand the supreme court ruling -The lord Nelson hotel case,which said if one form of government has a power the other does not, each is exclusive .and that can not change without a referendum by the people .. The federal government can not have exclusive right to all forms of taxes; that would leave the provinces without the ability to fund its responsibilities. It would be nice if some of you understood the 100 pages of information instead of one sentence out of context.
Understand why the wording is what it is ; a form of deception by lawyers so lawyers can argue, job creation for lawyers and judges.. All federal powers are controlled by the preamble and post- amble. The powers of the provinces are exclusive and have no such limiting clauses.
You can hardly spell and write and you feel you have the ability to comprehend constitutional law? Your dosage isn't right no matter what you think.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:17 pm
 


Regina Regina:
thelaw thelaw:
Befor the bna act the colonies
had all the taxing powers ,and if you read the Quebec resolutions on which the the colonies agreed to join together they kept income tax. If you understand the supreme court ruling -The lord Nelson hotel case,which said if one form of government has a power the other does not, each is exclusive .and that can not change without a referendum by the people .. The federal government can not have exclusive right to all forms of taxes; that would leave the provinces without the ability to fund its responsibilities. It would be nice if some of you understood the 100 pages of information instead of one sentence out of context.
Understand why the wording is what it is ; a form of deception by lawyers so lawyers can argue, job creation for lawyers and judges.. All federal powers are controlled by the preamble and post- amble. The powers of the provinces are exclusive and have no such limiting clauses.
You can hardly spell and write and you feel you have the ability to comprehend constitutional law? Your dosage isn't right no matter what you think.
And what is your problem; you have nor posted a reasonable explanation, backed up by documentation to contradict my post.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
Profile
Posts: 32460
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:22 pm
 


You've been beaten so badly at this argument there's nothing more I can add to it that would possibly make a difference to your lack of understanding. You've been publicly humiliated and now you seek the internet for vindication. Sorry wrong place.........try a street corner.


Offline
Forum Addict
Forum Addict
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 996
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:46 pm
 


thelaw thelaw:
kal kal:
thelaw thelaw:
biopiracy biopiracy:
kal kal:
He thinks we shouldn't have to pay income tax.... I wonder if he thinks we shouldn't have healthcare or infrastructure or anything else that money helps pay for?


I'd be willing to move income tax to a higher GST rate.


Would save a crapload of paperwork and a lot of the cheaters would be SOL. You know people running paper companies just to claim a loss, people on welfare who earn more than people working and paying taxes.


We could easily cut taxes by 10% if Canadians had the balls to do without some bogus departments like immigration, status of women, but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
15 countrys have no personal income taxes ; so why do we; because ti is used by the government for political control, as a way of stopping people like me from telling and challenging the the federal governments propaganda.


You're an idiot. Income tax was brought in to pay for the costs incured during the first world war. So you are correct when you say a lot of it goes to debt load -it did originally and it still does. Besides, nobody in our government is smart enough to wage a propaganda campaign.
Befor the bna act the colonies
had all the taxing powers ,and if you read the Quebec resolutions on which the the colonies agreed to join together they kept income tax. If you understand the supreme court ruling -The lord Nelson hotel case,which said if one form of government has a power the other does not, each is exclusive .and that can not change without a referendum by the people .. The federal government can not have exclusive right to all forms of taxes; that would leave the provinces without the ability to fund its responsibilities. It would be nice if some of you understood the 100 pages of information instead of one sentence out of context.
Understand why the wording is what it is ; a form of deception by lawyers so lawyers can argue, job creation for lawyers and judges.. All federal powers are controlled by the preamble and post- amble. The powers of the provinces are exclusive and have no such limiting clauses.


Dude, you have absolutly zero comprehension of what you are talking about. All you've done is site acts and cases and shit but you don't understand a damned thing about them. Go take some law classes and some economics classes. Shit, I've seen highschool law students that have a better grasp on how this stuff works than you do.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:54 pm
 


kal kal:
thelaw thelaw:
kal kal:
thelaw thelaw:
biopiracy biopiracy:
kal kal:
He thinks we shouldn't have to pay income tax.... I wonder if he thinks we shouldn't have healthcare or infrastructure or anything else that money helps pay for?


I'd be willing to move income tax to a higher GST rate.


Would save a crapload of paperwork and a lot of the cheaters would be SOL. You know people running paper companies just to claim a loss, people on welfare who earn more than people working and paying taxes.


We could easily cut taxes by 10% if Canadians had the balls to do without some bogus departments like immigration, status of women, but it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
15 countrys have no personal income taxes ; so why do we; because ti is used by the government for political control, as a way of stopping people like me from telling and challenging the the federal governments propaganda.


You're an idiot. Income tax was brought in to pay for the costs incured during the first world war. So you are correct when you say a lot of it goes to debt load -it did originally and it still does. Besides, nobody in our government is smart enough to wage a propaganda campaign.
Befor the bna act the colonies
had all the taxing powers ,and if you read the Quebec resolutions on which the the colonies agreed to join together they kept income tax. If you understand the supreme court ruling -The lord Nelson hotel case,which said if one form of government has a power the other does not, each is exclusive .and that can not change without a referendum by the people .. The federal government can not have exclusive right to all forms of taxes; that would leave the provinces without the ability to fund its responsibilities. It would be nice if some of you understood the 100 pages of information instead of one sentence out of context.
Understand why the wording is what it is ; a form of deception by lawyers so lawyers can argue, job creation for lawyers and judges.. All federal powers are controlled by the preamble and post- amble. The powers of the provinces are exclusive and have no such limiting clauses.


Dude, you have absolutly zero comprehension of what you are talking about. All you've done is site acts and cases and shit but you don't understand a damned thing about them. Go take some law classes and some economics classes. Shit, I've seen highschool law students that have a better grasp on how this stuff works than you do.
That must be why the lawyer and judge fixed the case. The lawyer did not provide answers as he said he would; , just like you.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:24 pm
 


thelaw thelaw:
And what is your problem; you have nor posted a reasonable explanation, backed up by documentation to contradict my post.


I did! And what difference did it make Gerry? You just deny objective fact, run in illogical circles and ultimately look like a Won't Pay Taxes Monkey. You have yet to substantiate ANY of your claims, but you're not shy at all about demanding it of others.

You know what this means? Of course you do Gerry.

Pay your fucking taxes.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:30 pm
 


Regina Regina:
thelaw thelaw:
Befor the bna act the colonies
had all the taxing powers ,and if you read the Quebec resolutions on which the the colonies agreed to join together they kept income tax. If you understand the supreme court ruling -The lord Nelson hotel case,which said if one form of government has a power the other does not, each is exclusive .and that can not change without a referendum by the people .. The federal government can not have exclusive right to all forms of taxes; that would leave the provinces without the ability to fund its responsibilities. It would be nice if some of you understood the 100 pages of information instead of one sentence out of context.
Understand why the wording is what it is ; a form of deception by lawyers so lawyers can argue, job creation for lawyers and judges.. All federal powers are controlled by the preamble and post- amble. The powers of the provinces are exclusive and have no such limiting clauses.
You can hardly spell and write and you feel you have the ability to comprehend constitutional law? Your dosage isn't right no matter what you think.
Your act of saying my information isn't right without contradictory evidence does not stand up in court, you have to produce veidenc to the proving otherwise.
courtesy of the department of justice CanaDA-tHE STATUTE OF WESTMINSTER1931-bRITISH LAW NO LONGER APPLIED TO THE DOMINIONS.
CANADA IN THE MAKING-CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY. You want to disagree with the department of justice Canada?


Last edited by thelaw on Tue May 15, 2007 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3196
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 6:40 pm
 


thelaw thelaw:
Your act of saying my information isn't right without contradictory evidence does not stand up in court, you have to produce veidenc to the proving otherwise.


No he doesn't you pinhead. Your job is to provide evidence that you don't have to pay taxes. So far, you haven't done sweet merciful ANYTHING to begin proving that. What little shit you've barfed out is a) wrong, b) irrelevant or c) misunderstood.

You haven't even made a prima facie case for not paying taxes. Don't bloody lecture others on what does or does not constitute evidence there Gerry the Won't Pay Taxes Monkey. Try quoting something or at least factually refuting the mountains of evidence I've heaped at your feet. Oh yeah,

Pay your fucking taxes.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:01 pm
 


Dayseed Dayseed:
thelaw thelaw:
Your act of saying my information isn't right without contradictory evidence does not stand up in court, you have to produce veidenc to the proving otherwise.


No he doesn't you pinhead. Your job is to provide evidence that you don't have to pay taxes. So far, you haven't done sweet merciful ANYTHING to begin proving that. What little shit you've barfed out is a) wrong, b) irrelevant or c) misunderstood.

You haven't even made a prima facie case for not paying taxes. Don't bloody lecture others on what does or does not constitute evidence there Gerry the Won't Pay Taxes Monkey. Try quoting something or at least factually refuting the mountains of evidence I've heaped at your feet. Oh yeah,

Pay your fucking taxes.
That must be why the judge and lawyer fixed the case; and withheld evidence; That was the banks job to make a case that i had to pay taxes and they did not do that. They could of called anyone from CCRA , but they didn't. I filed over 100 pages of evidence with no disputing the evidence i filed. Not even my sworn statement that i did not owe any taxes or that there is no court case that proves i do. Stop pushing your propaganda you are already a convert, you don't have to keep reminding yourself ; or is that all you got to post..


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 7:31 pm
 


Dayseed Dayseed:
thelaw thelaw:
Your act of saying my information isn't right without contradictory evidence does not stand up in court, you have to produce veidenc to the proving otherwise.


No he doesn't you pinhead. Your job is to provide evidence that you don't have to pay taxes. So far, you haven't done sweet merciful ANYTHING to begin proving that. What little shit you've barfed out is a) wrong, b) irrelevant or c) misunderstood.

You haven't even made a prima facie case for not paying taxes. Don't bloody lecture others on what does or does not constitute evidence there Gerry the Won't Pay Taxes Monkey. Try quoting something or at least factually refuting the mountains of evidence I've heaped at your feet. Oh yeah,

Pay your fucking taxes.
What a small mountain, more like i stepped on something and didn't even notice it . You choose to ignore the evidence i have produced in court and also posted here ; and if the bank with its lawyers could not dispute the evidence , who are you the looser who told the judge what to do and are now in big goo goo


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
Profile
Posts: 510
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2007 8:38 pm
 


Regina Regina:
You've been beaten so badly at this argument there's nothing more I can add to it that would possibly make a difference to your lack of understanding. You've been publicly humiliated and now you seek the internet for vindication. Sorry wrong place.........try a street corner.
I'm not humiliated you are ; all you got is verbal intimidation and no answers, for example when did Canada get its independence and by what statute, bill or other document from the British parliament; and what changed in our government from the day before independence to the day after independence; or is Canada still a colony . Speak up or are you too beaten up ?


Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 447 posts ]  Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  9 ... 30  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.