Time for a tax revolt?

40 posts / 0 new
Last post
Gabriel Sinduda
Time for a tax revolt?

The "Harper Government" has been found in contempt of parliament. Updates confirm more and more evidence that this Government has been fraudulent and, quite frankly, crooked.

This would qualify our current Government as CRIMINAL. By contributing tax dollars to this Government, are we not AIDING and ABETTING a known CRIMINAL?

Could we not legitimately withhold our tax issuance this year with this understanding as our defense?

I can think of no better way to bring attention to this country's deep-seated and growing resentment to a political system that is clearly not interested in responding to a growing CLASS crisis.

ARE there any legal counselors out there who might consider this premise, and reply to this Forum topic?

Also looking forward to hearing opinions and considerations and dialogue from all other Rabble readers who take an interest in this tactic.

WORKERS of CANADA UNITE!

 

 

 

Issues Pages: 
Regions: 
Snert Snert's picture

What if we all just cut off our noses and mail them to Stephen Harper in Ottawa?  At least under that plan we could still go to the hospital for stitches.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Edited to remove allcaps in thread title.

This doesn't strike me as a very progressive action. If we buy into the argument that my individual tax dollars belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight.

Le T Le T's picture

Why not General Strike instead of Tea Party? If we're uniting workers and all.

 

Gabriel Sinduda

For those of you who worry about keeping a criminal state propped up with your taxes, because you are already so indebted to the system with your own share of ownership, perhaps you might find the liberal in you to consider just withholding that portion of your taxes that supports military expenditures?

"Conscience Canada suggests withholding about eight percent of an individual’s income tax, which is roughly the same percentage Canada spends from the national budget on the military. The monies are deposited in a “peace tax trust fund” administered by the group. This practice isn’t recognized by the Canada Revenue Agency."

For more info see here:

http://www.straight.com/article-135755/tim-louis-withholds-tax-over-mili...

And here:

http://www.consciencecanada.ca/home.shtml

 

Snert Snert's picture

My right wing neighbour wants to know how much we spend each year on foreign aid, social services, and abortions.

See the problem with this plan?

Gabriel Sinduda

Catchfire, I certainly appreciate the legitimate concern around a tax revolt being misrepresented for libertarian and conservative values (e.g. those who purport to contest the "invasiveness" and "meddling" of "too much government", etc.) but a real concerted tax revolt is about putting a stop to an habitually degrading condition and FORCING a paradigm shift in the wielding of a governement's power. It is meant to be a warning shot, not an utter retreat.

 

 

 

Gabriel Sinduda

Snert, the problem is, your right wing neighbour is about to have a Prime Minister with a majority backing him up.

 

 

Unionist

I spent all that time writing this post, so I'm reposting it in this thread:

Tax revolt - great idea!

I'll start by withholding my income tax.

Oh wait a sec - my employer already does that without even asking my permission - and then he sends it to the government. Curses.

Ok, I'll withhold my sales tax! Tried that the other day, but got confused when they wouldn't sell me that pair of socks. Ok, let's see here...

I know - I'll withhold gasoline tax! In fact, when I read all that useful information from the oil companies printed right on the pump for my convenient reference, if I don't pay the taxes, the gas should be almost free!! Yikes... I told the pump to withhold my tax, but it yanked the full amount off my credit card anyways..

Foiled again.

I'd like to withhold property and corporate taxes, but it seems I've been doing that already for years! Yay! That's the advantage of owning neither one nor the other.

Ok, I'm working on the school tax angle. I'll check back here later and let you know how I'm making out.

ETA: Didn't work. Because I don't own property, I don't pay school tax either.

Listen, I'm starting to think that the only ones who can effectively withhold taxes are the wealthy. So all we need to do is convince them that this Harper government of bloodsucking parasites needs to be taught a lesson, so that the working class and all oppressed people can stand up and see the light of day at last!!

Ok, now I think I've got the right approach. I'm off to Westmount to start knocking on doors.

Wish me luck, eh?

 

6079_Smith_W

Le T has a point. After all, it's only landowners who can withold school taxes (mentioned in the duplicate thread, but which are municipal, not federal), and self-employed workers who can withhold taxes on self-employed earnings and GST collected. 

On the other hand, I'm not really interested in having my house taken away for some left-field notion like this. This belongs on the same shelf with the argument that income tax was supposed to stop after WWI.

(edit)

And I see unionist ran into the same blind alley I did.

 

Gabriel Sinduda

Catchfire, no offense intended. RE. The other thread posted in a different forum, why?

Same subject, different locale, to engage a different audience. Didn't realize this would be so offensive. My apologies.

I must have missed the general agreement about cross-posting.

 

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

This belongs on the same shelf with the argument that income tax was supposed to stop after WWI.

Now, I know that's wrong! It's war that was supposed to stop after WWI - the war to end all wars - not the war to end all taxes - can't trick me!!

Wait a minute. We've still got both war and taxes. Something not right here...

Quote:

And I see unionist ran into the same blind alley I did.

Exactly. I'm trying to withhold taxes, but can't seem to get to square one. I wish I was rich enough to withhold taxes. That house angle seems promising. Can someone please lend me a house, so that I can withhold taxes? You'll be able to buy it back cheap after they confiscate it...

 

6079_Smith_W

Well you know what they say about death and taxes...

Gabriel Sinduda

Income tax WAS supposed to be rescinded after the war. That's not some conspiracy rumour, it's fact.

Likewise, the TOLL on Highway 407 was meant to be a temporary measure, recall?

Likewise, the GST was originally meant to be a tax paid by CORPORATIONS. It replaced the Manufacturer's Sales Tax. I know we're all suffering from short-memory syndrome, but here's a reminder:

The Manufacturer’s Sales Tax

The Goods and Services Tax replaced the Manufacturer’s Sales Tax (MST), which was first introduced in 1924. What was the MST and why was it replaced by the GST?

The MST was a single-stage sales tax generally applied to the manufacturer’s sales price of goods produced in Canada and to the customs value of goods imported into Canada. Wholesalers and retailers would pay the tax when they purchased goods produced in Canada or internationally to sell to consumers. (See the following page for more: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/goods-and-services-tax-overview-his...)

Hmmmm....Are we beginning to see a trend here?

They keep dishing it, and you keep eating it. You worry more about losing your house than losing your children's and grandchildren's future.

Your ownership issues will get you the government you deserve.

 

Gabriel Sinduda

Missing the forest for the trees, it seems to me. Sorry.

Probably I shouldn't be here, wasting my time and yours.

 

Fidel

Snert wrote:

My right wing neighbour wants to know how much we spend each year on foreign aid, social services, and abortions.

See the problem with this plan?

 

Well on foreign aid alone the budget [url=http://www.budget.gc.ca/2010/plan/chap4a-eng.html#a7]reads[/url]: "savings of $438 million in 2011-12, rising to $1.8 billion by 2014-15"

[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/conservatives-cut-canadas-role-in-world]Conserva... cut Canada's role in the world:NDP[/url]

So Harper lied to Canadians on just the issue of foreign aid and Canada's switching of roles from peacekeeping and foreign assistance to that of maintaining Paul Martin's policy for toadying to US invasions and US-led military occupations of sovereign countries.

And with committing tens of billions of dollars to fighter jets made in the US, shovelling hundreds of millions of dollars to a corrupt US-backed kleptocracy in Kabul, and billions more for building super prisons in Canada, the ReformaTories will have to cut somewhere else. That's if they plan to balance the budget and tackle the whopping federal debt in Ottawa which they contributed to in previous times. Tories are lying when they say they can balance budgets and not have to cut public spending on services somewhere else.

ReformaTories are lying to Canadians and Parliament all the time concerning just about everything.

6079_Smith_W

Gabriel Sinduda wrote:

Income tax WAS supposed to be rescinded after the war. That's not some conspiracy rumour, it's fact.

I'm not questioning that. My point is that it has become an integral part of our current tax structure and a 100-year-old dispute is kind of irrelevant.  Likewise, witholding ANY taxes based on the point you raise is irrelevant, and unlikely to accomplish anything. Fortunately it is a non-starter. 

I wonder though why you are bothering to raise it as an issue during the one time - an election - when we actually have the greatest opportunity to effect change in government and take them to task for the breaches you mention.

Fidel

Don't mind them, Gabriel. You're right at home here with babble. Canada may well be run like a banana republic, but we'll protest it to the very end. Smile

Fidel

The rich should pay taxes like it was before. We have too many billionaires for the population we have. It's too much concentration of wealth in the hands of a few elite.

Gabriel Sinduda

Do appreciate your kind words, Fidel.

One more matter for consideration. Let's take the education/schools sector as example, for consideration. I'm an educator, familiar with the system, if it means anything:

Where do you think your tax dollars for education are going? Toward securing and building a privatization model. Yup, that's right. Millions and millions are going into consultancy fees and to players in high places (including spin doctors) to facilitate the transition. Standardized testing here in Ontario (EQAO) is but one small foot in the door. Are any of you familiar with the scale of these tests, their distribution, monitoring and assessments?

The same goes for your contributions to Health Care (Privatization, Pharmaceutical Companies, etc.) and Parks & Rec (increased fees and decreased growth/supervision/maintenance) and those of us in the GTA are well familiar with our transportation and roadworks tax benefits.

And the fact that someone earning $30,000 in a year pays more taxes (%) than a corporation with million or billion dollar earnings???

So many good reasons to defend our tax system.

 

 

 

Fidel

We should demand that our stooges reveal to the public what's up with their GATS and WTO agendas on the sly. They just wanna hack off pieces of the public good and throw them to salivating corporate jackals waiting in the wings. No thank you. Corrupt stooges that they are!

Gabriel Sinduda

RE the above comment: "I'm not questioning that. My point is that it has become an integral part of our current tax structure and a 100-year-old dispute is kind of irrelevant.  Likewise, witholding ANY taxes based on the point you raise is irrelevant, and unlikely to accomplish anything. Fortunately it is a non-starter."

Well it's started an interesting little back-and-forth here, anyway. And the idea that a "100-year-old dispute" is irrelevant, well that leaves me a bit aghast. I wonder what a black South African would have said to that? Or a suffragette? Or so many Libyans, Egyptians, etc.

C'mon...some critical thinking is in order. Please.

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Yes, but that's not the reason you first brought up for withholding them. You were trying to link it to government corruption which , I'm sorry, is not directly relevant.

I don't have a problem in principle with fair taxation, and frankly squeezing government resources is an argument we usually hear form the far right. 

I'll say again. THere's an election going on. Do you not see that your timing might be a bit off here?

Gabriel Sinduda

And those darned Natives, always seeking retribution, like those residential school survivors, can't they just get over it? That ended, like, 50 years ago?!

Fidel

Ya but because they are a corrupt, two-party stoogeaucracy in Ottawa is not a very good reason to continue treating them with dignity and respect - they should have to earn that. The defunding of social democracy in Bananada is not a good reason to abide by taxation without representation. Canadians aren't receiving services for the level of taxation that's true in European and Scandinavian countries. Our stooges are providing less to the public and doing less every year that goes by. They just aren't worth it. Any effort to bring down the corrupt setup in Ottawa would be a good idea. It would be great if we could actually get their attention for a change instead of sitting back while Bay Street buys another stoogeaucracy every four years.

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
They keep dishing it, and you keep eating it. You worry more about losing your house than losing your children's and grandchildren's future.

In case you didn't see past Unionist's sarcasm, he doesn't own a house to lose. I live in a coop so i guess i could try to convince the 300 other members that we should stop paying property tax but then we'd loose our building and all of our children would be living on the street, which isn't that great for their future.

 

I think that you're missing the point. Most of us who don't own our own homes, and work for a wage and buy things like electricity don't really have a means of withholding our taxes. What we do have as working people is our labour and we can withhold that and do far greater damage to the ruling class.

6079_Smith_W

Gabriel Sinduda wrote:

And those darned Natives, always seeking compensation, like those residential school survivors, can't they just get over it? That ended, like, 50 years ago?!

Sorry 6079_Smith_W but you had it coming.

Fact is, Gabriel, income tax is a much more fair system than consumption taxes (corporate taxes moreso, but you don't seem to be mentioning them). Their arcane origin is irrelevant to the fact that they make sense.

But more to the point, I have no interest in holding back taxes because I like having government services, and usually I hear arguments to the contrary form the National Citizens' Coalition and the Fraser Institute. And besides, it has no relevance to government corruption which you claim is your real concern.

Now do you have something other than the scourge of slavery, oppression of women, and concentration camps to pin on me?

Gabriel Sinduda

Income tax makes sense if it is fair and proportional. Just as democratic elections make sense if they are fair and proportional.

What we have is a system that Sheldon S. Wolin calls an INVERTED TOTALITARIANISM. The Harper Government epitomizes this development. I suggest you read all about it, then review your paradigm. See also Chris Hedges.

By propping up this system while maintaining the ilusory belief that YOU benefit from this system, well...it's your right. I'm not pinning anything on you, just reflecting your sensibilities back at you.

6079_Smith_W

I have a better idea. How about you just explain your ideas for yourself and not expect me to do your homework for you?

Gee, after that first paragraph I thought you might actually say you think we shouldn't vote either....... 

 

Fidel

Thanks Gabriel. 

[url=http://www.consciencecanada.ca/resources/ptr_2010_en.pdf]Peace tax return:(pdf)[/url] A Declaration of Objection to Military Taxes

Quote:
Option A is for those who have no tax payable, have a refund coming, or do not wish to redirect their military taxes
but still want to register their objection to paying for war

I'm not real happy about funding a US-backed narco administration in Kabul. And I'm not very agreeable to helping out al-effinCIA'da in Libya either. Those SOBs and their dogs can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned.;

Sven Sven's picture

Catchfire wrote:

If we buy into the argument that my individual tax dollars belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight.

Isn't that about the same thing as saying: "If we buy into the argument that my individual earnings from my labour belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight"?  I say that because your "individual tax dollars" are your individual earnings from your labour.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Marx said that the thing which differentiates humans from animals is that we produce the conditions for own existence. That is, our labour makes us human. That's debateable, of course, but it is a productive if provocative claim. So, the capitalist and reifying impulse which converts our labour into commodities or money is not only alienating because it alienates me from the owner of my labour and from the object which my labour produces: it also alienates me from the very bond which constitutes my humanity. Labour under Marxism is a fundamentally social and communal phenomenon, which is to say that labour already belongs not just to someone else, but everybody else.

So, yes, Sven. I suppose you're right: they are the same thing.

Slumberjack

Le T wrote:
 Most of us who don't own our own homes, and work for a wage and buy things like electricity don't really have a means of withholding our taxes.

There are always creative scams out there that could be put to use, regardless if one is normally owed a refund at the end of the year or not.  For example, people that owe more than what was taken after all is said and done for the year can simply not file a return, and consider the balance owing as the withholding of a portion from whichever government activity one is opposed to.  In that sense you could still consider the taxes on commodities and payroll deductions at source throughout the year as your contribution to the things you do agree with.  For the self employed, let your conscience be your guide as always.

ygtbk

Sven wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

If we buy into the argument that my individual tax dollars belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight.

Isn't that about the same thing as saying: "If we buy into the argument that my individual earnings from my labour belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight"?  I say that because your "individual tax dollars" are your individual earnings from your labour.

Sven, you make a good point. If your labour does not belong to you in the first place, you have no logical basis to complain when it is taken away from you, as in (for instance) Marx's surplus value theory.

6079_Smith_W

Never mind that this thread has become a bit of a moving target - first we are supposed to hold a tax revolt because of government scandal, and then it morphs into an entirely different question of conscientious objection.

Catchfire nailed it at #2. The notion that you can earmark your taxes and withold them just for things you support sets a dangerous precedent. Government cannot and should not work that way.

And the comparison between labour and money depends on the context. Even government employees' labour is not the same as tax because it is an employer-employee relationship that both enter into by choice. We are compelled to pay taxes by law. The only cases in which I can think that labour is exactly the same as our duty to pay taxes is something like conscription, having your labour or property comandeered, or the clearest example - jury duty. 

Oh.... and the city passing a law telling me I MUST clean my sidewalk. I don't have a problem with that or jury duty, our "criminal" government notwithstanding.

Strangely enough, you can also equate tax revolt with the argument that we should be able to refuse the census. And aside from a recent case where someone took that stand because the data was being prepared by a U.S. company and subject to U.S. anti-privacy laws (which I think is a valid argument) the most prominent argument for refusal of the census is libertarian. 

So no, labour is not quite the same thing as taxes.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Gabriel Sinduda wrote:
And those darned Natives, always seeking retribution, like those residential school survivors, can't they just get over it? That ended, like, 50 years ago?!

Gabriel, ironic racism is not allowed on babble. Even though you were being sarcastic, it comes from a place of privilege. Please refrain. Thanks.

Fidel

Sven wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

If we buy into the argument that my individual tax dollars belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight.

Isn't that about the same thing as saying: "If we buy into the argument that my individual earnings from my labour belong to me and my whims rather than to and for the public, we are losing the fight"?  I say that because your "individual tax dollars" are your individual earnings from your labour.

 

But if our protestations against the shifting of tax burden from corporations onto consumers has been futile as it has from 1970 through today, then at some point our acquiescing and laying down for them for the sake of agreeing with taxation in general looks a little like acceptance and full compliance with the increasingly oppressive tax regime. Canadians are receiving less and less for their tax dollars. And that's partly what this election is about. Two old political parties are promising to balance the budget which they themselves have unbalanced over the last 35 years. And they are mum on how exactly they plan to balance what they themselves are directly responsible for making unbalanced. They can cut corporate taxes by tens of billions of dollars and raise them on everyone else, but we ain't getting no Swedish style social democracy in return. The over-arching central idea and main goal here is to throw the crooks out of power by any means possible. It's like agreeing with porridge in the morning even though it's tainted. Why eat tainted porridge? Bad porridge would be the last straw for me. Sure the porridge would keep me alive and able to work at the grind for a few hours at a time, but then what? 

MegB

Gabriel Sinduda wrote:

And those darned Natives, always seeking compensation, like those residential school survivors, can't they just get over it? That ended, like, 50 years ago?!

Sorry 6079_Smith_W but you had it coming.

I get the analogy, but taken out of context (something done all the time here) your post looks sketchy.  Please use the 'quote' function to ensure clarity of purpose.  Thanks.

Fraa4

You people don't understand anything about monetary policy and what has happened over the last 40 years.  You should all go read "The unmaking of canada"

As well as watch this:

http://www.ohcanadamovie.com/

The whole point of the debt of Canada over the last 40 years was ON PURPOSE to take away canada's sovereignty and to set up canada for integration into the US. Canada is now owned by foreign creditors, it's national debt sold to bondholders.

Gabriel Sinduda

comment deleted