Time for a tax revolt?

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.

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?

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

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Income tax WAS supposed to be rescinded after the war.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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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?

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....... 

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.

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.

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.

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? 

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.