Income taxes

[Democratic Hawk]

Oh I see.  So you too have a qualifier.

It seems everyone that is so convinced 40% is reasonable doesn't make enough to pay 40%.  Hence, everyone that is convinced 40% is reasonable is convinced that it is appropiate for others.

Noble.

A darn sight more noble than seeking to avoid paying tax

Dave

[Richard]

That sounds like an awful lot of work just to get out of paying income taxes.

I see in my future two paths.  One I will pay $100,000 a year in taxes and in the other I don't.

Even if you can save just $5,000 a year in taxes, over say 30 years the present value at say, investment return of 5% p.a. and inflation of 2% p.a. yields $405,000.  That is inflation adjusted, present value today.  Do you think 100 hours of time on this subject is too much?  It translates into about $4,000/hour.

[Richard]

So, will you also forgo all those things that taxes pay for?  Roads to drive on, police services, that silly medical care canadians get?  Are you willing to sit in an armed compound with a shotgun and live it up wild west style?

Sir, you make an argument, but let me counter with the fact that roads are paid for by a gasoline tax both federally and provincially, and police services are paid for by municipal taxes.  I am a capitalist and believe in paying for what services or products are rendered unto me.  I'm not saying pay NO taxes.  I'm saying pay no INCOME taxes.  And no, I am not interested in the Canadian health care.  My family has private insurance, and I shall continue to have private comprehensive insurance.

[Richard]

I urge everyone that is not a liberal to research trusts and holding companies.  By utilizing trusts and holding companies, and also corporations of say, the Seychelles, one can reduce one's tax liability to zero (provided you are able to work for yourself).  This is without fancy tricks such as detaxcanada.org.  Smart, intelligent, educated people SHOULD know that it is possible to avoid paying any income taxes.  Many rich folks do it, and I encourage all conservatives and libertarians to do so.

One last hint: bearer-shareholder corporations are your friend.  And so is numbered corporations.  "832344724 Ontario Ltd." is a good example of a corporation that is difficult to remember and track.  Unfortunately Ontario does not allow bearer-shareholders, but Seychelles does which provides one with the ability to set up a completely anonymous corporation with unknown shareholders and one anonymous director.  Make that the holding company of say your numbered company in whichever jurisiction you like (perhaps jointly owned with another local numbered company), invest, and watch the tax people cringe trying to follow the money.

Once again here is the prove that show that John K. Galbraith was right all along when he said: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Why is it when speaking of liberty in rightwing-speak it's always "not paying taxes", for me that's the last thing which comes to mind when speaking of liberty. Freedom of expression and freedom from any sort of restrictive morality (whether Legal or societal - yes libertarians there is more one of type of societal guidelides, not always put across by the state.) are more important to me.

I'm not interested in justifying my selfishness because I believe everyone is selfish and see no personal moral objection to it.  Selfishness, actually, is the foundation of a good capitalist society and necessary to a free state.  I'm a selfish individual in that I want to choose how the product of my labor is spent.

[Gabu]

That sounds like an awful lot of work just to get out of paying income taxes.

I see in my future two paths.  One I will pay $100,000 a year in taxes and in the other I don't.

Even if you can save just $5,000 a year in taxes, over say 30 years the present value at say, investment return of 5% p.a. and inflation of 2% p.a. yields $405,000.  That is inflation adjusted, present value today.  Do you think 100 hours of time on this subject is too much?  It translates into about $4,000/hour.

If I was paying $100,000 a year in taxes, I'd be making so much money that I wouldn't care one bit that I was paying $100,000 a year in taxes.  Heck, I'd be satisfied to make $100,000 a year.

[GOP = Terrorists]

I urge everyone that is not a liberal to research trusts and holding companies.  By utilizing trusts and holding companies, and also corporations of say, the Seychelles, one can reduce one's tax liability to zero (provided you are able to work for yourself).  This is without fancy tricks such as detaxcanada.org.  Smart, intelligent, educated people SHOULD know that it is possible to avoid paying any income taxes.  Many rich folks do it, and I encourage all conservatives and libertarians to do so.

One last hint: bearer-shareholder corporations are your friend.  And so is numbered corporations.  "832344724 Ontario Ltd." is a good example of a corporation that is difficult to remember and track.  Unfortunately Ontario does not allow bearer-shareholders, but Seychelles does which provides one with the ability to set up a completely anonymous corporation with unknown shareholders and one anonymous director.  Make that the holding company of say your numbered company in whichever jurisiction you like (perhaps jointly owned with another local numbered company), invest, and watch the tax people cringe trying to follow the money.

Translation:  I like to shirk my duty to my country.

[Bono]

I urge everyone that is not a liberal to research trusts and holding companies.  By utilizing trusts and holding companies, and also corporations of say, the Seychelles, one can reduce one's tax liability to zero (provided you are able to work for yourself).  This is without fancy tricks such as detaxcanada.org.  Smart, intelligent, educated people SHOULD know that it is possible to avoid paying any income taxes.  Many rich folks do it, and I encourage all conservatives and libertarians to do so.

One last hint: bearer-shareholder corporations are your friend.  And so is numbered corporations.  "832344724 Ontario Ltd." is a good example of a corporation that is difficult to remember and track.  Unfortunately Ontario does not allow bearer-shareholders, but Seychelles does which provides one with the ability to set up a completely anonymous corporation with unknown shareholders and one anonymous director.  Make that the holding company of say your numbered company in whichever jurisiction you like (perhaps jointly owned with another local numbered company), invest, and watch the tax people cringe trying to follow the money.

Once again here is the prove that show that John K. Galbraith was right all along when he said: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Don't just say it. Prove it. Do you have any proof that that is the sole motivation of the whole right-wing and conservative movement? Is that any thing other than ad hominem drivel?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, the fact that the left considers everyone on the right stupid is showing. I am more than aware that there are restrictive societal morals. I just don't see this as a bad thing, and most libertarians don't either. Regardless of what you think, what most libertarians defend is spontaneous order, not chaos. Thus, the non aggression hallmark.

[Bono]

That sounds like an awful lot of work just to get out of paying income taxes.

I see in my future two paths.  One I will pay $100,000 a year in taxes and in the other I don't.

Even if you can save just $5,000 a year in taxes, over say 30 years the present value at say, investment return of 5% p.a. and inflation of 2% p.a. yields $405,000.  That is inflation adjusted, present value today.  Do you think 100 hours of time on this subject is too much?  It translates into about $4,000/hour.

If I was paying $100,000 a year in taxes, I'd be making so much money that I wouldn't care one bit that I was paying $100,000 a year in taxes.  Heck, I'd be satisfied to make $100,000 a year.

Gabu, but you are not the marginal case. Okay, I get it, you're not ambitious. Why do you want to make all people live like you?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I urge everyone that is not a liberal to research trusts and holding companies.  By utilizing trusts and holding companies, and also corporations of say, the Seychelles, one can reduce one's tax liability to zero (provided you are able to work for yourself).  This is without fancy tricks such as detaxcanada.org.  Smart, intelligent, educated people SHOULD know that it is possible to avoid paying any income taxes.  Many rich folks do it, and I encourage all conservatives and libertarians to do so.

One last hint: bearer-shareholder corporations are your friend.  And so is numbered corporations.  "832344724 Ontario Ltd." is a good example of a corporation that is difficult to remember and track.  Unfortunately Ontario does not allow bearer-shareholders, but Seychelles does which provides one with the ability to set up a completely anonymous corporation with unknown shareholders and one anonymous director.  Make that the holding company of say your numbered company in whichever jurisiction you like (perhaps jointly owned with another local numbered company), invest, and watch the tax people cringe trying to follow the money.

Once again here is the prove that show that John K. Galbraith was right all along when he said: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Why is it when speaking of liberty in rightwing-speak it's always "not paying taxes", for me that's the last thing which comes to mind when speaking of liberty. Freedom of expression and freedom from any sort of restrictive morality (whether Legal or societal - yes libertarians there is more one of type of societal guidelides, not always put across by the state.) are more important to me.

I'm not interested in justifying my selfishness because I believe everyone is selfish and see no personal moral objection to it.  Selfishness, actually, is the foundation of a good capitalist society and necessary to a free state.  I'm a selfish individual in that I want to choose how the product of my labor is spent.

The reason we invent morality in the first place is that human beings can aspire to something greater than our base animalistic insticts - plus I wonder how much "selfishness" really is part of human nature, given that money, private property and all other indicators of "selfishness" are really creations of the human mind, not 'natural' at all.

[Gabu]

Gabu, but you are not the marginal case. Okay, I get it, you're not ambitious. Why do you want to make all people live like you?

I wouldn't say I'm not ambitious in any sense.  I'd like to leave some sort of mark before I die, as would most people.  It's just that it's not money that I particularly value that highly in life.  And when did I say I wanted to make everyone live like me?  I'm fairly sure that people can still live the high life even with the existence of taxes.

The thing that I don't really understand is why people who oppose the existence of taxes seem to be perfectly fine making use of things made possible by taxes, such as the public school system, roads, the police and firefighters, medical services, etc.  If they're going to make the argument that supporting the existence of taxes implies that you should volunteer a large chunk of your income to the government, I think it's perfectly fair turn it around and say that not supporting the existence of public services - made possible through taxes - implies that you should volunteer not to make use of any of them.

[Bono]

Gabu, but you are not the marginal case. Okay, I get it, you're not ambitious. Why do you want to make all people live like you?

I wouldn't say I'm not ambitious in any sense.  I'd like to leave some sort of mark before I die, as would most people.  It's just that it's not money that I particularly value that highly in life.  And when did I say I wanted to make everyone live like me?  I'm fairly sure that people can still live the high life even with the existence of taxes.

The thing that I don't really understand is why people who oppose the existence of taxes seem to be perfectly fine making use of things made possible by taxes, such as the public school system, roads, the police and firefighters, medical services, etc.  If they're going to make the argument that supporting the existence of taxes implies that you should volunteer a large chunk of your income to the government, I think it's perfectly fair turn it around and say that not supporting the existence of public services - made possible through taxes - implies that you should volunteer not to make use of any of them.

Because, Gabu, even if we are opposed to taxes, we pay them and thus have a right to use those services--and in some cases don't have any other choice since the tax burden makes private alternatives inaccessible, or the government even grants a monopoly to the tax supported. I support the lowering of taxes and the termination of many of those services, but if I am paying for them I have a right to use them.
For instance, in Canada, if someone opposes Medicare and the income tax, do you suggest they stop using Medicare even though it's a monopoly and just die?

As for living the "high life", I don't want to live the "high life". I simply want to retire as early as I can and live in a golden mediocrity. That's all my ambition, but outrageous taxes make it that much harder to save for retirement.

[??????????]

Yes, the 16th amendment to the Constitution is clearly unconstitutional.

Correct, it wasn't properly ratified.

[opebo]

Haha, these right-wingers think that money is 'earned'.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm not interested in justifying my selfishness because I believe everyone is selfish and see no personal moral objection to it. 

Speak for yourself Richard

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a matter of opinion

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not something I'd boast about

Dave

[Richard]

I urge everyone that is not a liberal to research trusts and holding companies.  By utilizing trusts and holding companies, and also corporations of say, the Seychelles, one can reduce one's tax liability to zero (provided you are able to work for yourself).  This is without fancy tricks such as detaxcanada.org.  Smart, intelligent, educated people SHOULD know that it is possible to avoid paying any income taxes.  Many rich folks do it, and I encourage all conservatives and libertarians to do so.

One last hint: bearer-shareholder corporations are your friend.  And so is numbered corporations.  "832344724 Ontario Ltd." is a good example of a corporation that is difficult to remember and track.  Unfortunately Ontario does not allow bearer-shareholders, but Seychelles does which provides one with the ability to set up a completely anonymous corporation with unknown shareholders and one anonymous director.  Make that the holding company of say your numbered company in whichever jurisiction you like (perhaps jointly owned with another local numbered company), invest, and watch the tax people cringe trying to follow the money.

Translation:  I like to shirk my duty to my country.

That implies income tax is a duty to my country.  It is not.  It wasn't even there before 1916ish in Canada, and it was a temporary way of paying for World War I.  World War I has ended and so has my duty to pay it.

[Richard]

The thing that I don't really understand is why people who oppose the existence of taxes seem to be perfectly fine making use of things made possible by taxes, such as the public school system, roads, the police and firefighters, medical services, etc.  If they're going to make the argument that supporting the existence of taxes implies that you should volunteer a large chunk of your income to the government, I think it's perfectly fair turn it around and say that not supporting the existence of public services - made possible through taxes - implies that you should volunteer not to make use of any of them.

Do you NOT LISTEN?

public school system [municipal taxes]
roads [gasoline tax]
the police and firefighters [municipal taxes]
medical services [income taxes, yes, but I shall pay for myself]

And no, I do NOT use public services provided through income taxes, with a few notable exceptions such as national defense.  But then, does Canada really have a defense?  Doubtful.

[opebo]

The thing that I don't really understand is why people who oppose the existence of taxes seem to be perfectly fine making use of things made possible by taxes, such as the public school system, roads, the police and firefighters, medical services, etc.  If they're going to make the argument that supporting the existence of taxes implies that you should volunteer a large chunk of your income to the government, I think it's perfectly fair turn it around and say that not supporting the existence of public services - made possible through taxes - implies that you should volunteer not to make use of any of them.

Do you NOT LISTEN?

public school system [municipal taxes]
roads [gasoline tax]
the police and firefighters [municipal taxes]
medical services [income taxes, yes, but I shall pay for myself]

And no, I do NOT use public services provided through income taxes, with a few notable exceptions such as national defense.  But then, does Canada really have a defense?  Doubtful.

Richious, you do 'use' things like welfare in the same sense that you 'use' insurance - whether you actually suffer the misfortune that causes you to recieve the benefit, it is there for you.

[GOP = Terrorists]

That implies income tax is a duty to my country.

Ah but it is your duty.

[Richard]

That implies income tax is a duty to my country.

Ah but it is your duty.

I'm rather curious to know your basis for that.  Just 100 years ago that was not true.  Why should I pay a tax to fund a war that has been over for decades?

[Gustaf]

That implies income tax is a duty to my country.

Ah but it is your duty.

I'm rather curious to know your basis for that.  Just 100 years ago that was not true.  Why should I pay a tax to fund a war that has been over for decades?

What your duty is has nothing to do with what laws your country has now or has held in the past. It's actually completely irrelevant.

[Richard]

So then what is one's duties to one's country?  If I have multiple citizenships, would you say I have to pay my 40% tax in Canada and another 35% income tax in the USA since both tax on worldwide income?  It is one's duty to pay 75% income taxes by just breaking $120,000 in income a year?  Stupid.

Income taxes have nothing to do with one's "duty" to one's country.  I would have you show me an argument if you disagree.

[GOP = Terrorists]

I'm rather curious to know your basis for that.  Just 100 years ago that was not true.  Why should I pay a tax to fund a war that has been over for decades?

It has always been true.  It is your duty to pay your taxes.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm rather curious to know your basis for that.  Just 100 years ago that was not true.  Why should I pay a tax to fund a war that has been over for decades?

It has always been true.  It is your duty to pay your taxes.

Indeed it is. Of course, if Richard dislikes having to pay income taxes at all, then he can either put up, shut up or change things through legitimate political means

Dave

[MODU]

If I didn't have to pay, I wouldn't pay.  However, that's like asking if I wasn't going to grow a beard if I didn't shave, I wouldn't shave.

[Gustaf]

So then what is one's duties to one's country?  If I have multiple citizenships, would you say I have to pay my 40% tax in Canada and another 35% income tax in the USA since both tax on worldwide income?  It is one's duty to pay 75% income taxes by just breaking $120,000 in income a year?  Stupid.

Income taxes have nothing to do with one's "duty" to one's country.  I would have you show me an argument if you disagree.

I don't believe in multiple citizenship, so it's a moot point. And I agree that it is also stupid, if that's what your last remark is supposed to mean.

I don't think the question of one's duties to one's coountry is much to argue about. I belive they exist, you don't. I haven't seen much argument from your side either.