Cesar Fernandez-Stoll
April 30, 2008
April 30, 2008
Each year April 30 marks a day when the people of Canada, have to come to terms with their own government, surrendering their privacy and finances, so that their lives can be valued based on money and hate and manipulation and blackmail.
By this day, the government, over sixteen months; has already taken a great amount of the individual’s hard worked earnings not just when they were being paid by his/her employer, but also at the point of consumption when they use the remains to buy goods and other items of prime necessity or not and all of this to a level that goes, for most; surrounding the half of their earnings and for many; even more, much more. The consequence of which in many cases; households need to be split and when not; husband and wife must work so that at least one of the salaries goes to satisfy the thirst of the taxation system.
The government takes money from the product of hard work of its citizens long before it is, according to the same law, time for accountability. Not only the law is wrongly perpetuated, but the same law also much prematurely, according to its own rules; confiscates valuable resources from the most in need while selling hate for the less needed.
In order to manage and control this ‘duty’ of the citizens; the government has built a tremendous bureaucratic apparatus very sophisticated and very automated, that consumes a great deal of the taxes confiscated form the public.
Income taxes are wrong period, mainly because they are grossly unfair and if that does not suffice; they tax productivity discouraging job creation and promoting social classes and hate and envy and jealously; between the people and these classes.
It is grossly unfair because it takes away the resources needed by individuals and families to prosper and it does it based on the gross earnings of the needy but on the net earnings of the rich, even if the presumption is that the rich are being paid more, which is where the hate issue is.
This is hardly an incentive for prosperity because clearly the lack of resources tends more to perpetuate a condition than to generate any incentive to move forward as instead generates stagnation.
In a free society, there is not a single reason why a citizen should be disclosing any type of information to the government as it is not a requirement for a government to require information from its citizens.
Governments need to be small in size so that they can get big in reach as allowing the individual amplitude of action and freedom is the highest task of any government and this is simply because governments belong to the individual, not to corporations not to labour unions not to politicians, but to individuals and families, which is what make any country great.
A number of sound ‘excuses’ are built into the income tax system to ‘convince’ the people that there is actually some good in allowing governments to retrieve private information from its citizens; like to prevent money laundering, or to be able to produce a direction where the country needs to go, or to learn how many need this or how many have that.
The country is what the people makes them, not the government, and if the government assumes the responsibility of making a country for its people as opposed to guarantying the conditions for the people to equally enjoy their freedoms; the outcome is always stagnation and reduction in productivity.
On one end, the people finds not need to prosper because the government offers a fallacious perception of that and no effort is so required for anything.
On the other end, the people that wants to work; is deprived of the important resources the people that do not find a reason to prosper consumes.
The idea that governments know best or that the typical individual is mediocre or ill educated and incapable of taking sound decisions is pure nonsense tailored by politicians without scruples to justify their controlling urge.
The idea that governments can actually control money laundering is as fallacious as any of the other ideas related to surrendering our freedom to the government because it is consumption what drives markets and illegal markets do not stop being markets and so, if the people finds actually ways to prosper because there is more resources in their hands, the natural outcome is less consumption in illegalities and thereby less money to launder.
Canada certainly enjoys very rich years what reflects a rather inconsistent picture to what is exposed above in this document. However, this hardly means the people of the country is prospering nor it means the people is enjoying that richness, because still there is a large group in the population that is being subsidized by governments which have not play on subsidizing anybody and this sole need represents a sad reality of what dependency on the government produces.
A very sad situation is that of a person that abdicates his/her power of creativity and invective in favor of politicians giving them peanuts for their silence.
Canada gets into producing all of this money, by partnership, which in our case; is a form of oligopoly run by the state. The way this is accomplished is by getting selected businesses to enjoy a protection against competition, regulating them to be the only ones that meet the eye, and usually there is a political cost to that as these businesses do contribute juicy amounts to promote the collectivism the government wants to impose.
The problem with this is that as competition benefits the public because better and more efficient products and services are enjoyed; by eliminating competition, goods and services are reduced to a very deficient and negative culture that sadly on one end; ends up satisfying itself with poor quality or on the other end, just does not prosper because there is no point to it.
The other end of the equation is that in order to maintain the people under control, labour unions in undemocratic procedures, are let to control workers and the flow of production, not only at the point of the potential labour disagreement, but across many industries typically unrelated and so a cloud of blackmail is deposited over the country to satisfy that balance between governments, business and labour. The way these unions operate, makes of them but glorified cartels.
Income taxes and taxes over all and for that matter; can be taken away from the backs of the people and the country will be much more prosperous by just reducing the government to its point of efficiency which is a very small size and by applying taxes exclusively to businesses.
In this way few things are accomplished. For instance; as businesses pass every cost they incur to the people; taxes will thereby be passed to the consumer and as competition benefits the consumer with quality and service improved; the people will determine the fairness of the taxation purpose. A tacit condition of this scheme is that no more deductions nor any more subsides nor grants of any kind be allowed to anyone and for whatever the reason there is as any newly found ‘incentive’ or ‘subside’ will go in detriment of the fairness of the taxation system.
A great outcome of the idea is that there will no more requirement to file income taxes nor to disclose private information to anyone but to whom the individual, the ultimate consumer; chooses to do. Levels of stress in the people will be reduced as they no more will be intimidated by their governments to open their lives to them. Last but not least, the bureaucratic apparatus as well as the network of parasites living of the system, built in the last ninety years will be dismantled for good.
Any change needs courage and resolve, especially if it is voluntary and as life is a sequence and consequence of changes of both kinds; what is needed is the resolve to establish the direction and to produce the blueprint for the implementation of the change.
Clearly a change of this magnitude cannot be expected to be a transformation of one day, but it is a change that requires commitment and direction and evidence, that the intention is being converted into the expected change.
I hope this short analysis helps if anything, to cultivate the idea of the damage this infamous law, the income tax act and the taxation system in Canada, as implemented, is doing and how it is impacting the common good for the individuals and families of this great nation.
A final note can be also included to mention that the impulse given to the economy by the institution of credit, is very much in part propelled by the lack of cash in hand the consumer has due to the government having taken away over half of his/her earnings and at the same time creating an inflated pricing structure that suggests wealth, that exists only in the government and its friends but not in the everyday individual.
By this day, the government, over sixteen months; has already taken a great amount of the individual’s hard worked earnings not just when they were being paid by his/her employer, but also at the point of consumption when they use the remains to buy goods and other items of prime necessity or not and all of this to a level that goes, for most; surrounding the half of their earnings and for many; even more, much more. The consequence of which in many cases; households need to be split and when not; husband and wife must work so that at least one of the salaries goes to satisfy the thirst of the taxation system.
The government takes money from the product of hard work of its citizens long before it is, according to the same law, time for accountability. Not only the law is wrongly perpetuated, but the same law also much prematurely, according to its own rules; confiscates valuable resources from the most in need while selling hate for the less needed.
In order to manage and control this ‘duty’ of the citizens; the government has built a tremendous bureaucratic apparatus very sophisticated and very automated, that consumes a great deal of the taxes confiscated form the public.
Income taxes are wrong period, mainly because they are grossly unfair and if that does not suffice; they tax productivity discouraging job creation and promoting social classes and hate and envy and jealously; between the people and these classes.
It is grossly unfair because it takes away the resources needed by individuals and families to prosper and it does it based on the gross earnings of the needy but on the net earnings of the rich, even if the presumption is that the rich are being paid more, which is where the hate issue is.
This is hardly an incentive for prosperity because clearly the lack of resources tends more to perpetuate a condition than to generate any incentive to move forward as instead generates stagnation.
In a free society, there is not a single reason why a citizen should be disclosing any type of information to the government as it is not a requirement for a government to require information from its citizens.
Governments need to be small in size so that they can get big in reach as allowing the individual amplitude of action and freedom is the highest task of any government and this is simply because governments belong to the individual, not to corporations not to labour unions not to politicians, but to individuals and families, which is what make any country great.
A number of sound ‘excuses’ are built into the income tax system to ‘convince’ the people that there is actually some good in allowing governments to retrieve private information from its citizens; like to prevent money laundering, or to be able to produce a direction where the country needs to go, or to learn how many need this or how many have that.
The country is what the people makes them, not the government, and if the government assumes the responsibility of making a country for its people as opposed to guarantying the conditions for the people to equally enjoy their freedoms; the outcome is always stagnation and reduction in productivity.
On one end, the people finds not need to prosper because the government offers a fallacious perception of that and no effort is so required for anything.
On the other end, the people that wants to work; is deprived of the important resources the people that do not find a reason to prosper consumes.
The idea that governments know best or that the typical individual is mediocre or ill educated and incapable of taking sound decisions is pure nonsense tailored by politicians without scruples to justify their controlling urge.
The idea that governments can actually control money laundering is as fallacious as any of the other ideas related to surrendering our freedom to the government because it is consumption what drives markets and illegal markets do not stop being markets and so, if the people finds actually ways to prosper because there is more resources in their hands, the natural outcome is less consumption in illegalities and thereby less money to launder.
Canada certainly enjoys very rich years what reflects a rather inconsistent picture to what is exposed above in this document. However, this hardly means the people of the country is prospering nor it means the people is enjoying that richness, because still there is a large group in the population that is being subsidized by governments which have not play on subsidizing anybody and this sole need represents a sad reality of what dependency on the government produces.
A very sad situation is that of a person that abdicates his/her power of creativity and invective in favor of politicians giving them peanuts for their silence.
Canada gets into producing all of this money, by partnership, which in our case; is a form of oligopoly run by the state. The way this is accomplished is by getting selected businesses to enjoy a protection against competition, regulating them to be the only ones that meet the eye, and usually there is a political cost to that as these businesses do contribute juicy amounts to promote the collectivism the government wants to impose.
The problem with this is that as competition benefits the public because better and more efficient products and services are enjoyed; by eliminating competition, goods and services are reduced to a very deficient and negative culture that sadly on one end; ends up satisfying itself with poor quality or on the other end, just does not prosper because there is no point to it.
The other end of the equation is that in order to maintain the people under control, labour unions in undemocratic procedures, are let to control workers and the flow of production, not only at the point of the potential labour disagreement, but across many industries typically unrelated and so a cloud of blackmail is deposited over the country to satisfy that balance between governments, business and labour. The way these unions operate, makes of them but glorified cartels.
Income taxes and taxes over all and for that matter; can be taken away from the backs of the people and the country will be much more prosperous by just reducing the government to its point of efficiency which is a very small size and by applying taxes exclusively to businesses.
In this way few things are accomplished. For instance; as businesses pass every cost they incur to the people; taxes will thereby be passed to the consumer and as competition benefits the consumer with quality and service improved; the people will determine the fairness of the taxation purpose. A tacit condition of this scheme is that no more deductions nor any more subsides nor grants of any kind be allowed to anyone and for whatever the reason there is as any newly found ‘incentive’ or ‘subside’ will go in detriment of the fairness of the taxation system.
A great outcome of the idea is that there will no more requirement to file income taxes nor to disclose private information to anyone but to whom the individual, the ultimate consumer; chooses to do. Levels of stress in the people will be reduced as they no more will be intimidated by their governments to open their lives to them. Last but not least, the bureaucratic apparatus as well as the network of parasites living of the system, built in the last ninety years will be dismantled for good.
Any change needs courage and resolve, especially if it is voluntary and as life is a sequence and consequence of changes of both kinds; what is needed is the resolve to establish the direction and to produce the blueprint for the implementation of the change.
Clearly a change of this magnitude cannot be expected to be a transformation of one day, but it is a change that requires commitment and direction and evidence, that the intention is being converted into the expected change.
I hope this short analysis helps if anything, to cultivate the idea of the damage this infamous law, the income tax act and the taxation system in Canada, as implemented, is doing and how it is impacting the common good for the individuals and families of this great nation.
A final note can be also included to mention that the impulse given to the economy by the institution of credit, is very much in part propelled by the lack of cash in hand the consumer has due to the government having taken away over half of his/her earnings and at the same time creating an inflated pricing structure that suggests wealth, that exists only in the government and its friends but not in the everyday individual.
Comments