Why Are Statistics On Size Of Canada's Income Tax Act Not Available To The Public?

[Clyde Armstrong]

Canda's CRA is a very huge and secretive government bureaucracy.
At least we know the size of the federal U.S. Income Tax Act. The
media, at least Fox News, has said that it is an obscene 75,000 pages
in length and it is expanding like a mushroom cloud, that never goes
away. No one can figure it out, not even the current Treasury
Secretary Timothy Geithner, who in using Turbo Tax came up short, and
became delinguent in paying the IRS what it said Geithner owed it.

Canada's federal income tax act must be just as bad, or worse.
However, in searching the Internet I could not find any references to
its size.

What a fucking mess of a country Canada is. I recall way back in the
late 1970's or early
1980s Canada's Minister of Finance under Trudeau, Donald Johnson's,
saying that he had tax lawyers prepare his return because he did not
understand the Act. Johnson, of course, as Minister of Finance was a
lawyer himself, so if he couldn't figure the fucking monstrosity out
something is very wrong with our government bureaucracy.

So why isn't Stephen Harper preparing legislation for a flat tax? We
already have a fair tax.That is the 13% HST on goods and services. We
are being taxed to death. Why isn't
Harper and his Red Tories doing some heavy tax cutting and curtailing
spending? He could start by cutting his bloated civil service
bureaucracy in half, abolish the CBC, cut the membership of MPs and
senators by about two- thirds, end equalization payments, end official
bilingualism which is ridiculous for a nation with only 1/4 of the
population speaking French. Harper and his entourage could also stop
attending all these fucking, useless G-20 meetings which keep getting
more and more lavish on other people's money.


Harper's Red Tories are deplorable, but the liberals, NDP and Greens
are worse.
As Republican, laissez-faire Calvin Coolige, America's president
during the booming 1920s, arguably the best decade in U.S. stated,
"The best government is the one that
governs least" and that the "business of government is business".

[M.I. Wakefield]

> "Clyde Armstrong" wrote in message
> news:8e39d9f6-6cbc-4da4...@hc5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
> Canda's CRA is a very huge and secretive government bureaucracy.

He misspelled "Canada". A good start for Lambourn's "Sunday Night Drunken
Rant".

Secretive is good. But I'd guess that DND, PWGSC and HRSDC are all bigger
than CRA.

> At least we know the size of the federal U.S. Income Tax Act. The
> media, at least Fox News, has said that it is an obscene 75,000 pages
> in length and it is expanding like a mushroom cloud, that never goes
> away. No one can figure it out, not even the current Treasury
> Secretary Timothy Geithner, who in using Turbo Tax came up short, and
> became delinguent in paying the IRS what it said Geithner owed it.
>
> Canada's federal income tax act must be just as bad, or worse.
> However, in searching the Internet I could not find any references to
> its size.

The consolidated Income Tax Act is 2,884 pages ... and it's fully bilingual.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-3.3.pdf

You're really not very good with the whole "google" thing, are you Ross?
And I only write that because I found the document in less than 30 seconds.

> What a fucking mess of a country Canada is. I recall way back in the

> late 1970's or early 1980s ...

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 11/6/2011 5:45 PM, Clyde Armstrong wrote:
> Canda's CRA is a very huge and secretive government bureaucracy.
> At least we know the size of the federal U.S. Income Tax Act. The
> media, at least Fox News, has said that it is an obscene 75,000 pages
> in length and it is expanding like a mushroom cloud, that never goes
> away. No one can figure it out, not even the current Treasury
> Secretary Timothy Geithner, who in using Turbo Tax came up short, and
> became delinguent in paying the IRS what it said Geithner owed it.
>
> Canada's federal income tax act must be just as bad, or worse.
> However, in searching the Internet I could not find any references to
> its size.

Using the keywords "income tax act" in Google search, the very first
link is the official, full text version of Canada's federal Income Tax
Act. Which can only mean you never actually looked for it, or you were
trying to enter search terms into the coffee maker again.

[Canuck57]

On 06/11/2011 6:45 PM, Clyde Armstrong wrote:
> Canda's CRA is a very huge and secretive government bureaucracy.
> At least we know the size of the federal U.S. Income Tax Act. The
> media, at least Fox News, has said that it is an obscene 75,000 pages
> in length and it is expanding like a mushroom cloud, that never goes
> away. No one can figure it out, not even the current Treasury
> Secretary Timothy Geithner, who in using Turbo Tax came up short, and
> became delinguent in paying the IRS what it said Geithner owed it.
>
> Canada's federal income tax act must be just as bad, or worse.
> However, in searching the Internet I could not find any references to
> its size.

The whole idea is to make it so complex, that they can invariable set
you up. Or fraud you, you can contribute to RRSP but wait, they claw it
back on pension adjustments. A ruse really.

> What a fucking mess of a country Canada is. I recall way back in the
> late 1970's or early
> 1980s Canada's Minister of Finance under Trudeau, Donald Johnson's,
> saying that he had tax lawyers prepare his return because he did not
> understand the Act. Johnson, of course, as Minister of Finance was a
> lawyer himself, so if he couldn't figure the fucking monstrosity out
> something is very wrong with our government bureaucracy.

No argument. Baffle the public with bullshit and screw them.

> So why isn't Stephen Harper preparing legislation for a flat tax? We
> already have a fair tax.That is the 13% HST on goods and services. We
> are being taxed to death. Why isn't
> Harper and his Red Tories doing some heavy tax cutting and curtailing
> spending? He could start by cutting his bloated civil service
> bureaucracy in half, abolish the CBC, cut the membership of MPs and
> senators by about two- thirds, end equalization payments, end official
> bilingualism which is ridiculous for a nation with only 1/4 of the
> population speaking French. Harper and his entourage could also stop
> attending all these fucking, useless G-20 meetings which keep getting
> more and more lavish on other people's money.

One problem with changing tax code is people have zero trust in that it
will nto be just one huge greedy tax grab and fuck fest on the taxpayers
wallet. HST tax neutrality for example. Another farce was GST was
going to lower income tax....all 100% certified Canadian political bullshit.

Real answer is people like me have a lot of bucks tax already paid and
greedy government is drooling wih greed over ways to get another dig at it.

Tax on tax on tax.....

A $200 1 hour dental hygienist, 1/2 for building, maintenace, taxes,
licenses and mreo taxes. $50 for taxes and $50 for other servies tat
also pay taxes. $40 for the dentist and receptionist, $20 more in
taxes. Hygienist has taxes and license issues....

Yep, a 1 hour session in the chair, $200 with down stream taxes factored
in is $120 in taxes and $25 net to the hygienist.

You pay $200, hygienist only nets $25 and dentist only nets $20 after
all taxes, landlord get $15 and taxes and levies form all sources and
into their products.

Yep, we have a degenerate tax system. $200 bucks for $60 of service tax
for the balance. No wonder it is cheaper outside of the J CU PIIIGGGS
in Debt debt-tax slave countries.

> Harper's Red Tories are deplorable, but the liberals, NDP and Greens
> are worse.
> As Republican, laissez-faire Calvin Coolige, America's president
> during the booming 1920s, arguably the best decade in U.S. stated,
> "The best government is the one that
> governs least" and that the "business of government is business".

Not much difference between the mafia and he government other than the
perception of legitimacy.

So having a smaller parsite is better than a big one.
--
The reason government can't fix the economic problems is government is
the problem.

[Canuck57]

On 06/11/2011 8:54 PM, M.I. Wakefield wrote:

> The consolidated Income Tax Act is 2,884 pages ... and it's fully
> bilingual.

Just means you can't be understood in two languages.

That is also the 10's of thousands of addendum and interpretations excluded.

Have made 3 calls to the CRA in 7 years, all futile, they didn't know
their own tax code. One even erred that if I had used their pathetic
advice would have cost me plenty. Had an accountant dig up the
interpretation and judgment precedents.

So screwed up they sent me a notice of special taxes because I didn't
live in Canada. Even though I have 8 years of taxes files at a Canadian
address, with a Canadian employer, sending in lots of juicy EI/CPP and
income taxes....even paid duties, have passport an all with Canadian
address. Dumbshits said I lived outside of Canada.

She fixed it when I asked for 8 years of taxes back if I don't live
here. Ditz she was.

[Canuck57]

Start digging for interpretations and guides. Judgment precedents too.

If you understand it, your at the PhD level. None of them you will ever
talk to understand the tax code unless it is mickey mouse like basic
deduction.

How many know there is a quiet income tax increase this year? Yep, the
basic deductions and tax tables were not adjusted for government stated
inflation which is lower than real inflation. So in effect, more taxes
from most people. Unless unemployed, you will probably pay more taxes
this year than last that is above inflation.

[Are you Canadian, or liberal?]

On Nov 6, 8:45 pm, Clyde Armstrong <clayno...@gmail.com> wrote:


9/9/9

[Clyde Armstrong]

You're lying, Wakefield. If not tell us how and where did you find it.
I went through several pages of crap published by CRA and nowhere did
it mention the total number of pages for the Federal Tax Code. I
phased the
question in several ways entering it in search boxes and not once was
my question answered.

Here is a typical response from Canada's CRA, asshole.

Results for Total pages of Canada's Income Tax Law

Income Tax
Income taxes can be very difficult to understand. Most people have a
certain amount of money deducted from their paychecks every month.
Every year in April, we see whether we owe

CanDoFinance > Taxes > Income Tax

And the figure you give is not logical or believable. The fact that
the U.S. is about 10 times larger than Canada
makes no difference. We have the same kind of interventionist as the
U.S.; a high-spending and high taxing
federal government. Thus our income tax code should be compable in
size.

[Clyde Armstrong]

On Nov 6, 10:54 pm, "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote:

> > "Clyde Armstrong"  wrote in message
> >news:8e39d9f6-6cbc-4da4...@hc5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Canda's CRA is a very huge and secretive government bureaucracy.
>
> He misspelled "Canada".  A good start for Lambourn's "Sunday Night Drunken
> Rant".
>
> Secretive is good.  But I'd guess that DND, PWGSC and HRSDC are all bigger
> than CRA.
>
> > At least we know the size of the federal U.S. Income Tax Act. The
> > media, at least Fox News, has said that it is an obscene 75,000 pages
> > in length and it is expanding like a mushroom cloud, that never goes
> > away. No one can figure it out, not even the current Treasury
> > Secretary Timothy Geithner, who in using Turbo Tax came up short, and
> > became delinguent in paying the IRS what it said Geithner owed it.
>
> > Canada's federal income tax act must be just as bad, or worse.
> > However, in searching the Internet I could not find any references to
> > its size.
>
> The consolidated Income Tax Act is 2,884 pages ... and it's fully bilingual.

Send us the copy of the page where you found this little pearl of
information, Wakefield. Canada has the same
kind of interventionist government as the U.S. It is another big
spend, high tax socialist government and its tax forms are just as
prolix and complicated. Yet you are trying to say that Canada's income
tax code is 26 times less complicated than that of the U.S. This would
be impossible whatever conclusions Google or Wikipedia are free to
make. So you should make a retraction and apology in your next post.
You are either lying or mistaken.
Which is it?

Why have you added that little irrelevant item, idiot? That just makes
Canada's system much more expensive.

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Clyde Armstrong" wrote in message

news:c2bb4764-e64a-4d5c...@g27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 6, 10:54 pm, "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote:

Snip!

> > The consolidated Income Tax Act is 2,884 pages ... and it's fully
> > bilingual.
> >
> > http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-3.3.pdf
> >
> > You're really not very good with the whole "google" thing, are you Ross?
> > And I only write that because I found the document in less than 30
> > seconds.
>

> You're lying, Wakefield. If not tell us how and where did you find it.

Where possible, I'd rather find the answer from first sources, instead of
relying on what someone else wrote.

So, I went to www.google.ca, and I started typing in the search box: canada
income tax act

I didn't have to finish typing the word "act" before the Income Tax Act link
was top of the list ... and I repeated this search from my wife's computer,
just to ensure that this afternoon's result didn't result from a cookie on
my computer.

Then I clicked on the link to open the page, and clicked on the pdf link at
the top of the page ... after the document downloads (Yes, I am impressed
with the speed of my internet provider), I can see that there are 2,914
pages ... but a number of them are the index ... when I scroll to the bottom
of the document, the last page number is 2,884.

> I went through several pages of crap published by CRA and nowhere did
> it mention the total number of pages for the Federal Tax Code. I
> phased the
> question in several ways entering it in search boxes and not once was
> my question answered.
>
> Here is a typical response from Canada's CRA, asshole.
>
> Results for Total pages of Canada's Income Tax Law
>
> Income Tax
> Income taxes can be very difficult to understand. Most people have a
> certain amount of money deducted from their paychecks every month.
> Every year in April, we see whether we owe
>
> CanDoFinance > Taxes > Income Tax
>
> And the figure you give is not logical or believable. The fact that
> the U.S. is about 10 times larger than Canada
> makes no difference. We have the same kind of interventionist as the
> U.S.; a high-spending and high taxing
> federal government. Thus our income tax code should be compable in
> size.

There are another 1,572 pages of associated regulations,

And while you might describe the Canadian government as interventionist, it
tends to act through direct subsidy or investment, not by carving out
special tax rules for individual businesses.

As as to the ease or difficulty of finding this information, one of us made
our living as a systems analyst, and one of us as a grammar checker ... I
leave it to the audience to identify which is which.

[Chom Noamsky]

On 11/7/2011 11:21 AM, Clyde Armstrong wrote:

>> The consolidated Income Tax Act is 2,884 pages ... and it's fully bilingual.
>
> Send us the copy of the page where you found this little pearl of
> information, Wakefield.

The Income Tax Act is published in nice convenient HTML, XML and PDF
formats. Open the PDF document, navigate to the last page, and note the
page number. Finding the document and getting the number of pages is a
trivial task, one can only deduce that you are dysfunctional and
incompetent to the point you can't do even simple online research tasks.

[M.I. Wakefield]

"Clyde Armstrong" wrote in message

news:ab78779b-8232-48a9...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...

> On Nov 6, 10:54 pm, "M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote:

Snip!

> > The consolidated Income Tax Act is 2,884 pages ... and it's fully
> > bilingual.

> Send us the copy of the page where you found this little pearl of
> information, Wakefield.

Heaven forfend that you actually look at the link I included (it remains
below), which is a pdf of the actual Act ... the pearl of information is
available on the last page of the document.

> Canada has the same
> kind of interventionist government as the U.S. It is another big
> spend, high tax socialist government and its tax forms are just as
> prolix and complicated. Yet you are trying to say that Canada's income
> tax code is 26 times less complicated than that of the U.S.

Where Canada intervenes, it tends to act in ways other than carving out
special exemptions in the tax code.

There are more than 1,500 pages of associated regulations (again, left
column English, right column French), but since I've never had cause to read
US legislation, I can't compare the complexity of their legal language to
the Canadian equivalent.

> This would
> be impossible whatever conclusions Google or Wikipedia are free to
> make. So you should make a retraction and apology in your next post.
> You are either lying or mistaken.
> Which is it?

I'm not making any conclusions from Google or Wikipedia, I'm making a
finding directly from the primary source evidence.

Relying on other people to provide you with all your information ends up
with people believing everything that Fox News, or Newsmax, or World Net
Daily, tells them; and there's lots of examples around that that's not a
good thing.

So, I'm not lying, and I'm not mistaken. There is a third alternative;
Lambourn is an ignorant, clueless, blowhard.

> Why have you added that little irrelevant item, idiot? That just makes
> Canada's system much more expensive.

A racist, ignorant, clueless, blowhard.

Click here to see the actual Income Tax Act of Canada:
---> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/I-3.3.pdf

Click here to see the associated Regulations:
---> http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/PDF/C.R.C.,_c._945.pdf

[40%ŽÇonned]

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message
news:0RXtq.39261$G32....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> As as to the ease or difficulty of finding this information, one of us made our living as a
> systems analyst, and one of us as a grammar checker ... I leave it to the audience to
> identify which is which.

You left out another option: 'one of you changes occupations almost every time he posts' -
whether using his own or his wife's computer.

I thought a "systems analyst" would know how to block or erase cookies. Maybe not . . . . .

[M.I. Wakefield]

"40%ŽÇonned" wrote in message news:s1Ztq.24221$Cr1...@newsfe03.iad...

> You left out another option: 'one of you changes occupations almost every
> time he posts' -
> whether using his own or his wife's computer.

Got any cites of me talking about my occupation??

And a stalking hit for you, Kkkaren ... don't trust Patriot Games or Buster
Norris ... I really don't live in Thunder Bay.

[40%ŽÇonned]

> "40%ŽÇonned" wrote in message news:s1Ztq.24221$Cr1...@newsfe03.iad...
>
>> You left out another option: 'one of you changes occupations almost every time he posts' -
>> whether using his own or his wife's computer.

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message

news:VDZtq.39263$G32....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Got any cites of me talking about my occupation??
>
> And a stalking hit for you, Kkkaren ... don't trust Patriot Games or Buster Norris ... I
> really don't live in Thunder Bay.

It's your newsgroup pal, Schild, who's the stalker. He compiles tomes on everyone and
especially on female posters.

And you just told us you were a "systems analyst". Are you wanting to revise that now?

[M.I. Wakefield]

"40%ŽÇonned" wrote in message news:Qb_tq.24259$Cr1....@newsfe03.iad...

> And you just told us you were a "systems analyst". Are you wanting to
> revise that now?

I waiting for you to provide examples of me writing about my occupation.

[40%ŽÇonned]

"M.I. Wakefield" <none@present> wrote in message

news:qs_tq.39264$G32....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> I waiting for you to provide examples of me writing about my occupation.

Were you lying about being a "systems analyst", "Wakefield'?

[M.I. Wakefield]

"40%ŽÇonned" wrote in message news:nx_tq.17871$SW4....@newsfe08.iad...

Nope ... but you said I changed occupations by the post ... prove it.