Either

Or

This brings us to who really is responsible for the creation of our income tax system, simply it's the "international bankers". They weren't always know as the "international bankers", but over the years as these self-appointed "elite" financially conquered countries of the world, a pig by any other name is still a pig.

Once they gained control of a nation's money supply they could create economic hardship at will. Which they did by creating periodic wars and depressions to entrench their financial grip on unsuspecting nations.

Unlike the United States though, Canada, due to its time in history, did not go through lengthy battles against the world bankers, but merely fell prey to them with a stroke of a pen.

The answer to this question is two-fold.

1. First, how did the world bankers gain control over our government's right to print and issue the nation's currency?

2. And second, how could the government get away with this for so many years.

The implementation of an income tax system was nothing more than the quid pro quo between a few gluttonous politicians and the world bankers. The bankers promised to provide a stable money supply, with a modest interest rate of course, in exchange for political power for the few insatiable politicians, as well as an income tax system that would allow them to receive their interest payments from the pockets of the citizens.

How they implemented income tax systems around the world vary greatly depending on the foundational legal structure a country was built upon. For most countries it was really quit simple. For example, countries with a Civil Law (Napoleonic) system, the government could simply demand their citizen to start paying income tax, while countries like the United States had to make an amendment to their social contract, the U.S. Constitution. The only question remaining, in relation to the United States is, was the 16th  Amendment properly ratified. There's been a lot of evidence brought forward over the last few years to suggest otherwise.

This is where Canada differs greatly from both civil law nations, such a France, and common law nations, such the United States and Australia, who both have an element of supposed independence from Great Britain and it's common-law foundation. From what we have been able to ascertain, Canada, being that it's creation is by way of a British statute, the British North American Act, 1867, still adheres to an unwritten social contract, which although imposes a few necessary social obligations, it still holds our  human rights and fundamental freedoms as sacrosanct. 

Because of this foundational aspect of our country's legal structure, it took approximately 4 years before the federal government, on behalf of the world bankers, could implement an income tax system directly on to the earnings of the individuals of this country. And once it was implemented it was promoted to the public as a temporary measure to help finance the cost of the war. Yet in reality it was never intended to be temporary but was left to the discretion of the Finance Minister, who I'm sure was well rewarded by his masters, the world bankers, to keep it in place.

It is because of the reality of this duality of person in law that when the government  passes certain legislative Acts, such as the Income Tax Act, it is forced to ambiguously state, using the media and their own printings, that the Act applies to a person.  Their hope is that you remain naively trusting of them so that you'll easily fall prey to this subtle manipulation of the true meaning behind the Income Tax Act's use of the word "person", leaving know one to blame but yourself.

Without an awareness of this duality of person in law and the bureaucrats convenient oversight of not clearly identifying which type of person in law the Act applies to, they know you'll most likely go thorough the rest of your life feeling subjected to the arbitrary whim of a bureaucracy gone mad and continue to assume that the Income Tax Act applies directly to you for the amounts you received in your natural capacity as a natural person, under a private contract, for your own benefit.

As preposterous as some of this may seem at this point in your journey just wait until you met a lawyer with his gold embossed diploma on the wall and prestigious letters behind his name, who, when asked about a natural person, pretentiously remarks, "No such thing exists in law, you must be getting fed some false information." When that happens, and believe me it will if you keep moving forward on your journey, you're going to have to make a decision.

* As for proving to professionals, remember this: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." *                                                                                                                  ~ Upton Sinclair

Becoming aware of this duality of person is a great first step, however, as I stated earlier, the scope of this Intermediate page restricts me from delving into other areas such as, the foundational supremacy of your human rights and fundamental freedoms and the great legislative works that ensures the recognition and protection of them. This area of study will assist you in your understanding and give you the personal knowledge that you are free... you just didn't know it, or how to protect it.

Another area of study which is to broad to explain in the scope of this page deals with Principles of Interpretation that need to be applied when reading statutory legislation. This knowledge will empower you with ability to read a statute with a clearer understanding of its intent and purpose, and who it actually applies to.

Regardless of your personal level of education of the English language, this area of study will be most enlightening, especially once you come to terms with that fact that in the drafting of a statue law, any word can be redefined to mean something way beyond the boundaries of logic and common sense.

For Example:

Black means White... and White means Blue bed pants with yellow polka dots.

...Say what...

As ludicrous as this may sound, this is a standard practice that has been applied in the most artful way in the Income Tax Act. Within the Income Tax Act you'll see the redefining of such words as "employee", "employer", and "employment" to name but a few.  This art form is what has kept the illusion that, income tax is as certain as death, alive and well for over eight decades.

From a logical human perspective this concept may seem offensive, but in the world of statutory construction it is allowed, therefore as immoral as it may seem, it is legal. And the use of this legalized "Word Magic" is no secret, the knowledge of this legal manipulation of words  is well know by those who understand the game and is used for their own advantage as the need arises.

This quote from U.S. President Bill Clinton shows his awareness of the use of  "Word Magic" and his willingness to expose the reality of its use during the legal battle he had in relation to inappropriate behaviour and Monica Lewinsky.

This was the only way for the federal government to implement such a tax, as it was restricted to the raising of money only through of Indirect Taxation. However, it was not always this way. For a short period of our history the federal government did infringe on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Using the first world war as an national emergency the federal government was allowed, under the Emergency Measures Act, to impose a Direct Tax on to the labour of it's citizens. This brief infringement lasted as long as the feds got away with it and no one complained, and very few did because in today standards it would be equivalent to earning around $300,000 per year before you were even subject to the modest 4% tax rate.

Over the pursuing years the federal government started to enlarge its jurisdiction by methodically encroaching into other areas of provincial jurisdiction.  Finally a challenge, in regards to one of these federal-provincial jurisdictional issues, came before the Supreme Court. Which, at that time in history, had just recently became the highest court in the land. The case is know as the Lord Nelson Hotel Case of 1950. The transcripts themselves make for a great history lesson, as seven Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed and laid out, in the most certain of words, that both federal and provincial jurisdictions were like "water tight compartments", and as defined within the founding Act, no provision of the BNA Act had either expressed or implied that either party could enter into any agreement which would allow the other to perform their respective duties.

As our research supports, it was sometime during the 12 years, in which they had been ordered to remove themselves from provincial jurisdictions, that the income tax system we have today was fine tuned. It went from being a Direct Tax, directly on the earnings you made for your own benefit into an internal federal excise tax (Indirect Tax) which is only mandatory for those who choose to work in the capacity of "legal representative" for the benefit of a federally created artificial person under an implied contract of service, known as an a "officer”, AKA "taxpayer", in exchange for a benefit called the Canada Pension Plan.

The question, "Why", can be answered from two perspectives.

Question #1

1. Why are the international bankers so persistent in trying to gain financial control over the world?

Question #2

Is the question from the Introductory page we encouraged you to contemplate...

2. "Why do I pay income tax?"

                                  Greed...it's that simple.

Most likely, fear and/or a lack of knowledge and/or a vested interest.

This is why we've been so insistent that you rely on your own ability to discern fact from fiction and come to your own conclusions by studying the facts yourself. As much as we would like to free your mind from the Illusion it has become accustom to, we realize that no one can free your mind but you, all we can do is show you the door.

Here's a list of the top five honest answers (excuses) that came from individuals who found the strength to seek the truth behind the question ...

"Why do I pay income tax?"

Regardless of what your honest answer is, look at the bright side. Once you have found your own truth behind why you've been paying income tax, against your personal desire, you now know you don't have to fight against a genetically inherited disposition to give up to half of your earnings to feed the insatiable greed of a few self-serving politicians and their money masters.

The income tax system is constitutional and legal, and to create a case for fraud and get it heard by an independent and impartial tribunal would be virtually impossible. However, this is not to say that the reason income tax was introduced and the intentional use of "Word Magic" to make it appear mandatory is not unethical and immoral. It just shows you that there is a vast difference between what we feel is right in the real world and what can be made right within the legal world.

So now you're left with three choices,