Canadians are paying 46% of their paychecks in INCOME taxes
(twitter.com)
đź’° Canadian Taxes Suck đź’¸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (60)
sorted by:
I’m referring to public laws, for example: https://www.congress.gov/97/statute/STATUTE-96/STATUTE-96-Pg1211.pdf
And no, Cornell is not an authoritative source but it’s better than nothing.
If you’re looking for a single source (which I think you are) you won’t find it. Instead you have to “connect the dots” so to speak. An example: Public Law 86-624 says that statutes are limited by their definitions. So now you would need to understand the definitions and how they apply to you. Define “employee”, “employer”, “trade or business”, etc… they all relate to businesses.
Don’t take this personally but being lazy won’t get you far: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C1-1-1/ALDE_00013387/
You are, then, referring to statutes and USC, which are not the Constitution, and calling it “the Constitution”.
Stop accusing of laziness when you’re using the wrong terms. I asked you if that was what you meant.
And no, A1S8C1 is not where the definition of “income” is at. Fairly sure it’s not in USC either.
Usc and statues are codifications of public law.
Correct, like I said: If you’re looking for a single source (which I think you are) you won’t find it. Instead you have to “connect the dots” so to speak.
Simply doing a word search is the epitome of laziness, as it requires the least amount of effort. Reading is where the reward is. “Income” is a form of taxation, so again, start with the articles I linked and go down the rabbit hole.
The only way to win is litigation and that requires understanding.
If you just want some copy paste nonsense, try https://www.freedomlawschool.org/ or https://capitalvsincome.com/
“Thanks.”