- ▼ May (4)
- ► 2010 (70)
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
In recent times we have supported so-called 'tax evaders' like Paul Hogan and Wesley Snipes for their efforts to deny the extortionist governments that enslave them. We now turn our attention to those political apologists for slavery like Cate Blanchett. So how is Blanchett a "slave driver". Well, she isn't. She is the apologist, the appeaser, the moral sanctioner who gets on her high horse and breaches:
1. The virtues of helping the poor - with others money
2. The virtues of saving the environment - even though she has no insight of merit. She has not studied climate. She probably barely even reads newspapers given the demands of being overpaid to create stories which allow people to snub their minds and engage in mindless escapism at the movies. Then she has the balls to enter the real world and make her fictional values 'contemporary'.
Interestingly she sights her 'vested interests' as a mother. I wonder whether she is sabotaging the development of her children by spoiling them with everything they need. The moral principle surely has not dawned on her because she stands her advocating, not just ignorance of climatology as her moral credentials, but also for welfare. Most people would not sanction spoiling children, and for the same reason they should not sanction unconditional or coerced wealth redistribution. Why? Because its not earned. Its guilt-induced; it makes people feel like they are the centre of others survival. Very narcissistic of Blanchett, but entirely not insightful or helpful. It is actually destructive to human character.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Read this article. This will give you a sense of the extent to which understanding the Australian Tax Code has extended beyond the laymen notion of commonsense. The price of not knowing the meaning of significance of this information is probably:
1. Several thousand dollars in punitive fines a year
2. About $2ooo in company accounts, requiring an accountant - minimum!
3. Requiring a specialist accountant - depending on your activities you could spend $10,000 a year on 'statutory commonsense'
4. You could find yourself our of pocket to the tune of millions if you seek a ruling from the tax office......which will take months, and you might be none the wiser because they did not understand the implications of their own system, and they can't let you get away with the implications. If there are less than 20,000 taxpayers effected, you are toast.
5. You can spend up to a week of your life, i.e. 2% of your time doing your tax, collecting receipts, typing them up, photocopying them, mailing them to your accountant, having tax planning meetings with him, subjecting yourself to an audit. I don't participate in this crap any more. I am on strike. I'm not alone. There are many of you doing the same thing; just in different ways. The ones with money use accountants in Bermuda. Well, I guess that is a 'tax holiday'. Some go live in the Philippines or Thailand; some drop out of the workforce, and go live on a isolated farm. Some of you become homeless, and wonder the streets 'tax free'.
Read this article and just note the concepts used. There are concepts like "GDP adjustment factors" or 'dividend imputation". I just don't consider slavery an option. I am not prepared to spend a minute on my life living for the government. Jumping its hurdles. There are perfectly good moral principles of common law which apply in any particular context. I don't need a 4000-page tax code to understand these laws...they are perfectly intelligible to all people. They prevent extortion...at least from other people. But statutory law allows the government to engage in extortion...its called the Tax Code. I no longer participate in this racket, but I know many of you do. All I can say is 'Good luck with that'. The salary men among you are the greatest suckers in that 'unfair' tax system. But even for those among you who think you are free of it....it will eventually find a way to capture the information from those Bermuda banks which so treasure their secrecy.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Its an election year in NZ, and the NZ Herald is drawing attention to a tremendous false economy. The resources that people sink into setting and administering trusts. The problem of course is that this piece of statutory folly is destined to change because its senseless policy. Yes, you might decide to set one up, then the rules arbitrarily change. It effectively turns you into a slave to the tax code. Citizens of other countries beware! This is what arbitrary government can do to you.
We need to get rid of trusts. Get rid of deductions! Get rid of subsidies! Get rid of tax! Bring the country back to its essential services. Strip out the minimum wage and watch the price of labour fall. Strip out all forms of private and public extortion and watch costs fall, and see people resume spending. No one but the super-rich can afford to build in NZ at the moment given:
1. The high cost of building approvals by local govt
2. The extortionate regime for land ownership (i.e. zoning) - worse in Australia because it actually has a growing population. You can still but cheap in NZ where the population growth rate is negative....if you can get a job.
3. The extortionate mark-ups by builders to buyers, whom are effectively using the market power given them by their customers to run a cozy deal with the hardwares. Tradesmen need then only work for 3 days. If they were aspirational, they'd just go to Australia for a 50% higher wage.
Trusts are a form of unfair tax persecution that hurt the poor more than anyone else. They are a productivity nightmare. It is not just the professionals you need to pay, its what its doing to people's judgement. People's capacity to think conceptually is impaired when their lives are governed by arbitrary ideas - as opposed to the logical, long range ideas that they would live by if the market actually followed principles, and not arbitrary statutes. If you want to succeed as an investor in this market, you need to sleep with Ben Bernacke, not study economics. Yep, if you are a seductive prostitute, you might just be over-qualified in the modern era.
Read more about the trusts industry in NZ.
Do you happen to think the tax office has too much power? Well, you would be right for a number of reasons:
1. Legal extortion: The tax office actually has the 'near' unlimited resources to spend on tax policy or 'precedent', whilst you, as a taxpayer are constrained (in most cases) with minimal resources, and a desire to seek redress for just your case. Doesn't it seem like an unlevel playing field? Well, you ought to be more anxious than you know. The implication is that for a minor expense of say $5000, you might need to fight your case to the High Court, which might cost you $500,000. Oh, and tax payers will probably pay $5mil. The bureaucracy are happy, because they just made the state $300mil a year (my guesstimate) in additional revenue.
2. Arbitrary powers: The power for the tax office to extort more money from business and individuals is a very arbitrary matter. The reason is that many moons ago, common law was supplanted by statutory law. Now, common law is rather commonsensical, whereas statutory law is 'ok' on a good day (when its enacted), but it quickly turns to quicksand in the interpretation. The reason is that, unlike common law, which actually has a context established by its framework tied to fact, statutory law has no framework, so policies are only inclined to ensure its correspondence to their existing policy. i.e. Rationalism. The implication is that one bad law begets another bad law, after business finds loopholes, or the judiciary is forced to interpret bad law.
Here we have an example of the arbitrary powers of NZ Internal Revenue. It was probably asked by the government to find more revenue. The reason is that the NZ govt is between a rock and a hard place. Its an election year, and the government has a non-performing treasury dept. It needs money and it is reluctant to cut spending, even if the polls suggest its ok. Well, of course they will do that after the election. In the meantime, the tax office is after cash.
Here we have NZ Internal Revenue arguing that you cannot claim deductions for software development which is unsuccessful; the argument being being that unsuccessful development does not lead to revenue. This is silly policy because:
1. The development is undertaken with the intent of making a profit. If this principle is not retained, then capital losses would seek to be deductions, as well as a great many other expenses and losses.
2. The policy is not consistent with other laws, or even other countries.
Frankly, I think the tax office cannot reasonably expect such an interpretation to stick. The business community will lobby against it. Why would the tax office do this then? I would suggest the NZ government is engaging in some creative accounting of its own. With an election in one year, a budget due before then, the NZ government will use the law as the basis for its budget, and then after it has benefited from it, it will reverse the decision. Its the public sector equivalent of a corporation making a provision for some contingent liability....except its contemptibly dishonest. Sounds like government, our moral authorities, doesn't it? They are fictitiously creating revenue that they have no desire to collect, lest they upset their constituency.
’Global Warming Misconceptions - View the table of contents!Global Warming Misconceptions - Download the table of contents or buy this report at our online store for just $US9.95.