tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24608075536577990062024-02-19T09:02:29.233-08:00Resource Rent Tax Australia | Tax Abuse | Carbon TaxResource Tax Rent, Carbon Tax, Tax abuse, Taxation, Stop taxation, Australian Taxes, Taxes Australia, NZ TaxationAndrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-65275667110716208952013-10-15T00:59:00.001-07:002013-10-15T00:59:25.211-07:00Taxes in the USA are voluntary<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lovely place the USA - taxes are voluntary. Oh well, some taxes aren't like withholding tax. Oh, and if you are confused by the word voluntarily, you might struggle to realise that you are free. You're just an ungrateful inbreed if you don't.<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/H6q0slMhDw8" width="420"></iframe>
<br />
<b>Asian property markets outperforming</b> <a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <b><a href="http://sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/2660019/buying-philippines-property-2-volume-ebook">Philippines Property Guide</a></b><br />
<b>Profit from mining with</b> <a href="http://miningstocks.sheldonthinks.com/">Global Mining Investing eBook</a></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
</div>
<br />Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-66946041349939331152013-08-19T18:46:00.001-07:002013-08-19T18:46:16.103-07:00The use of CFDs to avoid taxation - the threat of market failure<div style="text-align: justify;">
There is <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaY-MKi3EMg&feature=youtube_gdata_player">news here</a> that the US debt is not $17 trillion, but actually $200 trillion. This I assumes is public debt. But I'm more interested actually in the nature of private debt. It occurred to me that its very easy for institutions to use debt to avoid tax. The strategy that they can apply is simply 'to just never sell a security', or at least to defer the sale as long as practical to defer any tax liability. This strategy would entail using 'Contracts for Difference' because the cost of capital is lower than options, and they are as liquid as the underlying security. The strategy involves using CFDs to avoid a tax liability by buying a 'contrary' short position (i.e. a new offsetting position) rather than selling the original security. Now, you are paying interest on that debt, but its such low interest rates at present.<br />
The bad news is that if this is a popular strategy for 'profit-driven' institutions, then I fear govt has actually got itself in a pickle where it will cause the collapse of the financial system. The implication is that it will not bel able to let interest rates rise. It has in fact placed itself in a position where it is 'by default' actually managing the economy. I think if you examine the folly of any autocrat like Hitler; you realise that they did not articulate a plan to arrive at autocracy; they simply manage to get themselves into a delusional pickle of arbitrarily making decisions to get themselves out of an old pickle. This as I see it is the type of situation we are in now. Of course this is not new; and not just in global finance, but across every area of government. This is of course why government needs to be 'wound back' to simply 'facilitating a legislature'. Give it a budget of $1 million a year, and it will not have any power. Politicians as private persons contributing at their discretion in a private meritocracy.<br />
So how bad is this crisis going to be? Well, we must remember that these CFDs net off. The problem is that you'd expect them to sell the 'short' positions in a rising market to realise any losses to offset against some of their gains. After all, you would expect that to reduce liabilities (or their interest expense and tax liabilities as much as possible). That's a problem. It also creates a threat of market failure because investors will be fearing that the govt will attempt to recoup unpaid taxes because this is blatant 'tax evasion'.<br />
Hehe I saw the tax evasion opportunity some time ago...but the opportunity for 'arbitrary govt policy (tax) to precipitate a financial crisis has just become apparent to me.<br />
Why am I laughing? Well I guess because I hold a share of 4-5 million oz of gold in the ground....and I'm sure there is a lot more there. Since its underground, no brute will be able to get it. More importantly, its in a poor country where they are used to being poor, so they are not going to riot when they are 'still poor'. Whereas you suckers are going to be saying 'what about access to my super'. You have fallen under the spell of 'sanctioning arbitrary government', and look where they have taken you.<br />
When the Roman Empire collapsed, intellectuals looked to 'emerging' poor markets for security. I wonder whether Western intellectuals will look to the 'secular' Asian markets in this fashion. It remains to be seen how these alliances will shape up, but there is destined to be a lot of angry people in years to come. The fault will be everyone's in general, but no one in particular. But really, the fault will be everyone's except the intellectual libertarians. Paradoxically, they will be the most spurned for being 'pro-market'. The reality however is that they were the only one's that did not sanction government intervention in the economy. The closest defender of their values in the US Congress was Ron Paul. He is 'compromised' by his position, but he wanted to abolish the Fed Reserve.<br />
<br />
<b>Asian property markets outperforming</b> <a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <b><a href="http://sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/2660019/buying-philippines-property-2-volume-ebook">Philippines Property Guide</a></b><br />
<b>Profit from mining with</b> <a href="http://miningstocks.sheldonthinks.com/">Global Mining Investing eBook</a></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
</div>
<br />Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-40474481293286311582013-04-26T01:40:00.000-07:002013-04-26T01:40:52.969-07:00The Australian Tax Office persecutes another innocent Australian<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
The <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-couple-jailed-for-12-million-tax-fraud-20130426-2iix0.html">Australian Tax Office (ATO)</a> has claimed another ‘scalp’ under its ‘Shock & Awe’ psychological tracking down of people evading tax. Its an interesting issue because:<br />
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>We elect governments to enforce legitimate law<br />
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>We expect government to act as custodians of people<br />
So what of Jane and Ron Sakovits? They are a couple of small business people convicted of tax evasion. The problem with tax collection is that its ‘unjustified expropriation’. The reason that its justified is because:<br />
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Its involuntary or coerced<br />
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It’s unethical<br />
Now, the tax office is acting under an entirely different ethical framework of course. But don’t let that full you, they are acting under the premise of illegitimate gain. So how do they get away with it? Well, they rely on several points:<br />
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The broader electorate feeling disempowered or unempathetic<br />
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The broader electorate feeling there is value in the expropriation – never mind that the quality of services under the Gillard government has been shockingly bad<br />
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The lack of recourse, the disparity in resources available to fight a case<br />
4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The moral ambivalence of the counterparty<br />
5.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The conflict of interest of the presiding judges, i.e. getting paid by the govt; retaining the same ‘bureaucratic mindset of the judge’.<br />
6.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The belief that compliance is the basis of stability and peace<br />
The reality is that you have what you have come to believe are political rights because the government no longer needs to politically persecute you as long as it has ‘economic claims’ over you in the form of taxation. Now, most of you don’t really believe in this system; you simply feel powerless to overturn it, and you are frankly scared to confront the government, with its unlimited resources provided by you. What you are of course lacking is:<br />
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A strategy to mobilise in defence of rights<br />
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>A moral conviction – your source of courage<br />
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>An issue – empathy for those persecuted by this system<br />
<br />
Now, the Australian Tax Office is picking off individuals because they like to make ‘examples’ out of people. They particularly like to make examples out of high-profile, flamboyant people like Rene Rivkin (Australian stockbroker) and Kim Dotcom (NZ-based German). In NZ, the NZ authorities have been shown to act with contempt for ‘due process’. The authorities got it wrong; no one went to prison, and PM John Key said 'sorry'. Does that not strike you as a total anomaly. Not to mention the fact that theft is ok under statutory law, but illegal under common law? Remarkable.<br />
<br />
The reality is that there is nothing to say this process is actually fair; simply its been sanctioned by a disinterested electorate. The reality is that you’d need a lawyer to understand the tax code, and you need an accountant to pay. Its rediculius…and you all know it because you all:<br />
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Reduce tax by overstating deductibles<br />
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Accept cash as income<br />
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Over-use public services and burden people with your excessive use.<br />
It’s human nature to do it. These people don’t need to feel guilty for evading tax; they are heroes in my mind, because they acted on their own personal convictions; and didn’t sacrifice their judgement for the ‘whims’ or practical extortion imposed by others. They defined a mob of thieves, and if people had any empathy, they would rise in protest at their incarceration.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Justice Peter Hall</b> said the offenders had engaged in "deliberate, systematic and repeated acts of evasion" between April 2001 and June 2006. </blockquote>
By what moral code have they acted illegitimately. The reason they went to such efforts is because they care about their money…so much so that they used their own money to pay for accounting and ‘evasion’ services. Whose money did the tax office use to hunt them down and to prosecute them? The taxpayers. The ATO is using taxpayers money to persecute taxpayers.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Justice Peter Hall:</b> “The tax system relies heavily on the honesty and integrity of those who participate in it...This was a breach of the community's trust . . . The sentences are intended to show that all community members must contribute to the tax system according to their means”.</blockquote>
No, the tax office does not rely on ‘trust’, it relies on fear of prosecution. So long as people remain fearful they will be stuck with tax liabilities. The reality is that the tax office cannot afford to place people in prison, nor to administer a ‘heavy’ bureaucracy. Instead they rely on ‘shock and awe’ tactics of high profile ‘lynchings’. But the problem with ‘high profile’ lynchings is that low profile people think they can get away with it, so you have to make advertised campaigns to say you are going after certain sectors. These judges and ATO officials have no integrity. They can no more identify a coherent theory of values from our legal tradition than you can. In fact, taxation is legal only as ‘statute law’. Extortion and theft are of course criminal offences under common law; which is a far more logical framework. In fact, the statutory legal system is actually for the most part a breach of the spirit of the law. How can you expect law to be ‘just’ if it entails mob imposition on minorities? It gives no objective mode of defence to people who object to taxation. If it did, then these people would use it.<br />
<br />
We let off people who protest whale hunting more leniently than the tax office; and these people earnt this money. The tax office didn't. It is persecuting these people to 'make an example of them'.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Asian property markets outperforming</b> <a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <b><a href="http://sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/2660019/buying-philippines-property-2-volume-ebook">Philippines Property Guide</a></b><br />
<b>Profit from mining with</b> <a href="http://miningstocks.sheldonthinks.com/">Global Mining Investing eBook</a></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
</div>
<br />Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-58926672723900104292012-11-22T00:34:00.001-08:002012-11-22T00:35:05.662-08:00Australian tax office pursues Google and Apple<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The Australian government intends to amend the 31-yo transfer <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/knives-sharpened-to-cut-googles-sandwich-20121122-29rxl.html">pricing provisions of the tax legislation</a> to collect more tax from internet portals like Google and Apple who collect a high volume of sales online. This revision to the tax code is just one of a litany of measures which purportedly closes another ‘loophole’. Australia is not the only country seeking to close such loopholes - Britain and China are also targeting the likes of Amazon, Apple and Google.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Treasurer David Bradbury has asked Treasury’s head of revenue, Rob Heferen, to develop a brief on possible measures it can take, before being presented to an advisory group comprised of representatives from business, tax agents, academics and the broader community. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Treasurer David Bradbury:</b> “It is not my usual practice to mention companies by name or to publicly canvass the tax position of particular taxpayers. Nor is it my normal practice to publicly discuss strategies employed to minimise corporate tax. However, I will be departing from my usual practice today as I believe there is a strong public interest in drawing attention to practices that have the potential to undermine the future sustainability of Australia’s corporate tax base”. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Why would any member of the public have any specific interest in how much tax a company pays unless (i) they are parasites sanctioning extortion, (ii) corporations living in fear or disdain of a system that extortions. There is limited public interest in this issue; and those effected are easily consulted through their industry associations. The Treasurer’s sole interest is scoring political points. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Treasurer David Bradbury</b> said that increasingly, governments were discovering the lack of effectiveness in the digital age of international tax concepts created for the industrial age. “This has been highlighted by the compelling evidence revealed by the UK Public Accounts Committee examination of the Taxation of Multinational Corporations”. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Did it occur to him that the extortion of funds from companies is also a legacy of the pre-Industrial era, and that such extortion of wealth was customary in the Middle Ages, and persists only today at a much larger scale because governments distort the economy to such an extort that they precipitate boom-busts that offer a defence for the welfare system…and other elements for tragic liberals. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Cranking up the scrutiny on big companies is a vote winner, particularly when it is aimed at companies that pay minimal tax or whinge about the tax they are paying, such as multinationals engaging in elaborate transfer pricing rackets”. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
I am at a loss to hear of occasions when Google has complained about its tax rate. I suspect there will be no complaint….and it is perfectly within their right to complain….is it not…or should they be guilted into compliance. But note how the government lumps all multi-nations in the same bag. The mining multinationals were pays 37% tax before the government raised it over 50% because it was so impressed with their earnings power. The government had no qualms undermining the interest of shareholders. The minerals boom was 2 decades in the making – why could it not act before miners were so profitable, that it had to extort wealth without notice from shareholders, and in the process undermine the sovereign credit rating and perceptions of Australia. Because fascist governments are:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Centralised and slow</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Non-empathetic with the people’s interests they presume to protect</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This all goes to advance the argument that representative democracy is a framework for extorting wealth. There are legitimate justifications for having a resource rent; but the time to apply it is not at the peak of the boom; it’s when earnings are modest (for income tax), or when titles are issued (for indirect taxes/charges). </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Treasurer David Bradbury cited media reports that Amazon paid no tax in the UK yet made more than £3 billion in sales. It did this through an elaborate “routing” of transactions through Luxembourg, where it faced an effective tax rate of 2.5 per cent”. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We might welcome competition between governments in the realm of administration and taxation…after all is that not the best means of achieving efficient government…if we must have it. The problem is that we have unprincipled governments ‘ring-fencing’ earnings in order to collect taxes which result in businesses having to play circus in order to minimise taxation. It’s a false economy. Why not just adopt ‘user-pay’ charges? The reason is because:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Politicians have demonstrated that they are of no ‘use’</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Politicians cannot enslave people for dubious ends if they cannot extort a surplus they cannot earn</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Treasurer David Bradbury would have you believe that these companies have acted against the law. This underwrites his justification to apply the tax revision retrospectively from 2004. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“It is a complex web but governments in need of revenue will pull out all stops to get back what rightfully belongs to the country”. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The problem is – it’s not rightfully the governments. It’s not even the people’s. The role of government is to protect people; not to extort wealth from them, and use some notion of ‘mandate’ or majoritivism to achieve it. That is ‘mob rule’, and is akin to the type of politicking we expect from unions, not governments. This is why Labor in government is dangerous. The bulk of Labor Party supporters come from the union movement; and they enjoy the support of many in the media. So in what sense has Google and others acted contrary to the law. If they broke the law, why does the law need to change? If the government was ‘rightful’, why did they lose a litany of court cases?</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>Treasurer David Bradbury:</b> “Many in business reject the notion that paying a fair share of tax forms part of a broader social compact, instead believing that it is just another cost of doing business. On this point, I vehemently disagree”. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Business leaders are goal-orientated. They are good in business because they just get in and do it. It is fair to say that they would be far less functional if they concerned themselves with ‘taxation issues’ or politics over which they know they have little control, because they are a minority. For this reason, business plays just one card – the ‘pragmatic, nation’s interests’ card, and it’s played against ‘common good’ proclamations by organised unions. It’s a shame, because there are compelling moral arguments to be heard in defence of capitalism, and they are not made because you have business and union-liberal interests attempting to extort influence over an unthinking electorate whose framework for engagement is anything but rational. Given that this extortion system creates the sanction for legislation, you have judicial officers interpreting laws which are anything but rational. This juxtaposes two forms of law in conflict:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The principled, common law applied to specific contextual issues, i.e. This gives rise to the ‘spirit of the law’</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The unprincipled statutory law which is arbitrary, and not able to apply to any context which is not defined. i.e. this demands a ‘letter of the law’ interpretation that gives rise to a constant stream of amendments to prevent loopholes, which create more loopholes. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The unprincipled or pragmatic teleological ‘intent of the law’; which is another foundation for context-dropping.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Treasurer David Bradbury: “These businesses benefit from operating in an economy built on social and economic institutions — our markets and regulators, the rule of law and our judicial system — not to mention physical infrastructure and human capital that is funded or supported by the taxes paid by others”. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No they don’t; they are greatly penalised by the institutions which tax and regulate them. If the Treasurer is so convinced that government is so good for corporations; why does he not give them the discretion to pay for the services which companies use or sanction? The reason is because our tax and regulatory system is not a system of justice, but a system to extort and to justify the existence of politicians. The government is functioning on the premise that:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Government is a value – irrespective of whether its constituted to protect or to extort. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Government services to the extent that Google and others use them; are paid for. i.e. Google, if it goes to the High Court, to challenge a tax, will pay fees for such services. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Government has a legitimate position to interfere in the voluntary trade between a counterparty and these companies. Google has offered a service to these counterparts, and voluntarily received payment from them. The same cannot be said of government. No one asked for the government to act; it just assumed that role because:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
a.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It is embarrassed by the unfairness of its ‘unprincipled’ tax system</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
b.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>It needs the money to ‘pragmatically’ fill a hole in its budget…because it cannot meet a ‘promise’ to its union thug-members. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now, if you are not convinced that our politicians and tax collectors are a pack of thieves….read this:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
“Where some multinational businesses enjoy the benefits of these public goods but refuse to pay their fair share, they are free riding on efforts of others”. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
How possibly can a politician or tax bureaucrat who depends on the ‘extorted wealth’ of companies complain about companies, who engage in voluntarily relationships with their counterparts. Well, I’m aghast. Knowing that the tax commissioner is not an extortionist, but a man of principle, I shall duly ask him to reflect on his position if I ever meet him in the High Court. Rest assured that the government does not have the courage to confront me in court. If they did; rest assured that they would persecute my by using your hard-earned taxpayer funds to keep me in court for a decade…until my hair falls out…or goes grey like other ‘defendants’…like Julian Assange. Institutions for protection or preservation of illegitimate, unprincipled, self-interest….you decide. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
No this government and the media will not allow principled people like me to vent our opinions because we are an embarrassment to them. We challenge people to think. They need people’s mindless acquiescence; so they will use any trick in the book to keep people like me ‘off radar’. In the old days they would just persecute or imprison non-compliants; today, they just simply stop you have any effective voice. Your ‘right to associate’ or ‘freedom of speech’ means nothing if you have an ‘arrangement’ with media to preserve their market dominance. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
What is wrong with this framework? Well, I would suggest that there are several problems with this regime:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The tax office’s advisory group comprises ‘yes groups’, i.e. Business passes through its costs to consumers, and gets generous tax concessions on the way through. The complaint is that these internet companies are getting it ‘too good’. And yes, that is probably the case at 2.5%, but there is no such thing as a ‘good slave’. So the ‘solution’ of the tax office is entirely untenable if good slavery means taxing Google et al like other slaves at 16-30%. The solution is to end slavery and give people to pay for the services they use; and having an objective framework for determining those rates, and an ‘objective judicial’ process for assessing their rates if they want to challenge the rates applying to them as a ‘trader’. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The efficiency of the tax system given that it has been 31 years since the government sought to amend it. Yes, government is so efficient that it takes 3 decades to arrive at solutions. Consider that gambling laws in Australia took 3-4 decades; and NZ is still waiting for legislation to regulate offshore shipping after its ‘letter-of-the-law’ framework failed to hold the owners of HMAS Rena accountable for damages. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The spectre of a court which functions as the lap-dog of the legislature. I ask you whether it sounds like justice when you have a government enduring ‘a string of losses in the courts’ prompting a ‘unpopular government’ to revise the law. In what moral context did the courts reject it; and upon what moral premises will they be obliged to accept the revisions in future. The basis is political extortion.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Source of quotes: “Knives sharpened to cut Google's sandwich” by Adele Ferguson, SMH Online, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/knives-sharpened-to-cut-googles-sandwich-20121122-29rxl.html">website</a>, November 22, 2012.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
</div>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-82930572091140063422012-11-12T17:26:00.000-08:002012-11-12T17:26:11.256-08:00ATO "shock and awe" with non-bureaucrat appointee<div style="text-align: justify;">
An interesting development has occurred in Australia of late. The Gillard government has appointed a former advisor to ex-PM John Howard to be <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/outside-expert-appointed-to-head-ato-20121112-298cn.html">the new Australian Tax Commissioner</a>. More interesting still is the fact that Chris Jordan is a former policeman. This decision is VERY INTERESTING for several reasons:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. Its Labor appointing a 'Liberal man' - that is one way to avoid controversy - keep it bipartisan</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. Its Labor reaching out to the community with a non-bureaucrat, i.e. a candidate who is purportedly 'of the people'. We'll see if that's the case when his remuneration package kicks in, and when he comes to face some pretty compelling ethical conflicts raised by taxation. Its like appointing one of us. Well, one of you, because I don't sanction extortion. I don't vote for these idiots in power. I will not give people my 'power of attorney'....not anyone, and most particularly I don't give it to strangers. You never renounce your personal judgement...you never accept without understanding...you never disempower yourself. This is what this succession of governments ask of you...just as they sent thousands of Australians to Gallipoli to die for some cause they did not understand. Nope, you people are slaves and they will work you to your last breathe. They did not give women the vote to give them 'rights'; they wanted to give them 'responsibilities', so they could enter the tax system. You might wonder why Australian productivity did not rise with increased women in the workforce; its because there was a corresponding inefficiency with endlessly growing government and tax receipts. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Its Labor appointing a former 'police officer' to head a pretty dirty business. Yes, basically the tax office is an agency with a legal sanction to extort wealth. Now, this is important because this policeman was previously working in a role where his job was to arrest extortionists. Now his job description is be the "chief extorter", as head of the tax office. This is no paradox; this was a political decision. We are in the midst of a financial crisis, and the government is attempting to bring as much credibility into tax collections as possible...by their thinking, there is no better way that appointing a former policeman.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, it should make no difference to us; just as we have soldiers who don't understand justice; who rap women on the front line, so we have policemen who are corrupt, who just have no moral conviction. This candidate says he comes into the job with no preconceptions; but he will enter the field with some moral reference. Maybe its biblical, maybe its pragmatic, but rest assured that he is not there for his conviction to wind back or abolish the tax system. He will be a man with a great deal of moral ambivalence; and he will get away with it because such is the nature of our unethical, unaccountable tax system. His job is secure, as most extortionists are, because they have the assurity and security of an intimidating force behind him. In his case, its the pretensions of justice that come with legal justifcations, the threat of force (from police, military and legislature). The pack of them have no backbone....but what as they evade that knowledge with appeals to 'social values', 'stability', 'the common good', the value of public resources. I'm not impressed by any of these arguments because they are used as a basis for forced compliance, systematic ineptitude, and cause far worse consequences than they would ever admit. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Stop slavery and repudiate their claim to your sovereign right to exist - for your own sake - not for theirs. That does not have to mean your existence is a claim on others; it means that 'dog-eat-dog' is their philosophy, despite the rhetoric of 'common good'. They exist for their own sakes; and rejection of their 'sanction' and the recognition of a principled existence is a framework for entering my kingdom - the realm of a human being with self-respect. A human being who does not make arbitrary or incoherent claims upon others lives, and who does not allow others to make such claims upon him. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
</div>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-52891301361623791352012-09-18T16:38:00.000-07:002012-09-18T16:39:13.146-07:00Gerry Harvey critical of Australian GST tax structure<div style="text-align: justify;">
Gerry Harvey and his partner have come out <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/norman-exit-then-an-exodus-20120918-264p5.html">criticising the goods & services tax</a> that they are obliged to pay. Their criticism against their detractors is based on the following arguments, which I have taken the time to correct.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. <b>They will be forced to shift to HK and give up Australian jobs.</b> This is not a bad thing. The Australian labour market is not short on job opportunities. We have a high standard of living because these jobs are best performed in Asia where labour is cheap. So sack the staff; this might just compel them to get a more rewarding job. We don't need to be subsidising low-quality jobs.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. <b>Katie Page saids detractors are focused on the short term.</b> Actually, she is not intellectually developed to know better. The issue is not job losses. All markets give up jobs in order to develop the skills for jobs which offer greater rewards. Sales people are no longer needed because there are online specs; warehousing staff are no longer required because these low-skill jobs are more easily handled in Asia, and orders 'drop shipped' to customers using mechanised Australia Post conveyor systems. In fact, its Gerry Harvey who has thought short term. He invested in all this store space and now he can find no use for it; and he wants the Australian taxpayer to subsidise his industry. He says its about 'protecting jobs', but he has scarcely commented on the tax system in the past, because he really is only interested in himself. He uses his public profile when it suits him; not because it helps Australians. This is disingenuous.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. <b>Gerry Harvey is hit by an unfair tax. </b>Yes, it is true that Harvey Norman are unfairly hurt by the Australian tax system. That is correct. So he should fight to change the tax system, not to impose more tax. He should seek a fair tax, not simply one favourable to him. He should use his resources to challenge the deductions scheme which is really just a tax evasion system. There should be no deductions for 'deductibles', particularly in the modern era when they are so easily claimed for many expenses, when almost anything could be considered a deductible. Salary earners are the hardest impacted. Their PAYE payments are very high and unfair. Corporates get away with murder....not to say that they don't have a legitimate defence. The problem is the politicians who care little how they get it; and the system which allows them to place arbitrary impositions upon anyone...including Gerry. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. Appeals to 'un-Australian' are about as tiresome as 'white Australia' campaigns.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
5. Page argues that <b>we have to pay for the health/education system</b>. No we don't. Not everyone. Not everyone is using these services...so why should they pay for them. Why can't the people who use them pay for them. No objection? Good. Its not like recipients are complaining...its the people who curtail their extravagant lives to save, who don't want their lot eroded by unfair taxes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The state governments can be expected to support '<b>the Harvey tax increase</b>' because its in their interests. You can be sure that the government will adopt the tax. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
</div>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-68002974845306914052011-09-05T03:27:00.000-07:002011-09-05T03:34:14.813-07:00International banks and EU be damned!<div style="text-align: justify;">What to hear about a government that has a very sound approach to the financial crisis; which acts in the interests of its people, and not in the interests of international banks. Read this <a href="http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/3057-a-story-missing-from-our-media-icelands-on-going-revolution.html">story</a> - you will not hear about it from your local media conglomerate, and you ought to wonder why.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Iceland was in a financial crisis. Initially the ECB negotiated with the new government of Iceland for Icelanders to pay back their nation's debts. The problem of course is that the Icelandic people realised that it was ridiculous for them to be carrying the burdens of the state, and most particularly, the debts of privately-owned banks. So they lobbied the government to change their policy. Iceland has since snubbed the global financial community, and is looking at financing its own activities. Sounds like a good model. I hope Greece and the other 'weak states' of EU follow suit.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-63064311320648794002011-09-05T03:08:00.000-07:002011-09-05T03:15:12.744-07:00Taxation: Why not leave your kids a legacy<div style="text-align: justify;">This is just another reason to abstain from paying taxes. Wondering who the babes in the woods are? </div><object width="640" height="390"><div style="text-align: justify;"><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/MqoGORXAv2o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></div><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/MqoGORXAv2o&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></object><div style="text-align: justify;">The obedient, compliant majority. I however don't think for a moment that they deserve this oppressive system; given that its a very difficult task to understand the complexities of the system....and more difficult still to develop a strategy for dealing with the contemporary political paradigm. Certainly I don't think parents should be jeopardising their children's future to fight the government. I do however think that salary-men have the greatest incentive to government, most particularly those who have purchased a house in the last 3 years, or who find that proposition way impossible. If I was these people; I would be in the streets. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Its just just a case of 'ability to pay'; its a question of risk, the enormous opportunity costs entailed in this bad system, and most particularly, your requirement to sanction an immoral system.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-90304930072274037522011-09-02T14:47:00.000-07:002011-09-02T15:09:39.444-07:00Doctors wronged by Internal Revenue NZ<div style="text-align: justify;">A NZ couple - both doctors - have been found by the NZ Supreme Court to have engaged in <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10748819&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">tax avoidance</a>. Their crime was diverting income away from their personal identities with the intent of reducing tax. There are several problems I have with this:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. They have caused no injury to anyone</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. We have an incredibly unfair, immoral, unprincipled tax system</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Unlike the government - this couple did not extort the money from others - they worked for it, and as doctors, they saved lives.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">4. The government, which has the capacity to change the law, lobby the community for principles, spend money wisely, and withdrawal from its extortive practices, fails to do so. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">So I ask you, who would you prefer to have the money, earned by the doctors, and extorted by the Internal Revenue Dept? I personal would love to see government funded, but not on the current terms. Given the huge public deficit, they cannot even do that. Not just NZ either. There are 9 of the 24 OECD countries around the world which have unacceptable deficits, and consider this as well:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. There has been no substantive (debt crippling) war in 65 years</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. Add a 10th country, as Australia was until the unprecedented 'China-inspired' commodities boom a 'banana republic'.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This pair of doctors ought to be national heroes. As heroines, should we not expect them to fight for their cause - for a fair tax system? Perhaps, but I suspect they never had the moral or intellectual ammunition to defend their beliefs. Is that their responsibility? I say that its the governments. After all, our politicians are the custodians of the 'moral forces', namely the military, the police, and quarantine. Ought we not expect justice and principles from them. Where is the moral framework. I can't even see any mention of moral principles or human rights on the <a href="http://www.national.org.nz/About/vision.aspx">National Party website</a>. What I do see is that the National Party philosophy is 'pragmatism', i.e. a philosophy of non-principle, and the National Party president Peter Goodfellow is the nation's 16th wealthiest men. Might we expect that, since the nation's governing party is also presided over by 'big business', and small business is getting such tax rorts, that it is the NZ salary earner, which includes doctors, who are getting such a bad deal. This couple is being persecuted for being doctors; for not having the time to attend to the government's complicated tax system, to create the same 'avoidance structures' as the wealthiest in the country. I personally can't be bothered to invest in such dishonest structures. I have neither the time for such 'low productivity', wealth-destruction measures, that I simply don't do it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-52598339372263315302011-07-10T17:02:00.000-07:002011-07-10T17:07:10.369-07:00Australia: The restricted carbon tax is just the start<div style="text-align: justify;">Some advice on Julia <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10737662&ref=newsl_morningnewsdirect_J20080513_133717_5781_6889_875540616">Gillard's carbon tax</a>. Nothing is as it may appear. The Labor government does not play in the realm of facts; only perceptions. The poor for have the perception that this tax will apply to a few rich countries. This is where you need to think conceptually...to anticipate the future; to see around corners. </div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This strategy of targeting specific 'wealthy' industries (or the richiest people) is how they introduced broad-based income tax. It was a tax on the rich, but then it became a retrogressive tax on the poor 'salaryman' after the corporations got tax concessions, i.e. deductions. In this case subsidies. Oh, and the poor liked income tax because it fell on the rich. Having approved of the tax on the rich, it was hard for them to ultimate oppose a broader-based tax. </div></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is how governments are able to increase tax. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-30634492719088602892011-06-22T19:48:00.000-07:002011-06-22T19:53:38.541-07:00The government's days are numbered<div style="text-align: justify;">Are you inclined to accept the government's claims that they are <a href="http://polly-rage.blogspot.com/2011/06/ombudsman-is-not-effective-just-good.html">effective providers of justice</a>...think again....its all a grand effort to manage perceptions. Our precious state has failed.. It is on its last legs. Expect civil unrest in the next few years. The government is falling apart. Not just in the Middle East, but it will spread to the West. No one is paying tax....and rightly so...and government is woefully inefficient. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course no one wants civil unrest...after all people have avoided it for 200 years. But when your house goes into foreclosure, when your savings are pilferred by some corporate fraud, you take to the streets, like the people in the Middle Easy, who have nothing to lose.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-45906847303560092512011-06-21T16:24:00.000-07:002011-06-21T16:37:56.077-07:00Lawyers profit at taxpayers expense<div style="text-align: justify;">There is something very wrong about the world when <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10733616&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">financial institutions are suing each other</a> for negligence or incompetence, when those financial institutions are both government-owned and by implication, exposing taxpayers to law suits. If one looks back, it was the governments of the Western world which precipitated the crisis by:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. Not properly regulating financial markets</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. By aggressively stimulating or distorting markets with various incentives like First Home Buyers grants, relaxed bank regulations and ultra-low interest rates.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The culmination of the crisis was that banking executives were able to leverage their exposure to profits by profiting hugely from their options incentive schemes, leaving shareholders and taxpayers with the losses as they walked away with their bonuses. They then benefited from a stimulus-induced recovery in the market, only for taxpayers to experience a succession of law suits. Yes, government officers are using taxpayer funds (in the interests of taxpayers) to engage in high-cost law suits against other governments. This of course can only result in lawyers getting their share from taxpayers. If you are severely repressed, then this will be of no concern to you. If you are angry, then there is only one thing to do - direct your energy - your minds - towards making those perpetrators accountable. The reality however is - the perpetrator - is probably yourself - for not thinking...for surrendering your personal sovereignty to government; for allowing them to freely tax you. You can sanctioned the actions of government. Yes, all you practical people in the world who thought if you just worked and saved, there would be plenty to go around...that you would be ok. Nothing is assured if you surrender the realm of ideas to the collectivists, whether they occupy seats in government or lead lobbyists in your state capital.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-34197822474310778662011-06-01T22:39:00.000-07:002011-06-19T22:03:39.094-07:00Australian Tax Office engaging in psychological welfare<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are approaching the end of the financial year again; and once again, the tax office is working in concert with the media to extort wealth from you. The psychological manipulation is 'in play' once again. Governments are increasingly using fear or 'shock and awe' techniques to extort wealth from you. Consider these media headlines:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. "Eight ways to beat the taxman" in the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/money/tax/eight-ways-to-beat-the-taxman-20110531-1fdcq.html">Sydney Morning Herald</a>, as if you are under some obligation or compulsion to have a relationship with them, or comply with their demands. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. The pursuit of high profile 'tax evaders' by the tax office to impress upon you the unlimited resources (i.e. your money) that the government can use to pursue you. Refer to my posts on Wesley Snipes and Paul Hogan.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Often there are argues of the nature 'The tax office is targeting deductions, or 'fringe benefits', etc. Every year there is a different psychological threat made upon you.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The tax offices pursuits of course rely on your acceptance or ambivalence about whether you actually are obliged to pay tax. This of course relies upon your ability to argue in a court of law that you ought not to, and that you have a right to legal aid. Most of course don't have the skills to argue these points....so they live in fear of the tax office. The reality is that there are ways of protecting yourself from government that few people appreciate. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRb58RWFpd3Y_9n-Scn_JB31E7OR-9mBh0JO8__EaTeOv4sEp8mJw" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRb58RWFpd3Y_9n-Scn_JB31E7OR-9mBh0JO8__EaTeOv4sEp8mJw" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In conclusion, the tax office likes to smear or discredit people as 'tax evaders', but as far as I'm concerned, these people are righteously acting in their self-interest, and that is an entirely reasonable thing to do given that:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. The state does not deserve an effectively 'unconditional' or arbitrary sanction to tax</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. The state is not acting as it was intended, i.e. as an agency for the extortion of wealth for the sake of its own self-serving ends. i.e. Acting on the basis of perceptions rather than facts, or demonstrating that it acts without regard for rights, or gives no regard to your interests are all evidence of its failure to comply with its constitutional requirement of 'good governance'. So our government is in breach of the 'spirit of the law'.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. The ability of the tax office to use its 'unlimited' taxpayer funds to persecute you...keeping you in court for a lifetime under the threat of pernicious 'arbitrary' statutory law.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. The government is entirely inefficient and unfair in its collection and expenditure of public funds. It is not a moral custodian, and it can be reasonably argued that it is not acting within the spirit of the constitution. Anyone with a solid grasp of the philosophy of law will realise this. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So I say to you....if you pay your fair share of tax; take every measure you can to reduce your burden. I personally would celebrate any effort which repudiate the govts right to impose arbitrary imposts upon you, fair or unfair. There is no question of fairness when it comes to extortion. You are not morally obliged to suffer because others are subject to extortion. You are not a slave to other taxpayers; just as you ought not be a slave to the tax office. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div>
<blockquote>
</blockquote>
Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-25605203351150575792011-05-31T18:07:00.000-07:002011-05-31T18:19:44.819-07:00Cate Blanchett driving taxpayers to the grave<div style="text-align: justify;">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 <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10729291">slavery like Cate Blanchett</a>. 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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. The virtues of helping the poor - with others money</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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'. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-24506191756530679732011-05-25T21:59:00.000-07:002011-05-25T22:17:38.650-07:00Freedom of information or enslaved by it?<div style="text-align: justify;">Read <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/finance/the-taxman-gives-and-takes-20110526-1f5kv.html">this article</a>. 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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. Several thousand dollars in punitive fines a year</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. About $2ooo in company accounts, requiring an accountant - minimum!</div><div style="text-align: justify;">3. Requiring a specialist accountant - depending on your activities you could spend $10,000 a year on 'statutory commonsense'</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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'. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Read <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/finance/the-taxman-gives-and-takes-20110526-1f5kv.html">this article</a> 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-72179902497036656672011-05-08T13:49:00.000-07:002011-05-08T14:04:53.903-07:00Trusts another false economy thanks to government<div style="text-align: justify;">Its an election year in NZ, and the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-business-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501241&objectid=10724095&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">NZ Herald</a> 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. The high cost of building approvals by local govt</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Read more about the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/best-of-business-analysis/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501241&objectid=10724095&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">trusts industry in NZ</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-73924315923172784892011-05-08T12:48:00.000-07:002011-05-08T13:13:14.405-07:00Tax collection - its all in the interpretation<div style="text-align: justify;">Do you happen to think the tax office has too much power? Well, you would be right for a number of reasons:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">1. <b>Legal extortion:</b> 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. <b>Arbitrary powers:</b> 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here we have an example of the <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10724282&ref=newsl_businessnewsdirect_J20080610_113625_2167_4261_883682029">arbitrary powers of NZ Internal Revenue</a>. 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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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:</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">2. The policy is not consistent with other laws, or even other countries.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-22333222875127486252011-01-18T13:12:00.000-08:002011-01-18T13:36:51.441-08:00WikiLeaks engaging in persecution<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://landing.newsinc.com/shared/video.html?freewheel=69016&sitesection=ndnsubss&VID=23313543">Julian Assange</a> is making a grave moral error by publishing the private client details of Swiss bank customers. This was always going to be the folly of a man who lacks coherent moral principles. He does not realise that not all secrets are bad. If a man points a gun at your head and demands 'your money or your life', are you going to avail his offer because you don't want to keep secrets. This is the same reasoning that people hide money from the government, and the same reason they evade tax. This moral relativism has the potential to impose immoral persecution upon 'morally' innocent people. Switzerland is a state that has a lower level of coercion than other countries. It is not morally coherent, its just better by a relativist standard..or a matter of degree. Democracy is extortion and Switzerland is a democracy.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The good news is that WikiLeaks need not exist. I would not be surprised to see it disappear, nor would I miss it. The good news is that it will in all likelihood be the precursor to a group with a sounder philosophical base than it. It can be expected to spark a plethora of 'copycat' organisations. The problem of course is that governments around the world will conspire to end such 'leaks'. They will adopt computer systems to stop people copying data; they will globally adopt laws to stop such action. But Assange does at least show that 'where there is a technical capacity, there is a way. But can we also count upon tech geeks to be a great leader AND philosophically correct? It cuts down the odds significantly.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">With this latest action, WikiLeaks is helping global governments to persecute private persons. It will want to be very sure of its principles. These people have a legitimate moral right to their wealth....even if those rights are not acknowledge in flawed, contradictory law. Even though statutory law contradicts the spirit or 'principle' of common law.<br /></div><div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-1525743739009563482011-01-07T00:34:00.000-08:002011-01-07T00:35:21.829-08:00Gerry Harvey's new tax plan is very stealthy indeed<div style="text-align: justify; ">My latest thoughts on <a href="http://polly-rage.blogspot.com/2011/01/gerry-harvey-quickly-going-from-worse.html">Gerry Harvey's tax plan</a> to hide behind the skirts of small retailers. Where might I ask will they be hiding. </div><div style="text-align: justify; "><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <b>Profiting from the Gold Boom</b> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition">Mining Fundamentals eBook</a></div><div style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/"><b>www.SheldonThinks.com</b></a></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-46821004027453382772011-01-06T17:18:00.000-08:002011-01-06T17:48:07.213-08:00Customers give Harvey Norman the stick<div style="text-align: justify;">Gerry Harvey's demise will ultimately be tied to his ego; or should I say his pretense of one, which compels him to be self-righteous. He will show that 'perceptions are more important than ever'. A web poll by the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/harvey-got-it-half-right-20110106-19hkv.html">Sydney Morning Herald</a> shows as much. The reality is that he has highlighted to non-discerning customers how irrelevant traditional selling is. I personally walk through his stores all the time; but I never buy. I have this curiosity about going into stores, just looking. I would never think to buy from such stores. I do the same from Dick Smith. They are all over-priced. They will all suffer. It might actually be the 'spoke in the wheel' which causes the big shift to online commerce in Australia. What a paradox. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">This story suggests Harvey was <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/harvey-got-it-half-right-20110106-19hkv.html">always very negative</a> on online commerce. I am not a retail analyst, so its interesting to observe that all these retailers (e.g. Fosters, David Jones) failed with their acquisition of online businesses. I think their attempts to buy competitors was always a very defensive and deluded strategy. Akin to plugging up holds in a dam wall. Know doubt the equity markets at the time probably loved the strategy, thinking these companies were trying to remain relevant. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The suggestion that the distances in Australia are a setback is false. A great many shippers have stock, and if there are low margins delivering in Australia, they can always drop-ship from the supplier. It is argued that 'many people are still wary about buying online', but Harvey has given them reason to take a second look. Indeed, buyers should know that they can always charge back any goods which are not delivered within 30-60 days with Paypal. Of course the seller ought to have the first opportunity to correct the problem, whether its a faulty product, etc. If consumers knew that they might just be more willing to take the plunge.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I think this <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/harvey-got-it-half-right-20110106-19hkv.html">commentator</a> is on the mark:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>"Harvey Norman's problem isn't 10% worth of tax, it's that his customer base are people too stupid to shop around" and I would argue too gullible to test his bluff on matching 'his price guarantee". The guarantee probably comes with so many pre-qualifications that is not even a real or effective guarantee. </blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another commentator confirms my suspicions. The damned fine print. The secret to the modern businessman's success. Bury the customer in paperwork and loopholes.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>"Dick Smith Electronics' excuse [is that] they will only price match if the competition is within 100km radius".</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Thank you Gerry Harvey for showing that even idiots can succeed. You are the best evidence for capitalism and the utter uselessness of the welfare state. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-71232098611471719912011-01-06T16:09:00.000-08:002011-01-06T17:14:13.275-08:00Gerry Harvey remains defiantly self-righteous...big mistake!<div style="text-align: justify;">That was our shortest protest action against tax charges. Harvey Norman has backed down from proposed tax lobbying for a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/gerry-harvey-beats-a-retreat-20110106-19hkq.html">GST on imported goods</a>. He said he is hurt by the criticism. Well, I wonder if that was his pride. He says his message was 'poorly communicated'....in fact it was 'poorly conceived'. He showed himself to be a shallow, pragmatic thinker. He of course does not have a monopoly on this. Sadly, most business people these days are shallow, pragmatic thinkers. No doubt he will console himself with some takeover, and ever reflect on why he stuffed up with his lobbying scheme. He argues that the campaign was 'bad timing'. No Gerry, there is no good timing for a bad idea. But such is the philosophy of pragmatism that an exponent of some idea would argue that a good idea tomorrow is not a good idea today. I don't preclude that timing can be a factor (i.e. pertinent context), but exactly what have made his timing better. It was a matter of diminished intellect. He ought to have argued against taxation, and focused upon the unfairness of ALL TAXATION....in as much as it is all imposed, its all extortion, and it serves no one...not the poor, not politicians. Its an entirely false economy perpetuated by shallow-minded people.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">By all means, prove me wrong. Harvey did not take the criticism well. He said in the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/gerry-harvey-beats-a-retreat-20110106-19hkq.html">SMH</a>: </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>'The rise of social media had made people like him more prone to personal abuse. ''You might have got a nasty phone call or a letter back in the old days but now anything slightly controversial, these people, whoever they might be, they go for you zealously and with hatred all over Twitter,'' he said. ''If you are a CEO of a company and you speak out and then the board gets involved … it is suicidal'.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The fact is that politics impacts people's life. This is personal. Taxation is coercion, so anyone who lobbies for change risks changing a balance. There is only one justifiable change - the repel of tax, not its 'adjustment' or 'addition'. If his ego is hurt, tough, he should understand that he has the greater power to hurt people's lives. A responsibility such as his demands a higher level of thinking. His subordinates and his own judgement have failed him here. There is no hatred on my part for his efforts. On some level I respect business people to the extent that they exude a sense of purpose, conceptual skills, respect the rights of others (i.e. empathy), exhibit an efficacy in business, and develop effective business systems. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The extent to which they court government favours, lobby for tax 'adjustments' rather than repels, and do not display the conviction to support freedom, but rather to befriend extortionate government ministers, is the extent to which I think them 'shallow' people who lack depth and humanity. On that basis I say to Gerry Harvey 'Get a real education', we have had a practical product (Industrial) revolution, join the 'revolution of ideas' which will eventually sweep away current contemporary values.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>''Because of my profile, I then get all these threats and people home in on me. It becomes me, Gerry Harvey and Solomon Lew - billionaires, greedy, ugly, old, out-of-date, c---s, and the people writing this seem to think we have been ripping them off for years and that we deserve this,'' he said. ''I think to myself, 'you don't want to get up every day and live this life'.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I would never criticise a person for being greedy...socialist nonsense. He did however fail to adapt to the current market trends, as he is holding onto high cost showrooms which will quickly lose market share because its high margin shopping compared to low-margin, online shopping. So he can play the victim, but really he should have seen this happen. We don't have to worry about him growing broken though, he can convert his stores into apartments I guess. I trust he owns the stores. Poor guy if not....he is about to lose a lot of money. Hope he escapes with spare change. Insofar as he is accused of ripping people off, the reality is that his stores were always advertising and 'product variety' driven. I think he probably was never very effective in business because he probably always struggled with high staff turnover and low efficiency. Hence, the high margins. I always respects the far better prices I got from Bing Lee for white goods. The reality is that product pricing comparisons with overseas show a huge discrepancy, so let him account for that. He has not. He just laments the criticism of him. The reality is people expect competitive pricing, and they feel they are extortionists because in some sense, they know and understand there is an absence of competition in Australia and NZ. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>''When people criticise you like that, it makes you think, 'do I really want to do this? No, I don't'. I have got so much heat that I think I have to sit back now".</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Nonsense. This is a time for him to reflect on the more reasonable criticism of him. Not to do a dummy spit and evade the issue. Learn! </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>Mr Harvey said the gripe of the retailing coalition was not about ''online retail versus bricks and mortar'' but rather about closing a tax loophole that did not support Australian jobs or the local economy. ''What we are talking about is someone buying a guitar in New York, for instance, and having it sent over here 30 per cent cheaper. It is giving that overseas retailer the advantage. It makes you think, 'I am paying all the bills, creating jobs, and this guy is getting the sale and doesn't contribute anything to our society'.''</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">He argues pragmatically that it is about a tax loophole. The problem with this is that his campaign merely closes one loophole so the government can open another. He needs to appreciate why there are loopholes, and lobby to change the system. The way he structured the issue - it is an issue of online vs 'the majors' because he sponsored the issue. It is not about jobs. If Australia has to lose some jobs, so be it. They were marginal, low value jobs which should have disappeared years ago if he was smarter. The economy will always create more jobs. The unemployment rate is not exactly high. He rationalises that this guy offshore does not create jobs for Australia. Who cares if he creates jobs or not. Employment is not the customers responsibility...and its only his because he is over-exposed to the high-margin, traditional, model of retailing. They are cheaper, not by the 10% GST, not by 30% as he suggests, but more like 70-80% because he is not competitive in his warehousing, distribution, retailing operations.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>He agrees it was "poor judgment to launch the campaign in the post-Christmas sales period".</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">I disagree with this. It was poor judgement in any seasonal context. The issue is tax imposition, though certainly recession and Xmas might elevate sensitivities. But that was not the basis for criticism, so let's not build straw men. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>"Mr Harvey said the launch of his own online store in the 1990s had been another example of bad timing. ''When I opened my site, I was doing $30,000 a week turnover, so I closed it and I opened it up again … I got the same turnover so I closed it again. Now I am opening another one as we speak because in this business it is as much about timing as anything else".</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What nonsense. Plenty of others opened online stores and have done very well in the 1990s and 2000s. The problem was not his timing, it was his business model. He wanted to retain his high profit margins, so he was not relevant commercially when he opened, so he was forced to close. If he cut margins online, people would just buy online. Clearly he needed to offer some justification for people to buy in-store, and he can't at his profit margins. The reality is that it might have been difficult to integrate online and showroom based stores. The reality is that his high-margin model is not sustainable. He will be left selling to the elderly who cannot use a computer, and need the unit installed.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">One of the commentators on this story made <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/gerry-harvey-beats-a-retreat-20110106-19hkq.html">the point</a>:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>"The missing link in this argument is suppliers of branded goods. They are just as responsible for setting the prices we pay in Australia. Why are brands like Bose so much more expensive in Australia than anywhere else? Because the suppliers charge cost prices that are more expensive than retail prices overseas! Where the public wants the brand (eg Apple, Bose) the retailers either have to pay the cost or the supplier won't sell to them!!"</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"> I actually agree that this was a factor in the old days when Sony were supplying product from Japan, and they marked up the price margin on new products because Australia was not a strategic market, and given their limited supply capacity. These companies wanted to be leaders in the USA and Japan, as they were the leading markets. That is no longer true. Today, the Chinese just indiscriminately dump product on the market, and this has allowed middlemen to cut into Gerry's margins. The implication was that Gerry was a lazy retailer, living off the easy sales. This is why I say he did not understand the market changed. In a few foul swoops, he has desecrated his repudiation. His first mistake was his comment that poor people never learn; that they are defined by their early years. i.e. Once a bum, always a bum. A lot of people will never forget that. He seems to think he is a revolutionary. He sells products for Christs sake, and employs idiots to do his planning, now to his detriment. I personally have little interest in selling stuff. I do it because I have to live. But its so incidental. This guy has no respect for ideas. Well, he will be defeated by his ignorance and self-righteousness.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is amazing that the salesman who one market share with his 'in-your-face' promotions will go down in flames because of poor publicity. I guess salespeople are famous for having a pretense of an ego. His role as a CEO has allowed him to lose his old touch. He might not have made that mistake years ago....he was probably closer to the customer. He is out of touch, and selling by an old paradigm....failing in the new.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-83397045580223376432011-01-05T17:51:00.000-08:002011-01-05T18:02:52.331-08:00Retailers don't get it - dumb nuts<div style="text-align: justify;">The retail association in Australia claims that some Australians are '<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/big-retail-to-expand-tax-crusade-20110105-19g9b.html">not getting it'</a>. The reality is that they don't get it. </div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><b>Myer head Bernie Brookes</b> argues: 'I get quite upset when I read some of the disparaging comments about Gerry Harvey and Solomon Lew because, whatever you think of them personally, they started with nothing and have become successful.''</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">What has that got to do with it? We are not here to give Harvey or Lew a medal. This issue is a point of law. The public is arguing that these companies are not competitive, but they feel compelled (before the advent) of the internet to pay high prices. </div><div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">Mr Harvey was not surprised by the backlash ''because people are not quite getting it''. He said the group was not arguing against online shopping; it just wanted a level playing field. ''You've got a retail store offshore that doesn't pay duty or GST competing with an Australian store that does,'' he said.</blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">The reality is - he does not get it. There might be a level playing field, but your lobbying point is not the way to resolve the issue. The solution is not a new tax, it's fixing the basis of the tax system. i.e. A user pays system rather than an 'extortion racket' which these guys passively accept since they are morally indifferent. They want to function as 'middlemen' and not concern themselves with the dirty aspects of tax. He does not realise that we are not so approving of paying tax....we don't have all the deductions which a growing business like Myer does, and I personally don't even want to deal with such a complex system. In contrast, he has an army of people who can help him evade taxes. I personally don't want to engage in such a false economy where I have to collect receipts. Life is too short to spend it summing receipts and reading through 200-page tax packs to account for any arbitrary changes in taxation legislation, because there is always some new exemption or revision to account for some new 'corporate' rout, i.e. a loop hole.</div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-67524772181044766252011-01-05T15:28:00.000-08:002011-01-05T17:03:42.366-08:00Hogan claims to have paid 'enough tax'<div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sadly, I don’t think Hogan is a proud ‘tax evader’. I think he would have us believe that he pays all his dues. The question of what constitutes ‘enough tax’ as he calls it; the reality is that the government has no moral right to expropriate, coerce or deceptively extort money or assets from anyone. That is the principle that has to be upheld. In all honesty, I don’t think Paul Hogan has the convictions to defend that principle. I think it’s simply about the money. Is it any wonder that the wealthy continue to see their wealth pilfered and the poor justifying their claims to it....not to mention the middlemen in the tax office. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">There is no such notion as ‘enough tax’. Firstly, tax is not paid on a ‘user pays’ basis as it should be, so what is enough. The basis upon which tax levels are imposed is nothing but extort. There is no rational basis for it; its totally arbitrary. Society’s whole notion of taxation is morally bankrupt. i.e. We celebrate the provisioning for the poor in terms of ‘spending increases’ with no consideration for the utility of that spending. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Some would argue that it’s hard to test the efficiency of such spending. It actually is very easy. The reason that it isn't done is because collectivists in the community don’t care, and certainly the government doesn't. Rather than advance a moral principle, Hogan has resorted to moral relativism, arguing:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>'I have come to this great tax haven, the USA, where the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) are gentlemen compared to our lot’.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Really, he is setting himself up for failure there because he might find the IRS is the next agency to pursue him. More importantly, ask most Americans, and you will find that the Australian government is second only to the USA in terms of pernicious tax policy. The US like Australia is very aggressive in pursuing offshore income. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">When Hogan arrived in Australia last year, the ATO issued a Departure Prohibition Order against him, which prevented him leaving the country until the alleged tax debt was paid or settled. Hogan argued:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote>“The only reason he was allowed to leave Australia was due to the publicity to his case by the international media. 'Guilty until proven innocent?’”.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is precisely the point. You only get (slim) justice if you are a high profile personality. The law is arbitrarily applied. It shows just how weak legal protections are. There is consequently little justice for anyone because we are forced into a tyrannical compliance. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">I frankly would be pleased if Hogan disclosed that he is a ‘tax evader’ and proud of it. But instead we have wealthy, high profile people defending or seemingly complying with an illegitimate system. This is how bad systems prevail because ‘good people do nothing’. Moral cowardice all round. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">When will high profile people like actors, business people stand up and attack the legal system. The problem of course is that these so-called 'practical people' are so intellectually mal-formed that they don't see the distortion that government has on society at all levels. Government is 30% of GDP, which is probably worth 30c in the dollar, but add to that all the distortion to justice, pernicious laws, obstacles to investment, the protection of criminals, corruption, and malfunctioning of laws, and corruption of personal values...there is a lot of damage. Let us consider for a moment....a comparison....between China and Western countries. People think that China GDP grows at 10% per annum because of cheap labour. The reality is actually that its because its unencumbered by government....at least effectively so. There is some level of 'structural' impact, but that is no different than the structural benefit realised by Australia's mining industry, and the state of WA in particular. The government actually hobbles our performance, it diminishes your moral character, it turns you into an utter moral sceptic, so you repudiate ideas cynically, because you wouldn't know a good idea if it struck you in the face. It leads people into psychological repression, which is ultimately why people just turn their backs on logic. That is a summary of the moral cowardice involved at all levels of society. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">Sources: <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1309329/Paul-Hogan-leaves-Australia-tax-row.html">Daily Mail UK</a>, <a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001357/news">IMDB.com</a> and <a href="http://polly-rage.blogspot.com/2011/01/paul-hogan-fights-back.html">Tax Abuse</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-74954983537969533112011-01-04T13:45:00.000-08:002011-01-04T13:56:17.451-08:00GST on foreign imports on tax efficient<div style="text-align: justify;">According to the <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/retailers-gst-call-backlash-20110104-19f38.html">SMH</a>, the federal government's peak tax advisory body, the Board of Taxation, says the cost of collecting the extra GST would be likely to outweigh any benefit. The problem is, nothing about government is efficient. That is not to say that certain courses of action are more efficient than others, merely that a false economy is acceptable if it serves the governments interests; never mind what it does to people's lives. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">I am a case in point. I will spend a lifetime repudiating an unjust system of governance when I could be engaging in more productive activities, if the 'problem of governance' had already been resolved. Sadly, people are permitted under democracy to preserve any subjective indulgence they please, and any standards are deemed to be 'dictatorial', as opposed to being merely subjective impositions. By this subjective notion, it is an imposition to allow people to fend for themselves. And yet these people don't seem to repudiate the indulgent parent who 'spoils their child' with kindness; nor the government with constrained resources, who 'spoils welfare recipients' with unaccountable, 'unconditional love', and in the process makes them unfit for living any form of meaningful life....if one cares to define terms and seek meaning beyond the intrinsic notion of 'value in itself', as opposed to functional realism. i.e. Good for objective reasons. so much for science. </div><div style="text-align: justify;">The good news is that "the Board of Taxation recommended last February that the figure not be changed". The bad news is that this is just one case of taxation creep, and having being complicit in a global financial system meltdown, the government is going to be looking to raise more taxes.</div><div><br /></div><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a><div><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460807553657799006.post-54897969479513628192011-01-04T00:17:00.000-08:002011-01-04T00:22:04.821-08:00Australian retailers extorting wealth from consumers<div style="text-align: justify;">According to this <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/business/online-tax-push-faces-backlash-20110104-19e3h.html">latest article</a> in the SMH, it is now the large retailers in Australia who are now trying to extort wealth from consumers in Australia. I find it bizarre that it is a business group that is not just looking for tax concessions, but is prepared to advocate additional tax. We so detest these efforts, we have dedicated a <a href="http://harveynormanextortion.blogspot.com/">new blog</a> to exposing the unethical conduct of Harvey Norman and these other retail extortionists who are seeking market concessions. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/">Japan Foreclosed Guide</a> <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.ecrater.com/p/6238478/mining-fundamentals-professional-2nd-edition"><b>Mining Fundamentals eBook</b></a> <a href="http://tax-abuse.blogspot.com/">Resource Rent Tax Australia</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://foreclosedjapan.sheldonthinks.com/"></a><b>Author Andrew Sheldon</b>| <a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">Applied Critical Thinking</a> | <b><a href="http://www.sheldonthinks.com/">www.SheldonThinks.com</a></b></div><blockquote></blockquote>Andrew Sheldonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15469120006156639030noreply@blogger.com0