Gillard driving Australia to economic distortion

Share |

Australia’s PM says ‘Australia won't be able to meet its targets for reducing carbon gas emissions without charging polluters’. Actually that is not true. She could if she wanted to simply legislate to prohibit or phase out those technologies and industries which cause pollution. After all, if the government really believes there is a dire catastrophe around the corner from climate change, it ought to take that action. The reality is that the government is using ‘fake science’ to lobby for more tax, knowing full well it will not reduce carbon emissions. In fact it will have the opposite effect; as all government ‘ideas’ tend to have. Let me give you some examples:

1. Governments in Australia, NZ, Germany, Denmark, etc had the great idea of offering free insulation to the poor, and to those homes which are reluctant to invest in such schemes. Far from resulting in subsidies, it saw installers mark up their prices, so there was in fact no benefit for home owners. It gets worse. All those installers took on more staff who incorrectly installed the product resulting in legal action, and in some cases the product integrity (i.e. the water-repellant character of the product) has been questioned, i.e. AirFoam in NZ. It gets worse. Far from helping people to save energy, it actually gave homeowners an incentives to shift from insulating their bodies with clothes to using 'inefficiently' heating their entire homes with wood fires. So some 800,000 homes in NZ alone could end up consuming more energy than they would otherwise have used...because consuming it before would have been a waste of money.

2. Governments argue too that penalizing polluters will cut pollution; but in fact it will push industry offshore to China, or other third world countries where standards are more lax, and these companies will have to ship products around, so transport costs will be higher. It can only result in a sub-optimal response. Of course business wants a carbon trading scheme so it can simply pass on the cost to customers. Of course it does not care as long as the world follows the same stupidity. This is the stupid pragmatic or relativist philosophy which will drive the world towards fascism. It gets worse.

3. Governments will be far less efficient with the tax dollars collected than business, because governments don’t actually create wealth. You say governments are not supposed to create wealth..true, but they ought to facilitate wealth creation, not sabotage the process. We must remember we really can’t afford to obstruct wealth creation, lest we be underfunded or too poor when a real catastrophe arises. Its not just about the money either; its the technology that money allows us to fund. Technology which allows us to overcome such challenges. You will not hear about those products from government. Why? Because it is not responsible for them. They are only responsible for the real crises, like financial meltdown, caused by government intervention in financial markets.

For those who still believe there is a primarily human cause to climate change, let me raise the specter of solar flares and sun spots. Research since 2005 is showing that this is a far more plausible cause of recent climate fluctuations. The correlation is unmistakably good for the last few years of day. Al Gore swooned people with his ‘hockey stick’. It was a fabrication based on dubious extrapolation of data.

If there is an end for the world in sight, it is going to be precipitated by government, and its unthinking leaders like Julia Gillard. Taxing pollution will not cut pollution it will merely impose a cost on existing plants. It will speed up the replacement of old plants. The reality is that the government does not believe the science either. It just feels compelled to appease its unthinking electoral support base. Really Labor cannot think beyond that. It will do a fabulous backdown after the election. Should we be worried then? Well yes, because we will awaken the next day as a fascist regime where facts have been displaced by the arbitrary assertions of politicians. Liberals in the media will help us get there.

Want to know more about climate change - then listen to critical thinking scientists, not the academics detached from reality with a liberal agenda. You never here about them in the media.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Is the media biased on the Resource Rent Tax issue?

Share |

Perhaps Kevin Rudd has complained to the media companies that he is not getting enough fair play for his new tax. Maybe a bad tax was never supposed to have been heralded as the start of a new age. Phillip Wen from the Sydney Morning Herald has come out in defense of Kevin Rudd. so let us examine his arguments. Is the media biased in favour of miners? Rudd? Well, I would suggest to you that its hard to be on Rudd's side when you introduce such a sudden, arbitrary, discriminatory tax as the Resource Rent Tax. It is also poorly conceived. But let's challenge the arguments made in this article.

1. Xstrata has exaggerated the impact the tax will have on its operations, with talk of job losses and cancelled projects.

The reality is that a mining company makes money by assessing the feasibility of the project. When a government moves the goal posts in the middle of a game (i.e. After a miner has spent the money, or after a shareholder has bought stock upon certain assumptions), ought they expect the government to protect their rights rather than breach them? Is there a positive side to fascism? Only a deluded moral relativist would argue yes.

2. Xstrata was unbalanced in its disclosure of employee numbers when it closed the Windimurra mine in WA. i.e. It did not disclose the numbers for Windimurra, but not it is disclosing the numbers for its new mine.

I would argue that the mining company is obliged to act in the interests of its shareholders, and to do so in accordance with the law. It was a sad fate for the Windimurra workers. It was a strategic move by Xstrata to buy the Windimurra mine and then close it to support its other mine in Africa (I think?). This is business. If anyone is opposed to that, then an argument needs to be made to change the law. Hopefully it will be a logical argument, unlike the argument made by Rudd....which is based on gross opportunism and extortion. Clearly it is in the interests of Xstrata to re-examine the economics of a project when a government changes the rules. Even if they are bluffing, they are reasonable to use all arguments to discredit the government. It is my opinion that the mining industry is using concrete, pragmatic argument rather than ethical ones because they think that will have greater traction with the voters. I disagree, and I think the strategy can backfire because its money in their pocket. They ought to remember that after Rudd gives them a "super-kiss" he is probably going to give them a "Ruddy tax kick in the balls". That's right...Rudd has ruled out another arbitrary tax on other specific industries....but what's to stop another government, or him taxing all super funds...after everyone has placed all their savings in super...this is what happens with arbitrary rules....you don't know where you stand.

I would however argue that Xstrata did not treat Windimurra shareholders badly as "minority interests", but its a cloudy area of law. I challenged this issue at the time. Having acquired Windimurra, the company placed the project on hold. In fairness, it would have pursued the project if there was a great deal of money in it. Strategists could have seen this unfold. It was a good decision for Xstrata shareholders.

3. The Minerals Council of Australia is spending a reported $100 million on an advertising blitz against the tax.

What else can a minority interest group do other than to engage in a media campaign. Rudd is offering a 'welfare-like' carrot to voters in the form of a "super-kiss". It will take a well-funded campaign to overcome the appeal of this unethical tax upon miners and shareholders. Sadly, the nature of our political system provides a poor basis for reconciling political arguments.

4. The notion that the mining industry has used these tactics before to undermine the government's proposed emissions trading scheme, saying it would severely damage the coal mining industry, leading to big projects shutting down.

Quite rightly. The tax would have destroyed the industry. It would have placed the fate in the hands of unproven technology and subjected them to very high capital cost burdens to make the technology green. The biggest problem the mining industry has is the unproven nature of the 'anthropogenic global warming'. The most recent evidence supports the idea that variations in sunspot activity is the cause. There is good correlation between these solar flares and climate change. Satellites launched in 2006 will offer greater certainty in the next few years. The problem is that the 'liberal' media needs to defend its dire media statements about global warming. Their treatment of this issue highlights their lack of objectivity and their lack of scientific and critical thinking skills.

5. Research conducted by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Climate Justice Program last year found six companies - including Xstrata, Rio Tinto and Woodside Petroleum - made public statements on emissions trading that were not reflected in formal announcements to the stock exchange.

"The regulator did not pursue the findings, saying the companies made their statements at senate hearings, and were therefore political statements made with parliamentary privilege and not made in the course of trade and commerce".

Not only that, but from my experience submitting documents to the parliament, you are not supposed to publicly disclose the info. Why was this argument made? To make it look like the reporter had a story?

6. Xstrata's biggest shareholder is the Swiss commodities supplier Glencore, one of the world's largest privately held companies, infamous for its colourful past. Its founder Marc Rich, was cited in a 2004 CIA report for paying illegal kickbacks to obtain oil from Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime, in breach of United Nations sanctions.

In the interests of fair disclosure...just look at the track record of US foreign policy over the last century and ask yourself whether that is a fair critique. The reality is that companies have a far better track record than governments, which is weird because governments make the rules. Which can be difficult to interpret because, as we know, they are so arbitrary.

It ought also be mentioned that BHP and the Australian Wool Commission were caught up in the same type of scandal....but why would you smear all mining companies for a breach of US foreign policy. Is that the best this 'liberal' journalist can do?

7. The Construction Forestry Mining Energy Union is for the tax so suggests Xstrata is exaggerating claims.

Yep. I'd go to the mining industry for a balanced perspective on mining company ethics. The union movement were of course the extortion experts of the last century, so they love miners. Anyone remember the wharfies dispute in Wollongong.

8. Final point....the journalist concedes "But the concerns in the mining industry are real. It is not in debate that successful miners will take a hit to their profits".

Ask yourself what that does to investors. And the lost profits will be higher as prices rise. All those future 'opportunity losses' will be wiped off the value of mining projects and mining companies today. Is that share to shareholders in mining companies? Shareholders do not invest to lose.

9. Xstrata would favour overseas projects if the tax was implemented. ''Someone like Xstrata.

There is no question that this will happen. There will of course be some appeal to Australia because the infrastructure is already there and its close to Asia. Though there is iron ore in Asia, e.g. Indonesia, PNG, Bangladesh. Some of these countries were believed to offer greater sovereign risk than Australia, however Kevin Rudd has changed that with his arbitrary tax. In fact, it will be interesting to see if Rudd leads a resurgence of fascism around the world. Other governments could follow suit as he has given arbitrary 'fascist' taxation his 'Western government' approval. I don't even think that Obama could get away with that.

10. "Tony Maher says that as with the lobbying against the emissions trading scheme, miners have to be kept accountable for the claims they make. ''It was corporate bullying then; it's corporate bullying now.'' "

Tony is a union man...so its interesting that a journalist would quote him on a point of ethics about bullying or extortion. Geez, hopeless unbalanced media.

Congratulations Philip Wen, you have just won yourself a citation from the Australian Broadcasting Commission....my complaint is currently being processed. Rest assured, based on previous experience, they come from your side of the political fence. Interesting arguments...pity your smear of Xstrata has nothing to do with 'ethical issues' involved. You seem to share the pragmatic concerns of miners....I wish someone would get to the ethics involved...maybe some of the regulators people studied some ethics. My guess is no.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Rudd selective with the facts

Share |

Kevin Rudd is keen for good press releases. His latest opportunity came with the signing of a number of iron ore mining agreements. Rudd used the opportunity to highlight the fact that the mining tax had not impacted the mining industry.

"Australia and China signed more than $8,8-billion of commercial and mining deals on Monday as a senior Chinese leader urged closer trade ties, in a sign that Australia's mining tax has not deterred investment". [Mining Weekly]

The problem with this interpretation is that China needs iron ore, and in the short term it has to come from Australia, and there is no question that a great deal of it will come from Australia regardless of any imposts Rudd imposes. The problem is that Rudd is encouraging iron ore investments in Indonesia, PNG, maybe even New Zealand (despite its remoteness from China) instead of Australia.

Another problem is that the $8.8 billion in investment, is all oil/gas and iron ore projects, where Australia has a strategic advantage because of tight supplies or location advantage. Basically, this is the problem with this tax. It says that if you identify an opportunity, and the government has the capacity to extort some concession from you, it will do that. It will 'arbitrarily' tax you UNLIKE the rest of Australian industry. Meanwhile Google is paying just 0.1% income tax in Australia because the Australian government has no power to extort Google, because unlike mining, Google has the flexibility to move its operations offshore.

I would also suggest to you that small business in Australia are being denied Google Checkout services in Australia because the Australian government wants to tax Australians through Google Checkout more than it wants to encourage Australian small business. More 'authoritarian' extortion. Fair tax you think? It was always about the money

No tax is fair by definition. Any charge which is involuntarily or does not relate to the value of services rendered is 'arbitrary' taxation, and that is slavery.

Retain some sympathy for miners and investors who have seen wealth destroyed in sectors outside iron ore as well, i.e. coal seam methane, gold, copper, lead, zinc, etc. These commodities entail little in the way of strategic advantage. Investors in mining services are in limbo because they do not know the implications of the tax.

Slowly we slip into 'arbitrary' fascism and unthinking, unprincipled people say nothing. Where will it end. It always ends with killing. First it will be political activists disappearing. Don't expect any international interest, as the same game is occurring in all countries around the world. This is becoming normal. It will end in civil war. The government will make a broader imposition in terms of its implications, and you will think 'enough is enough'. By then you will think where did it start. At what point did I allow my principles to slip away.

Frankly, I would prefer to have some empathy for the rights and interests of people, because I don't want to benefit from parasitism like Kevin Rudd. I will probably benefit from Rudd's actions since I have shares in a PNG iron ore company (MGK.ASX), however its not the point. One has to make a distinction between one's financial interests and one's principles, which ought to relate to human nature, not arbitrary ideas bounced around in Rudd's head, or even parliament, which is about as rational as Rudd. Morality is not a numbers game. The concept of a Senate was never a workable solution if there was no measure to ensure reason was the standard of value.

There is a moral issue here. Kevin STRUDD is a parasite with the most deprave values. Don't wait until the next election to tell him so. Australia cannot wait. Every day this tax is under consideration is another day of lost wealth for Australians, as the stock market slowly grasps the impact of the tax.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Rudd to make concessions

Share |

There is a suggestion that Kevin Rudd is about to make concessions to miners over the Resource Rent Tax. The reality is that Rudd's leadership is in jeopardy, regardless of whether he gives in on the Resource Rent Tax (RRT) or not. There is probably enormous appeal in appointing Julliard Gillard, the Deputy PM. I forget her exact name...but she has the punitive look of a school teacher.

She will be appealing for women. I suspect the Labor Party will want to spring her on the Australian electorate at just the right time. i.e. Not so soon that she can cause embarrassment, but not too late that people will be suspicious of her capacities. The question is - has she been tested?

Ultimately representative democracy is a farce, and you will get another bad representative of your political interests.

Anyway, what concessions might we expect from Rudd? I want to make the following points:

1. Rudd should not use taxpayers money to compensate miners for any scheme it adopts. There is no justification for denying rights for one group, and then compensating them with money extorted from taxpayers in general.

2. Rudd should acknowledge the wealth realised or created by miners, whether through acquisition, exploration or retention of mining rights. No mining company ought to be worse off because of any changes it makes.

At this point I want to challenge the idea that governments should be able to assign, own or grant mineral rights to miners on behalf of the people. I see no problem with this conception if the role of the state is to facilitate development of infrastructure, or other facilities which preserve and fund the administration of mineral resources. The idea that government should use mineral resource taxes or 'rent' for welfare is abhorrent. The problem with it is that it actually is a form of extortion. The practice does not become ok even if government gives notice because:

1. Governments ought not to be supporting people with welfare, as they are actually modelling unhealthy life strategies of dependency, reliance on others and parasitism.

2. Governments will quickly use the rationalism that miners have a choice to corner the market, in the same way that MPs created the illusion that we have a choice by amalgamating into two parties. Don't you think we would have more choice if parties did not exist.

There is nothing wrong with the notion of public ownership of resources...so long as any money raised is distributed on a 'user pays' principle. I acknowledge that a lot of the wealth realised by people like Hancock Prospecting was probably only realised by them because of nepotism, incompetence of others, and that they hardly had to do any exploration to realise such huge wealth. But that wealth generation was realised under a system they did not design. Having realised it, the government should not be able to reclaim it....under the rationalisation that they are going to help Australians. Rationalisation. Its the same extortion that Hitler would have used. i.e. extort from a group for the benefit of the collective.

I suggest that any public funds might legitimately be used for funding defense, but the approach to the issue ought to be well-conceived. There ought to be no impact on existing wealth owners. i.e. Perhaps any tax would be recouped only after the share price of a company recovers to its previous levels at which the tax was applied. The problem with that I guess is that you place a limit over the share price, so it actually never gets there, until some shareholders take a long term view. That takes time. Not an easy issue to resolve. Why not just drop the whole idea. I'd be more inclined to reform the whole concept behind the existing tax.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Mining industry is not prepared for the RRT battle

Share |

The peak mining industry bodies are indeed stupid...judging by Rudd's ability to muster community support, they are even more naive than Rudd, or the voters. For years I have been writing about the escalating fascism in Australia. This has of course fallen on deaf-ears. Today, we are seeing Andrew Forrest identifying Kevin Rudd as a fascist. In the article he is seen giving Rudd a warm hug. He must be a smart guy. Right? After all he has made a lot of money. He was Australia's richest man. He has been cut down to size by a tax he did not see coming.

This is precisely the problem with business people - their anti conceptual thinking. They think conceptual knowledge, and subjects like philosophy (i.e. ethics) are a waste of time. The consequence of their lack of conceptual efficacy and short-range thinking, we end up with fascism. He says 'communist', but really it makes no difference....its the 'will of the majority' to coerce or expropriate from the minority'....that's right. If it sounds like democracy...it is. Democracy is a dangerous concept. If you thought the tyranny of the minority was bad...ask yourself what the tyranny of the majority is like.....that's right...its no difference. If you are wondering what has changed...it was something not on your radar...it was the ever-increasing expansion of statutory law at the expense of Common Law. Under Common Law Rudd would be a thief...he is empowered by arbitrary statutory law.

Wasn't the constitution..i.e. The Senate supposed to protect people from such persecution. Well, yes, but when concepts become a bit 'iffy', if people become morally ambivalent, you would be surprised how quickly you can move towards fascism.

The mining industry deserve this result. The government was better prepared for this debate then they were. The mining industry is using the same arguments as they have always used...the utility of a strong mining industry. These 'relativist' arguments are what the government is going on. No doubt the Rudd government has been calling all the resource producing (i.e. mining-based) countries suggesting that they apply a new resource rent tax. This is after all how taxes increase and taxation takes hold. i.e. Facts of reality don't matter. So the mining industry uses concrete based arguments like 'all the investment will go offshore"....so Rudd counters that other resource countries are going to apply a mining/resource tax. So we have the ultra-fascist regime of China now supporting a resource tax. Funny isn't it....China is taxing fascist tax ideas from Australia. Did you think democracy was a nice balance between capitalism and fascism. He he...the compromise is always worst. Collectivists can't do anything...they are inefficacious thinkers. They depend on the enslavement of thinkers...free thinkers...business people. Rudd is a compromise...so China looks to people like him (lacking integrity) for ideas on how to keep their economy going. Understand China is in trouble, but it has the benefit of a large market and cheap labour. Those benefits will evaporate in 30 years.

We fall into this comparative value argument....which children use. i.e. Mommy, but all the kids in school have one, why can't I. Clearly the mining industry have no graduated from conceptual school yet, because they are still using such arguments as fully 'mature' adults. If you are wondering why Twiggy Forrest is particularly focal consider that he is one of the few owners of mining, as opposed to his compatriots who can pass on the cost to shareholders. This is why the government is going after miners...the superindustry has no 'direct' shareholders, and most shareholders are fund managers or 'manager' CEOs who can pass on the cost. Rudd of course knows this.

So given that governments appear likely to follow Rudd's lead around the world...what is the mining industry's next argument.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Miners adopting wrong argument over resource rent tax

Share |

The strategy to date of the miners is going to result in the government adopting this resource rent tax. The reason is the moral ambivalence of 'big business'. I am not suggesting for a moment that business is immoral, I am saying they are uncertain about their moral value, and thus not able to communicate a consistent ethical argument which would give their case the legitimacy which I know they have. The problem is that they, like the broader community, are a product of Christian philosophical values. Christianity and capitalism have existed alongside each other for a long time. Christianity has a legacy of retaining the 'moral high ground' whilst business was always about practicality. It is not surprising therefore that:

1. Government will appeal to the common good, the need to raise money in this financial crisis

2. Big business in contrast is going to argue that it needs to make a 'reasonable rate of return' if it is to sustain long term investment.

This is not a compelling argument. Big business will lose with this approach. Why? Because people, like business people, think short term. They are thinking they are in a financial crisis, they would prefer the tax burden to apply elsewhere. We don't have the ability to pay, 'big business' does. Business loses by this measure. By definition, business tends to make profits, and have a surplus. The public and government can spend without consequences because there is always someone to pick up the pieces. You might say that the government picks up after the big business fails, e.g. The HIH Insurance debacle. But that is only because of the community-wide implications of financial failure.

The proper argument

The decision to adopt a Resource Rent Tax is political folly, however it is just one piece of a succession of follies. They have their origin in the structure of government, and the values underpinning those structures. Unless big business repudiate that legacy of values and political structures, we are looking at the march of Rudd's fascism down Bond Street...or is it Bridge Street....Collins Street.

History is replete with examples of government ineptness, both as moral agents and executives. They spend tax receipts with no regard for consequences. They are not 'earners' of capital, they are expropriators. I would prefer money leave Australia than end up in the hands of government because I know that foreigner earned it. If we treat investors right, they will came back. Rudd's strategy will drive them away.

History is also full of examples of government applying a tax to one minority, and upon the principle of 'divide and rule', spreading their taxing powers to others. They do this by appealing to some majority. Eventually we end up all paying more tax because government by its nature is not efficient. They did not earn the right to occupy government. Understand that our politicians are not the best that our political system can produce, they are the worst. They are the best liars, the best manipulators of spin, and you deserve them because you allow them their ethical disposition to fester. Stamp out the cancer destroying politics in Australia! Require more of your politicians. Limit their arbitrary powers. Require laws to be based on principles. Require political parties to have coherent value systems.

Business needs to make this debate about ethics. It is business who is on the back foot on this issue because of their ambivalence. Business of course has a bad reputation because of the practices of a few, e.g. HIH CEO, Alan Bond, etc. The reality however is that it is government which allows these bad examples to fester. i.e. The lack of effective, under-resourced regulation in Australia, the arbitrary laws which facilitate loopholing of tax codes and statutory regimes. Accounting principles and Common Law do not allow this, the arbitrary 'creep' of statutory and tax legislation does! Stop it before it destroys the country; reducing it to a lower level of depravity than it has already fallen to.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Rudd is a model comrade for China

Share |

Australia's tax system under Kevin Rudd is a model for the Communist Party of China according to a SMH article. Communist in name only, the Chinese government is really fascists, but that is a cosmetic issue really. Fundamentally, like Kevin Rudd, they embrace the politics of expropriation, and using the 'common good' as a basis for imposing their values on others. Its simply a matter of degree. On this issue, Rudd is ahead of the communist party. Mind you I have always been suspicious for any collectivist in generating ideas. My suspicion is that Rudd was not even the originator of this idea. My suspicion is that the idea originated in a Commonwealth Heads of State meeting. Probably the president of Ghana, which has recently imposed a 10% tax on gold production, probably said to Rudd, why don't you tax your resources at mine gate, so then we can raise our taxes more in future.

Another concern with this policy is that the government is actually creaming off the upside in commodity prices, which are already reduced for Australian miners by the rising Australia dollar whenever commodity prices rise. There is another problem with this policy: It will disadvantage Australian investors. After all if you are an investor and you do not benefit from a rising exchange rate, why would you invest in commodities based businesses since you don't get any upside. Why would you invest a lot of money in exploration if you could not see the benefits in 3-10 years time.

The implication is that resource projects in Australia will be less valued by Australian investors. This is indeed a paradox because Rudd thinks he is reclaiming wealth for 'all Australians'. Like all silly government policy, it has the opposite effect. Foreign companies will buy into resource projects when they are worth a lot less. i.e. The local partner who discovered the project will get less money from the acquirer. There will also be less money for exploration. Australian miners will go offshore because there is less benefit.

We will also see more consolidation of mining. Contrary to the view that BHP & Rio Tinto will lose out, I think they will benefit from being able to buy projects cheaper. It will be the taxpayer who loses in every way. Consider:

1. Loss of jobs as less investment in mining, less exploration
2. Diminished value of mining stocks because less return, less value attached to any discovery they make
3. Less export revenue
4. Increased takeover of under-priced Australian projects
5. Foreigners will get the benefit in 5-10 time when the Liberals reverse the policy
6. We will see Labor returned to office because they gifted to Australians money in the short term for a long term source of taxes.
7. Super funds have already made losses from the announcement of the tax - yes, your money

The nation declines once again because politicians and voters thought non-conceptually and short-range.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Fascism in America

Share |

The following movie is about how US taxpayers are illegally paying taxation. The movie was produced by Aaron Russo, the producer of the movie 'Trading Places' with Eddie Murphy.


-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com