Lawyers profit at taxpayers expense

Share |

There is something very wrong about the world when financial institutions are suing each other 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:

1. Not properly regulating financial markets

2. By aggressively stimulating or distorting markets with various incentives like First Home Buyers grants, relaxed bank regulations and ultra-low interest rates.

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.

Japan Foreclosed Guide Mining Fundamentals eBook Resource Rent Tax Australia

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Australia govt set to impose a tax on online commerce

Share |

More steps are afoot to tax the Australian public. This time it is a corporate business owner who is looking for government favours. The government is taking steps to tax online commerce. Why? Because Gerry Harvey, owner of the retail chain Harvey Norman is not seeing the sales growth that he would like to see. The reason why his sales are flagging is of course because his prices are too expensive. For example, the USB memory sticks which he can buy in China for $4-5, he sells for $40-50. Why wouldn't people look online. If he is worried about the shift in business online, then let him improve his online presence.

In fact I know that he is doing that...but that is not sufficient. He wants to help the government legitimatise the adopting of a new tax, which gives him some market favour. One has to recognise at this point the difference between business people who have integrity and those who don't. It takes more than participation in a market to be a capitalist; there is a philosophy or theory of values underpinning it. Consider that free trade is based upon the 'voluntary' and mutual exchange of goods and services. It is a conditional arrangement. No goods or services, no payment. Compare that with government-sponsored extortion, or those efforts by govt to extort some market advantage through government regulation.

Harvey would have you believe that he is protecting Australian jobs. Nonsense, he is protecting the value of his retail store investments. People don't need to go into his store to find the value of his products, they need only see an online product review, or search for other online sources of information. They are more trustworthy than anything his uneducated sales people might convey because the customer has nothing in writing. They are not accountable, and most do not know what they are talking about.

The reality is that Australians or Kiwis should not be working in retail stores. It is low-value employment; particularly given the trend towards online shopping. The implication is that Harvey is looking at a form of protectionism. These people ought to be studying software, business services, etc. Not wasting time in retail stores.

From the perspective of the government, this is the type of complaint governments love, because it is an excuse to adopt a new tax or extend its taxing powers to another sector. How can people plan their lives if there is a government who is ready to stamp out any commercial opportunity. We recently saw the government jump on the resources industry, wanting to adopt a new resource rent tax. It saw that the resources sector was going to take off...its taken them 20 years to finally realise..and they want a 'piece of the action'. They earned nothing, they take what they live....seemingly under the pretense that they are serving the public interest. All extortionists labour that argument. Altruism is just one excuse to steal from others. Its not a virtue. Its a dirty justification for favouring the weak, who do not know or what to know how to live, at the expense of the virtuous, who know how to live, whose lives the parasites depend upon. If these 'parasites' like Harvey (yes, business is often worse that the humble beggar) are doing nothing but reclaiming some loss because of some grave injustice...then let them recoup it through the court system. It will make a great class action. I would even favour overhauling our court system. Surely with all these taxes we might expect a decent justice system. You might ask...where does all the money go! We don't need any arbitrary law which incorporates a lot of exceptions, creates loopholes, and a resulting litany of failures in execution. We simply need a privately-run court system and common law. Anything else simply exists for the government to justify its role as a middleman.

Harvey acknowledges that online commerce accounts for just 4% of retail sales, but argues that his lost sales growth could become a reality if 'online commerce' doubles. The reality is that he does have advantages in certain areas. He has an advantage in several areas:

1. Old people are less inclined to shop online

2. Certain products are not easily bought online, e.g. bulky or technical

He also has some disadvantages. People can come into his store, ask for advice, examine a product, and then buy online. He has the opportunity to offer products online too. Maybe he could package warranty with store-bought product only. That is after all part of his value-add.

Japan Foreclosed Guide Mining Fundamentals eBook Resource Rent Tax Australia

Author Andrew Sheldon| Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Greatest wealth expropriation coming

Share |

During the next few years Australians are going to be exposed to the biggest government-imposed expropriation of wealth they have ever seen. The reasons are the following:

1. The decline in Common Law and ascension of 'arbitrary' statutory law as a means of achieving political ends. We have seen Western governments attempt to retain government through one form of stimulus to another. They have run out of stimulus tools...all countries are fully indebted, so they need to look to new taxing powers. They will target the rich as well as corporates. Many corporations around the world have (unlike households) a high level of savings.

2. Interest rate squeeze: The rise in interest rates are going to place a lot of households under pressure, and this is going to prompt political parties to compete in terms of its measures to 'protect' those households encouraged by governments to buy houses when no one ought to have been buying houses. Western countries have huge household debts.

You might have thought that trade liberalisation was about less fascism....wrong. Fascism is the result of declining intellectual standards. Look at the quality of education and the media, what people are reading, and it is apparent that people are:

1. Poorer thinkers today because compartmentalised, specialised, repressed, less critical, less conceptual, sceptical of conceptual assertions, less able to anticipate problems. i.e. Shorter range thinking, concrete-bound.

2. Less self confident because they have been raised in a culture where critical thinkers have been alienated, fewer negative consequences for immoral acts, more collectivist/social identity, less respect for facts or objectivity, more beholden to collective values, i.e. More likely to accept coercion and expropriation as a measure to achieve these values. More likely to respond to fear-based campaigns. More likely to seek government action to problems, even if they caused the problems.

3. Less responsible: They are more likely to look to governments to solve problems, and blame others for their problems.

The implication of this is that over the next few years, as government receipts dry up, and we start eating dried biscuits and tin food, the government will be looking for new sources of revenue to support the poor and those subject to the mishaps that it caused. The government to this end will target the rich. The wealthy in the first instance will be those who are not able to move their investments offshore, e.g. Miners. Eventually other cashed up corporations will be taxed.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

What are the chances of being caught for tax evasion

Share |

If one observes the way the government works its that they like to make examples of people, particularly high profile people. I am reminded of Rene Rivkin, a high flying, very successful trader and stockbroker, who was caught breaching the insider trading regulations covering stock trading. Of course everyone would engage in insider trading if they could, or if they had the opportunity. It goes without reason. Why would you not try to profit from information if you did not harm someone to obtain it.
I can assure you that the armies of brokers working in the stock market engage in stock trading. This is how brokers do it according to a person I know who works in the backoffice of a broking house. The ‘house’ funds’ are used. These are client funds held by the brokers to cover positions. This approach allows the broker to conceal the identity of the trader. This is easy because your inside information allows you to recommend the stock to your clients. The other opportunity is by using offshore bank accounts, which are difficult for governments to track.
The wealthy with the capacity to set up such structures benefit from this. I would also suggest that people can probably use CFDs to evade insider trading. I don’t know however if these markets are monitored for insider trading, but I doubt it.

So why is the observed ‘voluntary tax compliance’ so high?
Well the problem here is what you call voluntary compliance. ‘Voluntary’ in this context means being obedient before you are caught. The implication is that people are still be coerced into submission.
The tax system in Australia is based on self-assessment and voluntary compliance by taxpayers. The probability of receiving an audit by the Tax Office is considerably low. The chance of being caught blatantly avoiding or evading tax is also unlikely, and if a taxpayer is caught, the culpability penalties are relatively minor. Yet the majority of taxpayers still comply with their obligations and pay their tax with good will (Braithwaite, 2003).

There is evidence that perceptions of unfair tax burdens or policies can affect taxpayers’ compliance decisions. According to Betty Jackson & Valerie Milliron, tax fairness has at least two dimensions (Jackson & Milliron, 1986) related to:

1. The benefits one receives for the tax dollars given.
2. The perceived equity of the taxpayer’s burden compared to other individuals. The taxpayers’ perceptions are framed by the equity of the tax system (see also Kinsey & Grasmick, 1993). If a taxpayer felt they were paying more than their fair share of tax compared to wealthy taxpayers (i.e. vertical inequality), they are more likely to see paying tax as a burden.

I would argue that there are additional reasons to be disgruntled by the tax system:

1. The lack of opportunity to seek redress, both in terms of policy and assessments
2. The lack of ethical framework for levying the tax
3. The lack of choice in participating in it, or chosing between systems that might exist in different states. You can’t so readily choose your country, but you can chose your state.

We can understand why tax evasion results in problems. Consider a study by Spicer and Becker (1980), which found that taxpayers increased their level of tax evasion when they considered themselves victims of vertical inequity, but decreased their tax evasion when they perceived themselves to be the beneficiaries of vertical inequity. The implication is three-fold:

1. That some people are not consistent in their decisions. This is understandable. Why should they act with principles when the government doesn’t.
2. The system supports the majority and punishes the minorities or marginal electorates served by political parties, e.g. farmers, pensioners, welfare recipients and business. These groups also benefit from considerable social sympathy because they are political organised.
3. The system is unfairly designed

Research into procedural justice shows that taxpayers are generally more compliant when they think the tax authorities have treated them fairly and respectfully (Wenzel, 2003). The implication is that there are levels of discontent with government. What these studies fail to raise is the taxpayer discontent with the way governments spend money. There are several grounds for this discontent:

1. The seemingly political (self serving) nature of the expenditures
2. The slow political process to take action
3. The low efficiency of the tax expenditures
4. The failure of government spending to achieve its stated goals
5. The extent of government spending which they don’t support
6. The extent to which government spending is marked by corruption
7. The extent to which government appears to be doing nothing to remedy these problems
8. The extent to which the government appears to be concealing or denying its lack of efficacy or incompetency in these matters

There is little empirical research available on the attitudes and beliefs of taxpayers actually known to be engaged in aggressive tax planning (Refer to Murphy, 2002a; 2002b; in press; Murphy & Byng, 2002a; 2002b; Hobson, 2002; Williams, 2004). Most studies only consider the attitudes and beliefs of taxpayers in the general population. Non-compliant taxpayer might be dismayed by this, believing that they are the victims of unfair policies that burden them at the expense of the majority. One cannot assume that their resentment is purely concerned with the distribution of the burden. Other issues are the unfairness of the system in terms of:

1. Administrative time & costs
2. The resources made available
3. The flexibility of the system to serve certain groups
4. Pursuing certain types of tax payers

Clearly the problem collecting data on tax evasion is the unwillingness of people to draw attention to themselves, because they fear the type of treatment afforded Rene Rivkin until he died under the stress of constant court battles with a tax office with unlimited resources. So pity the small taxpayer who has even less resources than Rene.

Most of the survey-based studies conducted have instead tried to measure taxpayers’ propensity to evade or avoid tax (Wallschutzky, 1984; Wearing & Headey, 1997). The problem with this approach is that people (including government) are blind to the ethical reasons for why taxpayers might legitimately avoid taxation. Well – that is no longer the case for the Australian Tax Office because I sent them a letter of complaint against their tax policies, asking to engage in a debate with their most capable officer. This lack of survey results serves the government because there is no ‘ethical’ case against it. The other side of this issue is the impact on the psyche of those hounded by the tax office. I know a great many Australians will regard these tax delinquents as ‘criminals’, but I would challenge anyone to offer evidence of that. To defend this position is not simply about citing a piece of legislation, it’s about establishing an ethical basis for levying taxation on people. I.e. Keep asking why until you run out of answers.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Why are tax penalties so harsh?

Share |

The Australian government is able to borrow money for around 6% per annum, yet around the world government’s charge delinquent tax payers 24-30% per annum. The reason is of course to force taxpayers into compliance. This is pretty courageous policy when you consider that in many countries similar ‘loan shark’ payment regimes have been outlawed by government. I am thinking of Japan, but in other countries as well. Of course the paradox in the case of tax is that people did not ask or invite this, they just couldn’t pay their taxes. Sometimes for ethical reasons, but in other cases due to incapacity.
The reason why punishments are so harsh is because the government has picked up on research by Jensen (1969) highlighting a relationship between the inevitability of legal sanctions and crime rates, and reported evidence of a relationship between perceived risk of legal sanctions and self-reported delinquency in juveniles. These findings have since been interpreted as justification for the premise that ‘individuals will only comply with rules and regulations when confronted with harsh sanctions and penalties’.
Well government didn’t need research to know that. The whip, gun and incarceration have long been used as tools of coercion by all but the most despotic regimes in the world. But what the government needed was a credible sanction for its actions. Well such research gives them a sanction for unethical conduct.
One needs to recognise here that this is not fear of doing wrong, breaking the law. That is a different question, and one the government is not particularly interested in addressing. There is no ethical framework for tax. If they created one it would be subject to criticism, which they want to avoid. The way government works is to:
1. Avoid responsibility – see Aaron Russo’s movie ‘Fascism in America’
2. Avoid defining terms
3. Avoid the need for accountability
4. Avoid discussion
5. Deflect responsibility to the courts – in the case of the USA – discarding the US Constitution

Deterrence research conducted in the tax arena has continued to reveal conflicting results.
While this offers some support to the assertion that fear of detection is an effective deterrent to tax noncompliance (Witte & Woodbury, 1985; Slemrod, Blumenthal & Christian, 2001), it is not a deterrent without costs. The costs include suicide, anxiety and crime. It must be remembered that it might be illegal not to pay tax, but that is not the issue if the government cannot defend its policies. A great many tax laws are unfair, because they are arbitrary, and because the government is so despondent to taxpayers concerns, as they are relatively free of accountability.
There is no evidence to suggest that the severity of penalties or prosecution deters noncompliance in the long-term (Kinsey, 1988; Witte & Woodbury, 1985; Williams, 2001). An Australian study indicates that levels of tax non-compliance for the period 1985-1996 did not change as the severity of statutory fines increased. The same study also indicated that an increase in the number of gaoled tax offenders over this time had no impact (Devos, 2002). Prosecuting non-compliant taxpayers also has been demonstrated to have had limited impact on compliance (Williams, 2001).
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How people are controlled

Share |

There is a lot of talk of conspiracy theories. In fact I saw on the Four Corners program last night a very good account of the 9/11 tragedy, and how a lot of conspiracy theorists were coming out with a range of alternative explanations they imply the US government actually dynamited the buildings. This program debunked the conspiracy theories. But I actually support these people who questions for 2 reasons:
1. I value the fact that people think ideas and politics are important enough to stand up for
2. I like people who question convention because everything should be questioned

The government has a legal sanction on the initiation of force. It is critical that they are accountable. The lack of disclosure ignites critics - that is a good thing. Too much is left unexplained and unaccounted for. The movie that had me reeling was 'America - from Freedom to Fascism' by Aaron Russo, the movie maker who made 'Trading Places' with Eddy Murphy. There are some sensational assertions in this movie, but for the most part its a very accurate account of the how the State is using its power to create unsavoury alliances. I don't see it as a conspiracy, but rather the practical consequence of people preserving their own status or authority, colluding with other interest groups to get what they want. For example, I would suggest that union leaders are corrupt. They are paid off at the top, and when there incidents of local work stoppages, large corporations will offer regional members financial inducements to win them over. Of course there is nothing stopping them from using standard diplomacy to do this, but I know this happens.
In the Philippines recently I met a union official attached to some coal mine in Queensland. He was talling me that some regional union official had been paid off. It has to be appreciated that such things are happening all the time. Sure they occur in the Philippines more than say Australia, but its global, and its not easily identified, and these people are often too clever to get caught. With arbitrary law it just requires a loophole.
The type of unsavoury relationships we are talking about are:
1. Politicians controlling the balance of power: Several years ago Senator Brian Haraldine of Tasmania was able to secure a huge financial investment by the government in Tasmania because he held the blocking vote which would allow the government to privatise Telstra. The reasons for or against didn't matter, the final cost was a misallocation of voter's financial resources. The creation of political parties and the requirement for MPs to follow the party line and to rely on party resources is a major obstacle to justice and good government.
2. Government and opposition: In most countries there are 2 major parties. I would assert that in most of these countries the 2 major parties have established rules of engagement. That is, they have established rules that preserve or entrench their parties long term security. The problem with this comfortable duopoly is that parties are rewarded for not making changes. Both parties don't want to raise issues that raise conflicts. They do this by controlling the media, the analytical process. For instance, you don't have independent commissions to run inquiries, you have selected government people and parliamentary committees whom come under the government's sphere of influence. They don't want any embarrassments.
3. Government and the media: The government has a lot of power over the media because politics is important, so any media denied access to politicians is at a disadvantage. A small business council in Australia was alienated by an Australian political party after it made critical statements about their policies. Criticism is no longer open, but behind closed doors. This is a problem. The other bargaining chip the government has over the media is of course laws on media ownership, concentration of media ownership (both in terms of equity & market share). It was interesting several years ago how the media was disparaging of the minor parties.
4. Government and unions: Traditionally we have seen the major political parties allign with either the unions or big business. The reason they did this is because they were the traditional source of organised voter support, which equates to financial resources. With the decline of union membership, we have witnessed a rise in fascist party politics in Western governments, as the two major parties vy for their share of the corporate donor funds. The reality is that politicians support the 2-party. They don't want to share government with a third. So just as you can expect rules of engagement between parties, so you have them between party contributors.
5. Government and industry associations: For the same reasons as I have stated above, industry groups support the status quo, that is the major parties. The reason they do that is to get concessions. This is why you see the largest companies supporting both parties. Its more than just supporting 'democracy', its about propping up bad regimes which give them concessions at the expense of salary earners. You will not see these businesses support a new party despite them having some prestige. If there was any opportunity to do this I would suggest it could come from select unions or small business, or perhaps even farmers, but as it stands in Australia, the USA, we don't see these groups as having a high, independent political profile, which is surprising because as we know about politics, votes are counted at the margins.
6. Governnment and government: Another important relationship is between governments. It is understandable that governments forge relationships with other governments, but again there is a tendency for governments to protect the public officials from other countries. We have seen Japan give sanctuary to former Peruvian leader Fujimori, Britain giving sanctuary to the corrupt Thai PM, the US giving sanctuary to Ferdinand Marcos, Britain giving sanctuary to former dictator Pinochet of Chile. Ask yourself why? Clearly they don't do this to remain on good terms with these countries, its because they want the same protection, and to avoid the same accountability. Its not a new concept - we see the same commeraderie in the military and police forces.
7. Government and military: In developing countries there is a need to perserve the military because they have considerable power. In the Philippines we have seen a number of military officers try to instigate a coup. Philippine military officers are generally very corrupt. Apart from the kickbacks they can earn, they also get a generous fuel allowance from the government. The kickbacks are allowed because it preserves alliances at the high level where you want them. You want corruption so you have something to hold against these people. It is the fabric which holds the government together. In the West, the military don't have as much power, however military budgets are very generous for a reason. You don't see any any scaling back of military power because of the Western alliance. Its because the military will always matter.
8. Government and the central bank: The role of the central bank is to create the illusion that there is independent regulation of the money supply. In fact the governor of the Reserve Bank is elected by the PM. Of course the process for promoting certain high level 'political' candicates for the office starts early since the government has an ongoing relationship with the central bank.
9. Government and regulators: The regulators in most countries are attached to the government so its not surprising that they are alligned with the government. Rarely is regulation in most countries really taken seriously. The reason is that the corporate sector would not support the government if they were strictly regulated, so instead we have pretend regulation. The regulators themselves cite the lack of financial resources for not being able to perform their job. The reason is - they were never supposed to be able to do it. We have just been through a financial boom. During that time I only saw one case of insider trading, and it was against a flamboyant trader Rene Rivkin, who I dare say pissed off a lot of people.
10. Government and the judiciary: The judiciary is supposed to be a pretty upstanding group of people, but they are like most intellectuals, politically-affiliated. More important than that is the fact that they have the safe sense of life to have a bureaucratic appointment. For these reasons I would expect them to be cognisant of the fact that they are paid, promoted and appointed by the PM or subordinates. I do however this that the influence of the government on the judiciary is less in Australia than say the USA. The bigger problem is that judges have their own minds, for which they are not terribly accountable, because the judiciary is another conservative men's club.

When you look at matters that way you realise that the group in the weakest position is salarymen, non-resident, non-executives, students, children and the disabled. The groups I think with the greatest potential for more influence is the unions, consumer advocacies and small business. Religious has less power because its bipartisan, but we have seen that by virtue of the number of religious freaks in the world, they too have significant political power.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Preparing tax returns

Share |

The amazing aspect about tax returns is that people do them. I'm actually two years behind doing mine. Don't want to do it, its just that we live in such a fascist state that my wife can't immigrate because one of the criteria for emigrating is that the sponsor has paid up his taxes. The other pernicious aspect of the tax office is its capacity to reach into your bank account and take funds. Its called expropriation in some countries, but I'm sure they have other words for it.
I have so many reasons for hating the tax office, so let me list a few here:
1. Moral foundation: I don't support the ethical premise of 'collective good', 'the good of the people', 'common good'. The reason I don't support it is because its a rort. There is no possibility of objectively defining the common good, and there is no rational basis for justifying the collective or majority expropriating the wealth of the minority. But that's how it started. The politics have shifted and now the minority control the majority, whilst the majority lie stillborn. You idiots! Don't you see the fraud you accept. Let us know you are breathing!
2. Time wasting: The time it takes you to do your tax is a scary thing. I know if its simple if your are a salaryman, but that's only because you get the worst deal. No tax breaks. Mind you things are complicated enough don't you think because there are 3 tax pack books in Australia (counting 198 pages) that require distribution. Of course if you want to obtain the benefits of tax deductions then you need to set up a corporation. The requirement to record even single tax deduction to register your benefit must rank as slavery.
3. Accountability: Another poor aspect of the tax office is their inability to offer any tools to actually make tax paying easier. Like can't there be electronic money which records and categorises all your transactions. N0! That piece of genius is beyond them.
3. Welfare burden: When we think of welfare, we think of the homeless that walk the streets, the mentally ill. Well I've got news for you. They are still walking the streets, except for the ones employed by the government. My brother is one of them. He just got a nice cushy payoff because he couldn't work. He'll get that for life unless he decides he wants to work again. Of course it doesn't stop him studying. That's where your welfare dollars are going.
4. Unfairest system: I had an occasion to use welfare when I was young. I thought if I'm going to be forced (as a slave) to contribute to this inefficient system I may as well dig in when I get the opportunity. The problem I have is that its the unfairest system you can imagine. My dilemma was that I was unemployed when I gave out of university, but I still had $20,000 in shares. I made a 300% gain on some nickek stock. Well I couldn't get the benefits because I had a cash balance of over $10,000. Nevermind that there were people in the queue who had $0.5-1mil houses. Ridiculous. For the life of me, I don't see why my tax rate rises when I live overseas. When I lived in the Philippines & Japan, rather than getting a $9000 tax free threshold, I just get the straight $30,000, plus the higher increments. So I set up a corporation, which is supposed to be a separate legal entity, but they tax it like I'm a non-resident too. You realise that this is a different type of fascism. Hitler would have just had my head cut off. The tax office just targets you for an audit.
5. Accountability: I also realised what parasites the tax office are. They couldn't care a damn about poor people, this is a system that is intent on perserving government. I realised this very young. I calculated my tax at the time, giving them my profits and losses separately as they wanted, but they counted my gross profits as gains and did not consider my losses, and hit me with a huge tax bill. My tax bill was sky high, and my appeal fell on deaf ears.
6. Fear: The tax office operates on fear. It scares everyone into submission. How? Well there is the threat of retribution, which includes huge fines, interest which far in excess exceeds their 2-4% cost of capital. It can be as high as 15-20% per annum. Nevermind that you sincerely think you have a good case. Of course they work with their co-conspirators to expropriate the money from your account.
7. Psychology: You might wonder why these parasites can be so deprived of empathy for their fellow men. The reason is because they are such feeble people. They really are. They have little self-esteem, penises as small as baby carrots.
8. Funding government: Have you noticed that despite the fact that you pay 25-35% tax, you still have to pay a lot of fees for government services. You don't even realise because its off the balance sheet. Aside from the bracket-creep in taxes due to inflation (another rort), we are paying much higher fees for all kinds of services. Have you noticed that the government tries to encourage productivity in every industry except the private sector. I'm quite sure that we don't need lecturers at every university around the country, we could satisfy ourselves with a video link, or now a You Tube service. How cheap could education be? Well very cheap. Basically marking the exam and tutoring the course could be the greatest expense. So given that government buses are as expensive as private buses, and they have a monopoly, petrol taxes pay for roads, hospital fees pay for hospitals, and you don't get dental, you might wonder where the 30% is going. Well there are things like war in Iraq (to give them a system we hate, but not before giving them a system which is better than ours). There are corporate subsidies, election costs (for a comfy duopoly) that looks very much the same.
9. Priorities: You might wonder how the government allocates the money.
10. Legitimacy: You might think that this is not how the system was supposed to be. Certainly this was not how the US system was supposed to function, but the reality was the US system was corrupted, and so much be considered to have flaws. The US Constitution is being ignored. Judges are actually saying that lower courts don't have to recognise Supreme Court rulings. The US Constitution does not recognise the right of the government to levy an income tax on individuals. People do under threat from the IRS. The Federal Reserve, a private company, is illegal. Its creation was never overturned by the courts. You might wonder why? No doubt because judges are batting on the same team. Fascism is even more rife in the Commonwealth countries because

Why do we bow to a Constitution that that our governments don't even respect? Why are a gathering of founding fathers 100+ years ago so 'credible' when they come from a time of mystic revelation and pre-science ignorance. Why don't people care? Why do people vote for the same idiots. I emplore people to vote for ANYONE but the main parties. We saw how cruel the major parties can be in Australia. Pauline Hanson was a racist parliamentarian who attracted a lot of support because she was perceived as honest. Unless people are prepared to stand up and be counted things are only going to get worse.

I recall John Howard once saying that life is complicated; that is just the way it is. That is nonsense. Complexities are resolved to make things simple. The only reason things get more complicated is to shift the power to corporates and government. Why? Both government and corporations have a vested interest in individuals being unorganised and unprincipled. There was 3 reasons that the government has unmined principles as a cognitive tool:
1. To give them the arbitrary power to tax your wealth
2. To give companies the arbitrary power to find loopholes in arbitrary legislation. The tax act is getting thinker. The principles of accounting have been corrupted likewise. Its becoming more arbitrary every day. Common law is becoming secondary to arbitrary legislation.
3. To overwhelm the general public so they are put in their place.

Governments don't want principles because firstly they don't apply them in their own lives; afterall that is the source of their inefficacy. Secondly, they don't want to be questioned. Its interesting when you see the efforts by 'We the People' Foundation in the USA, as they ask questions about the unconstitutional foundation for the American Constitution, it becomes apparent that:
1. They have no defensible position for taxation laws
2. They know it because they avoid being on camera, making statements which would make them accountable. Even judges are not prepared to tell jurors that there is no law, they just imply there is. Its a huge scam.
------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Do I have a death wish?

Share |

You might wonder. I certainly have considered it. I do live in fear. Actually I have felt threatened before. I attended a political rally near Port Macquarie in Australia. I was encouraged by local opposition to the main parties. I hoped for some fresh ideas, but instead it was fascist rhetoric. Their guest speaker was a public servant from Canberra.
But I felt for the first time the threat of no longer being in a free country . It used to be something we valued. That we were a free country. America had an even stronger sense of it. They even had rights enshrined in a constitution. We never had that. Did it make a difference. To some extent. But really the ideals of freedom have to live in people's minds. And people are just second handers, parasites and perpetrators.
The reason I felt uncomfortable after this meeting was that a person approached me and he wanted to know my name. I was surprised. I'm sure he's never heard a speech like mine before. You might think I should be appreciative for the attention. But actually my first thought was. I'm a threat to someone's entrenched vested interests. I did not have a heightened sense of my own importance. I knew 'they' (Liberals-Labor Coalition) were not threatened by me. Not yet. But one day they will be. They have years before they will need to terminate my life. Maybe they are waiting for me to tread some path to self-destruction. I won't go without a kick. But it would be nice if I wasn't kicking alone.

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

Do I have a problem with public institutions?

Share |

I don't have a problem with institutions, only corrupt ones. Institutions are corrupt because of people. Some have formalised corruption because they have the power to act with impunity. Others are corrupt because they act under a veneer of credibility, but its mostly just rhetoric. Government is an instrument to exhort money from hard working people. Private institutions are similarly organised under government sanction because they offer employment. Indidviduals are powerless because they dont look beyond their short term needs. They are anti-intellectual. Abstract thinking is impractical, idealistic. Get with the 'real world'. A Neo-Nazi would agree, just with more passion.
Wondering which country I am talking about? I dont know any good ones, and increasingly they are working to undercut any effort which would free you from them. The internet will soon be taxed... if it is not already. Of course the banking system and the media are most important to governments. Thats why they have the privilege of bail-outs.
Actually in the modern world the freest place to be is in a country that has a poorly structured tax system. In these country's its fairest because the tax system works equally bad for everyone. Its still wrong, but at least it has flaws to wiggle through.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Fear to scare us into submission

Share |

Has anyone noticed that the tax authorities are playing a psychological war against tax evaders and its based on guilt, fear and now even crime. The last story discusses how tax authorities have resorted to buying stolen information from private citizens prepared to expose arrangements that protect the financial interests of people that dont believe in tax.

There are a number of elements to this strategy:
1. Guilt: Continue to propagate the myth that tax evasion is illegal or immoral to make people feel guilty for acting in their own best interested, and those of their family.
2. Fear: Continue to announce initiatives that make people feel like the tax office is on top of things. The reality is they are actually a pathetic group of cowards, but they are only emboldened by cowardice and unthinking character in the general populous, starting with individuals and business that relies on government hand-outs.
3. Crime: Well the previous example highlights how desperate tax authorities have become. Germany is of course one of those EU countries with very high tax rates, and you can imagine that a great many of them are not happy paying so much, if any.

So what of the strategies they use:
1. Polite: The tax office are actually very friendly people. Research has no doubt told them that people are more likely to pay income tax if you solicit funds with a happy disposition. They are more inclined to 'backdown'.
2. Divide & conqueror: The tax authorities like to perpetuate the idea that they are targeting certain sectors of the economy. They find a tax evasion scheme and they make that industry or aspect of the tax code the basis for 'added vigilance'. The intent is to scare you into submission.
3. Target high profile examples: There is a tendency to take high profile people and target them for tax auditing. No doubt they made a slip. The reality is they will pay alot of penalties, they might even be disallowed from making any public comments as part of their 'out of court' settlements. This is just another example of the divide & rule principle used by dictators so well. They dont care that they wreak people's lives. They want people to see that everyone is under threat.

Examples are Steve Vizard, the Australian comic, the high-flying Australian stockbroker Rene Rivkin and Paul Hogan, another comic cum director.
------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

How do tax authorities enforce compliance?

Share |

The tax authorities are really not happy about enforcing the tax code. Who could be happy enforcing slavery? They are in effect accessories to a crime - at least by moral standards. Any happiness they have comes from the sense of security they get from being part of an organisation that has committed to paying their loyal disciples huge benefits.

Staying happy means treading a line line between meeting the funding requirements of their taxpayers and extorting funds from them. This is not an easy tax as you can imagine because taxpayers have very different concepts of what is fair. Some think 10% tax is enough, others think no limit should be applied.

Tax authorities realise that they are managing a public relations 'basket case'. If people dont think the system is fair, then they are inclined to move, or stop paying tax. Its actually very difficult to avoid not paying tax because of our reliance on the banking system for payments and revenue transactions. It does not make it easy that the banks are complicit with slavery, and by no means is such complicity new. It dates back to the time of the Far East Trading Companies that exhorted revenues from people under the sanction of the British monarchy.

Public relations were rather crude then. They would whip and beat you. But breaking the will or killing a citizen is not the best way to enlist a taxpayer. It encourages defiance. You want to enlist them by appealing to ethical principles that have no basis in reality, you want to make them feel apart of something great, so its encumbent on the tax collectors to speak in friendly tones. But if you dont do the same, they have legions of police to enforce court orders. Judges of course are paid under the same system as tax collectors, and thus they also have the same conflict of interest.

They need to make an example of those who breach the rules because it serves the enforcers to preserve the system. The more high profile you are, the more compelling the reasons for making you pay tax. If you are a small taxpayer, your contribution makes little difference. Havind said that, there are several reasons why everyone is a target for enforcement:
1. Bureaucrats tend to be systematic rather than commercially motivated, so they will 'cross the t's and dot the i's for the sake of being systematic.
2. Bureaucrats often focus on enforcing the tax code with smaller taxpayers so they dont have to worry about ending up in court.
3. Bureaucrats dont want to intimidate business owners because they are inclined to take their business offshore if tax authorities are too aggressive.
-----------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com