Cate Blanchett driving taxpayers to the grave

Share |

In recent times we have supported so-called 'tax evaders' like Paul Hogan and Wesley Snipes for their efforts to deny the extortionist governments that enslave them. We now turn our attention to those political apologists for slavery like Cate Blanchett. So how is Blanchett a "slave driver". Well, she isn't. She is the apologist, the appeaser, the moral sanctioner who gets on her high horse and breaches:

1. The virtues of helping the poor - with others money

2. The virtues of saving the environment - even though she has no insight of merit. She has not studied climate. She probably barely even reads newspapers given the demands of being overpaid to create stories which allow people to snub their minds and engage in mindless escapism at the movies. Then she has the balls to enter the real world and make her fictional values 'contemporary'.

Interestingly she sights her 'vested interests' as a mother. I wonder whether she is sabotaging the development of her children by spoiling them with everything they need. The moral principle surely has not dawned on her because she stands her advocating, not just ignorance of climatology as her moral credentials, but also for welfare. Most people would not sanction spoiling children, and for the same reason they should not sanction unconditional or coerced wealth redistribution. Why? Because its not earned. Its guilt-induced; it makes people feel like they are the centre of others survival. Very narcissistic of Blanchett, but entirely not insightful or helpful. It is actually destructive to human character.

Japan Foreclosed Guide Mining Fundamentals eBook Resource Rent Tax Australia

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

Hogan claims to have paid 'enough tax'

Share |

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.

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.

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:

'I have come to this great tax haven, the USA, where the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) are gentlemen compared to our lot’.

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.

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:

“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?’”.

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.

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.

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.

Sources: Daily Mail UK, IMDB.com and Tax Abuse.

Japan Foreclosed Guide Mining Fundamentals eBook Resource Rent Tax Australia

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

Wesley Snipes - moral crusader for taxpayers?

Share |

Another media celebrity, actor Wesley Snipes, is being persecuted by 'all powerful' government. The problem I fear is that this is another media celebrity without a good defense. Not that it ought to be hard to defend oneself from thieves. After all, why do common criminals get sanctioned for thieving, but its legitimate when the government does it. Its not a very common sense system is it. Well, that should not surprise you because the voting system is not sensible either. Why would an election between candidates you don't know result in a leader following prudent policy if you don't know the person, and they are not accountable for you for 3 years, and what's more, you have only a choice of two candidates to start with, because there are only really two parties contesting the election. Does this not surprise anyone? Moral scepticism perhaps. This is my fear, that Wesley Snipes, is just another taxpayer who is annoyed by the system, who does not have a well-conceived or sophisticated defense against this system.

This system of persecution has to stop. These are innocent people. Taxation is slavery. These guys are 'quasi-heroes' for standing up against the system. Unfortunately, they probably don't have a well-conceived defense. We live in hope. Paul Hogan tried to circumvent the system, so he looks like a 'tax cheat'. In his defense, morally-speaking you don't have to be honest with immoral people. You are perfectly ok to lie and cheat the tax office of funds they did not earn. To the extent that there is utterly no public accountability, there is a good chance many of your are paying too much tax, and even if you are paying too little...good for you, since you did not sanction this system...even if you voted for it...you could argue that you only wanted a better class of idiot.

I want to applaud Wesley Snipe's courage....I hope his intellect and choice of lawyers stands up to scrutiny. I tried emailing Paul Hogan's lawyers....but they are moral sceptics. There is no other way but an appeal to morality. Any win in the court system necessarily has to take the court back to the start of statutory law. Our political system was corrupted in the 1200s. Why? Well, we were still in the Dark Ages, and during that time, extorting money under the threat of fear was considered good practice. You would not stand by and watch an authority figure extort money from a child, a private person...so why do you stand by why the government does it 'unconditionally' to you. That's right. There is no limit to what the government can do to you. Even in countries with a Bill of Rights....that protection is moot in a system of arbitrary 'morally sceptical' legislature.

Japan Foreclosed Guide Mining Fundamentals eBook Resource Rent Tax Australia

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

Thieving ATO targets Paul Hogan

Share |

The Australian Tax Office has scaled up its extortion racket by extracting accusations by a tax advisor to Paul Hogan and John Cornell. Why do I say this? It has long been the practice of the ATO to target high-profile, wealthy Australians who clearly don't believe in paying excessive taxes to support regimes they don't believe in. One cannot say what justification Hogan & Cornell had for minimising taxation. I can only say that any law based on extortion, unconditional and 'initiated' coercion, whether it is the arbitrary law of a 'representative' government or some mob, is still theft. There is no moral legitimacy behind the law, and the fact that it is a 'tyranny of the majority' who condemn these men because of their own cynical acceptance of slavery, in no way admonishes them. Slavery is bad for everyone. Unconditionally funding government results in the worst form of public administration.

Send a message to the ATO that you do not support persecution of wealthy Australians for the sake of its self-serving power plays. Does anyone remember the efforts the government went in pursuit of Rene Rivkin. In the meantime, you can't even get the govt to look at disclosure issues. This is where it should be focused. Fraud and disclosure - to protect the legitimate interests of Australians...not stealing money from those who have 'made it'....why? Because they have more than you.

Japan Foreclosed Guide Mining Fundamentals eBook Resource Rent Tax Australia

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

Andrew Forrest rejoins Resource Rent tax opposition

Share |

I am pleased to see that Andrew Forrest has either rejoined or clarified his position with respect to the Resource Rent Tax, however I am suspicious of his support because he has sought arbitrary clarification of his position at the expense of principles. On the one side I understand that he is trying to advance his shareholders interests (i.e. shareholders in Fortescue Metals), but on the other hand, his shareholders are likely to have broader interests. His customers for iron ore also have broader interests. They also want to see all these smaller, less advanced iron ore projects developed, as well as coal projects, since iron ore customers also buy coal.

So herein lies my problem with Andrew Forrest's real position. He and the government are really the ones who solely benefit from his little backyard deal. He has given the government a 'card' to sell in this election, that they were able to reach a deal with the 3 largest miners. My problem with this is that Forrest has court and received favour from the government, and as a result of those actions, some iron ore projects in Australia could face excessively high taxes, whilst he is quarantined from them. This is therefore a form of protectionism. It has established a 'tax barrier to entry' in the market, and it will result in him having the favoured position of rolling out further iron ore production capacity at the expense of others.

Really I would like to see Andrew Forrest repudiate his agreement with the government prior to this election, as well as support the efforts of the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies (AMEC) to disparage the unfairness of this tax. The issues which should be raised in this media campaign are:

1. The desirability of government vs private spending

2. The arbitrary expansion of govt power

3. The arbitrary expropriation of wealth from 'select' shareholders, who need not be even wealthy ones. The smart money might already have left iron ore.

4. The unfairness of the tax - the govt picking winners, Google paying 0.5% tax compared to the mining industry, over 44%.

5. The impact on our credit rating, which will raise interest rates

6. The impact on the economy and jobs

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Hogan's moral rights swept aside

Share |

The successful prosecution of the Australian film icon Paul Hogan and partner 'Strop' Cornell highlights the dismal state of justice in the world. From the facts presented in the media it appears that Hogan was prosecuted on the basis of tax evasion. Hogan maintains that he did not know the basis of his tax affairs because he did not personally deal with them. i.e. He had a plethora of accountants, etc.

As far as I am concerned I do not expect honest responses from 'tax evaders' on such matters. When the arbitrary force of government intends to impose unreasonable burdens upon you, I think you have no other way to respond than with lies. Fear is the proper response when reason is not the standard of value. If the mob come to your door to kill your daughter, you do not respond 'Third door on the right'. You tell then anything to get rid of them.

So what is the standard of value? Well it is of course its a pretense....based on the premise of the 'common good'. The common good has however been defined by the parliament, and we all know what credible advocates of morality they are. Politicians do not lie to protect values they have 'earned' (unlike Hogan), but in order to evade responsibility and accountability. I am quite certain no politician has earned the right to extort wealth from Australians. The political system is a game we always lose because it comprises two 'non-combatants'. i.e. Liberal-NP and Labor. Not long after federation the two parliament coalesced into two parties. Contrary to the policy rhetoric, where they espouse a belief in competition, these two parties are intent on destroying all prospects for competition where it suits them. i.e. Even poor prospects like Pauline Hanson. You might ask why politicians, who are supposed to be 'moral agents', can justify such actions. The reason is simply they are not what they are supposed to be. Why would you accept the system? Even if you concede we need government? Why would you not stand in defense of those wronged by 'the system'? Why would you legitimatise that system. I don't. I don't vote, and I will continue to challenge the legitimacy of this system. The government publishes the number of registered votes who do not vote despite it 'being compulsory to voluntarily select between two non-combatants'. That's right, you are forced to make a choice. i.e. You are forced to give legitimacy to a system which is illegitimate. Why? To preserve the status quo, to preserve the entrenched interests of the two political parties. It does not publish the number of people who are not registered. Don't legitimatise the system. A better vote is non-participation. Better still would be to actually empathise with true victims of injustice (in accordance to some objective standard), as opposed to pretenses.

I think the problem with Paul Hogan's case is that he argued that he did not know what was happening, when in fact he should have repudiated the moral foundation of the political system. In fairness to him, the judiciary is as much a creature of pretense as any other government institution. It was perhaps a big ask for an actor & producer to identify the true nature of our political system, and he has so much more to lose financially, but you would think legal counsel ought to be able to provide such advice. Perhaps moral conviction would be stronger if more in the public displayed some. It starts with a question for the tax office:

"By what moral right do you purport to expropriate the earned wealth of others".

I have yet to hear any rational defense to this question. The 'betterment of society', the 'common good' or the 'good of society' are of course the standard answers. For logicians however, this response is not very compelling. What constitutes the common good?

When we adopt the 'common good' as a standard of value, we become a nation of perpetrators and victims. We hate those who have money, and we lust after with a sense of entitlement for that which we did not earn. In the process we ignore the reasons why some fail and some succeed, and console ourselves that a bad system has preserved 'stability' at the sake of a few, but in the process we have denied ourselves something much greater - the opportunity to achieve greatness. We have also disparaged those who have succeeded in deference to our own self-indulgence. Ask yourself if individualism or fascism is advanced by such a system.

The tax office of course comprises a group of parasites who will never amount to anything - not even their parents estimates. They are the unthinking 'plodders' who depend upon the wealth and productivity of others. They are not just middlemen - but middlemen who create nothing, add nothing. We cannot even attribute an efficiency to them because the loopholes in their systems have made the tax system more complex than it need be...except it needs to be. An arbitrary tax demands an arbitrary justification, which compels people to find loopholes, which demands counter-loopholes. So you need 5 specialised accountants rather than your own common sense. This is the 'efficiency' that the tax office has extorted upon the population. It happens because they have this 'arbitrary power'.

That is not the extent of the implausibility of the 'common good' concept. In these pages I develop additional arguments for why the current political system is a variant of fascism.

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

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax Australia

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com