Help
Scott Adams, who's blog I often enjoy, has an interesting post on tax and the 1%
http://dilbert.com/b..._benefits_more/
Granted he is definitely part of the 1% and he also deliberately writes in a provocative way (although I suspect a lot of his real provocation takes a while to figure out, like when he deliberately uses hypnosis techniques (one of his favourite things in the world I think) and so on).
It is an interesting idea to tax people based on the number of children they have (read the post before responding) it hits pretty much all of the same targets as the land tax hits I think.
Of course as a non breeder I am biased but the same goes for land tax (which I think everyone knows I am against ethically).
I am not sure I would ever support a breeding tax, just because I know so many people think it is important. But it is an interesting idea to keep in mind with all the anti 1% arguments.
Tax & the existence of free will An existential examination of the tax system
#2
Ruffian 
- Virtuoso
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 677
- Joined: 27-July 09
- LocationAdelaide
Posted 28 January 2012 - 10:06 PM
I did read Adam's blog, but was frustrated because he muddled his values, switching blithely between money and happiness as a measure of value. He needs to make up his mind, or develop a happiness-money equivalency unit.
Incidentally, in all the currently available social research literature, it seems pretty obvious that neither money nor children increase happiness by much at all.
More money causes a temporary surge in happiness which rapidly dissipates, leaving you about where you were before, while having kids is generally considered to reduce happiness for a long period (10yr+).
(Although I, as a breeder, would dispute that last part. Children increase anxiety, as you have many more worries & responsibilities & much less money - certainly. But they also increase contentment & sense of purpose profoundly. They also make you grow up. But more of that later).
A key point that I think we need to remember is that America is not Australia. The relationship between rich and poor there is very different to that existing in Australia.
The rich in the US generally tithe about 10% of their income into various charitable works - and there is nothing remotely comparable here. The reason being, our socialist democracy lets the government handle the 'the problem of the poor', which is funded through taxes.
In America their different, informal, redistribution of wealth (via churches and other aid organisations) is utterly necessary to prevent people literally starving.
It took me a while to work this out when I was living there. Once I did, we started giving heavily too. There are no safety nets there.
But back to taxation - the rich are taxed more heavily than the poor because they are the ones who have the money.
If income was distributed more evenly, then an 'equitable' tax would make more sense.
Another reason the rich are taxed is because nobody likes them. (Hence the 1% concept in the first place)
There are fewer rich people than poor people, and the poor are envious of rich, so it is politically expedient to keep the many happy by doing something slightly unpleasant to the unpopular few.
This basic social principle would work directly against political benefit if you tax children, as more people want to have kids than do not.
Personally I have no particular gripe about taxing kids. It seems as pointlessly arbitrary as any other taxation system. Although it appears to over-look that those kids will grow up to be productive citizens themselves.
Taxing kids will not stop people having them (look at China, the system there is very punitive for those who have multiple children and yet the rich and/or devious still have them).
It just means that in another reality there is an S&S forum where people are griping about the high costs of saving up for Johnnie's little sister.
Slightly off topic but allied to it (and equally potentially inflammatory!), I have long considered the benefits of only allowing parents the vote.
I am of the opinion that having children forces a basic level of altruism and regard for the future upon on most people.
They realise that they are no longer the centre of the universe (all children believe this, it is an unquestioned given that does not seem to be truly lost until you have a child yourself), and that the world must be run, if not for the benefit of all, at least in a somewhat more compassionate manner.
You have to have a stake in the game to make it real.
Incidentally, in all the currently available social research literature, it seems pretty obvious that neither money nor children increase happiness by much at all.
More money causes a temporary surge in happiness which rapidly dissipates, leaving you about where you were before, while having kids is generally considered to reduce happiness for a long period (10yr+).
(Although I, as a breeder, would dispute that last part. Children increase anxiety, as you have many more worries & responsibilities & much less money - certainly. But they also increase contentment & sense of purpose profoundly. They also make you grow up. But more of that later).
A key point that I think we need to remember is that America is not Australia. The relationship between rich and poor there is very different to that existing in Australia.
The rich in the US generally tithe about 10% of their income into various charitable works - and there is nothing remotely comparable here. The reason being, our socialist democracy lets the government handle the 'the problem of the poor', which is funded through taxes.
In America their different, informal, redistribution of wealth (via churches and other aid organisations) is utterly necessary to prevent people literally starving.
It took me a while to work this out when I was living there. Once I did, we started giving heavily too. There are no safety nets there.
But back to taxation - the rich are taxed more heavily than the poor because they are the ones who have the money.
If income was distributed more evenly, then an 'equitable' tax would make more sense.
Another reason the rich are taxed is because nobody likes them. (Hence the 1% concept in the first place)
There are fewer rich people than poor people, and the poor are envious of rich, so it is politically expedient to keep the many happy by doing something slightly unpleasant to the unpopular few.
This basic social principle would work directly against political benefit if you tax children, as more people want to have kids than do not.
Personally I have no particular gripe about taxing kids. It seems as pointlessly arbitrary as any other taxation system. Although it appears to over-look that those kids will grow up to be productive citizens themselves.
Taxing kids will not stop people having them (look at China, the system there is very punitive for those who have multiple children and yet the rich and/or devious still have them).
It just means that in another reality there is an S&S forum where people are griping about the high costs of saving up for Johnnie's little sister.
Slightly off topic but allied to it (and equally potentially inflammatory!), I have long considered the benefits of only allowing parents the vote.
I am of the opinion that having children forces a basic level of altruism and regard for the future upon on most people.
They realise that they are no longer the centre of the universe (all children believe this, it is an unquestioned given that does not seem to be truly lost until you have a child yourself), and that the world must be run, if not for the benefit of all, at least in a somewhat more compassionate manner.
You have to have a stake in the game to make it real.
This post has been edited by Ruffian: 28 January 2012 - 10:10 PM
#3
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 28 January 2012 - 11:49 PM
Not to sure about argument that more benefit is gained by the poor from national 'defence'.
The US military (and other superpowers past and present) often is used for the projection of power on a global scale to advance the interests of the particular country. This is determined by the government. In the case of the USA the government is the rich. The system which keeps the rich in power is enforced by the instruments they control. The actual fighting is done predominantly by the poor.
I have nothing against breeders. Indeed some of my best friends have kids. I suspect even my own parents may have been breeders.* The breeders are subsidised in this country and if I read the statistics correctly having children is not the path to riches. Unless you are capable of training the little buggers up to become rich and be generous to their parents. No mean feat.
I personally get the private health care rebate as the sole direct return for my taxes. This is to be means tested so that even this little benefit will gone soon. Tax isn't about getting back what you put in in my book. The ROI comes from living in relative safety and not seeing depravity when I walk down the street. (Though living in Canberra I'm sometimes required to close my eyes.) No marauding cannibals is a good thing.
I don't subscribe to the idea of anyone getting a free lunch. Rich or poor. I care mainly about equality of opportunity in regard to the tax system as a whole. In american parlance the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness IMHO means that any system should allow social mobility as Adams asserts.
We do have a different society from the US. Far more socialist here as Ruffian says. It could be better which is why I often whinge.
From the POV of the 99% watching on as the 1% shifts the burden of debt onto them I am amazed that there aren't more out in the streets. RBS boss getting 1.4 million pound bonuses while the company is on tax payer life support is pretty galling.
*Unconfirmed as yet but the evidence is mounting
The US military (and other superpowers past and present) often is used for the projection of power on a global scale to advance the interests of the particular country. This is determined by the government. In the case of the USA the government is the rich. The system which keeps the rich in power is enforced by the instruments they control. The actual fighting is done predominantly by the poor.
I have nothing against breeders. Indeed some of my best friends have kids. I suspect even my own parents may have been breeders.* The breeders are subsidised in this country and if I read the statistics correctly having children is not the path to riches. Unless you are capable of training the little buggers up to become rich and be generous to their parents. No mean feat.
I personally get the private health care rebate as the sole direct return for my taxes. This is to be means tested so that even this little benefit will gone soon. Tax isn't about getting back what you put in in my book. The ROI comes from living in relative safety and not seeing depravity when I walk down the street. (Though living in Canberra I'm sometimes required to close my eyes.) No marauding cannibals is a good thing.
I don't subscribe to the idea of anyone getting a free lunch. Rich or poor. I care mainly about equality of opportunity in regard to the tax system as a whole. In american parlance the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit of happiness IMHO means that any system should allow social mobility as Adams asserts.
We do have a different society from the US. Far more socialist here as Ruffian says. It could be better which is why I often whinge.
From the POV of the 99% watching on as the 1% shifts the burden of debt onto them I am amazed that there aren't more out in the streets. RBS boss getting 1.4 million pound bonuses while the company is on tax payer life support is pretty galling.
*Unconfirmed as yet but the evidence is mounting
#4
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:24 AM
Ruffian, on 28 January 2012 - 10:06 PM, said:
Slightly off topic but allied to it (and equally potentially inflammatory!), I have long considered the benefits of only allowing parents the vote.
I am of the opinion that having children forces a basic level of altruism and regard for the future upon on most people.
They realise that they are no longer the centre of the universe (all children believe this, it is an unquestioned given that does not seem to be truly lost until you have a child yourself), and that the world must be run, if not for the benefit of all, at least in a somewhat more compassionate manner.
You have to have a stake in the game to make it real.
I am of the opinion that having children forces a basic level of altruism and regard for the future upon on most people.
They realise that they are no longer the centre of the universe (all children believe this, it is an unquestioned given that does not seem to be truly lost until you have a child yourself), and that the world must be run, if not for the benefit of all, at least in a somewhat more compassionate manner.
You have to have a stake in the game to make it real.
<tongue-in-cheek>
Oh contraire!
It's not like breeding requires any particular skill.
I don't think breeders really appreciate the sacrifice made by non breeders. A lot of us have voluntarily forgone producing mini me's solely for the benefit of the planet. We recognise that overpopulation is a major problem and have exhibited the ultimate show of altruism. We unlike you will grow old without the benefit of children and grandchildren caring for us in our dotage.
The trouble with giving the vote only to breeders is that they are concerned with their own offspring where as us virtuous non breeders are concerned with all of the children - indeed the survival of the species as a whole.
This can be evidenced by the fact that parents are always trying to accumulate wealth so to pass it on to their own kids, sending their kids to private schools and generally seeking every competitive advantage for their offspring. If this weren't true then parents everywhere would be clamouring to provide public schools with more funding to provide a better education for others children. Constantly talking up how intelligent their own kids compared to others children is yet another symptom. They have too much emotion involved and their decisions are very likely to be compromised.
Far better leave the decision making to more rational minds.
</tongue-in-cheek>
#5
Ruffian
- Virtuoso
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 677
- Joined: 27-July 09
- LocationAdelaide
Posted 29 January 2012 - 03:57 AM
staringclown, on 29 January 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:
<tongue-in-cheek>
Oh contraire!
It's not like breeding requires any particular skill.
Oh contraire!
It's not like breeding requires any particular skill.
Can't argue that one... although doing it well does...
staringclown, on 29 January 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:
I don't think breeders really appreciate the sacrifice made by non breeders. A lot of us have voluntarily forgone producing mini me's solely for the benefit of the planet. We recognise that overpopulation is a major problem and have exhibited the ultimate show of altruism.
And you think that I, a single child - the result of a compromise between my mothers desire for a baby and my father's eco-idealism - have not heard that one before? On an almost daily basis? I remain unmoved!
staringclown, on 29 January 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:
We unlike you will grow old without the benefit of children and grandchildren caring for us in our dotage.
No - mine will. They will pay taxes to fund your aged care homes and hold down jobs caring for your grey and wrinkly bodies...
staringclown, on 29 January 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:
This can be evidenced by the fact that parents are always trying to accumulate wealth so to pass it on to their own kids, sending their kids to private schools and generally seeking every competitive advantage for their offspring. If this weren't true then parents everywhere would be clamouring to provide public schools with more funding to provide a better education for others children. Constantly talking up how intelligent their own kids compared to others children is yet another symptom. They have too much emotion involved and their decisions are very likely to be compromised.
Far better leave the decision making to more rational minds.
</tongue-in-cheek>
Far better leave the decision making to more rational minds.
</tongue-in-cheek>
I won't argue this one either ("It wasn't me, Officer, it was my Darwinian advantage seeking behaviour") - if you can show me those rational minds you make such ready reference to....
#7
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 29 January 2012 - 05:04 AM
Ruffian, on 29 January 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:
No - mine will. They will pay taxes to fund your aged care homes and hold down jobs caring for your grey and wrinkly bodies...
You'll have to send me the address of the nursing home. I want a peck on the cheek before bed as well.
Quote
I won't argue this one either ("It wasn't me, Officer, it was my Darwinian advantage seeking behaviour") - if you can show me those rational minds you make such ready reference to....
So far there's just me, Ms clown and your dad. I think that's enough for a quorum.
#8
tor
- Potential Kaptcha Question
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,692
- Joined: 25-July 09
Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:11 AM
staringclown, on 29 January 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:
So far there's just me, Ms clown and your dad. I think that's enough for a quorum.
Standing up for non breeding role call.
Although mine is mostly basically selfishness. My time is important and I can mess myself up with sleep deprivation without external help.
#9
tor
- Potential Kaptcha Question
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,692
- Joined: 25-July 09
Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:14 AM
Ruffian, on 29 January 2012 - 04:16 AM, said:
Actually that Scott Adams blog isn't bad.
I particularly liked the Jan 13th entry, describing people as transmitters rather than filters of ideas. Something to think about.
I particularly liked the Jan 13th entry, describing people as transmitters rather than filters of ideas. Something to think about.
Oh he doesn't like the idea of free will either
and refers to people as moist robots on a regular basis.
#10
Ruffian
- Virtuoso
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 677
- Joined: 27-July 09
- LocationAdelaide
Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:21 AM
tor, on 29 January 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:
Oh he doesn't like the idea of free will either
Oh bollocks. It's a fad, I tell you!
tor, on 29 January 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:
and refers to people as moist robots on a regular basis.
Er, most of them are, aren't they?
#11
Ruffian
- Virtuoso
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 677
- Joined: 27-July 09
- LocationAdelaide
Posted 29 January 2012 - 07:27 AM
staringclown, on 29 January 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:
So far there's just me, Ms clown and your dad. I think that's enough for a quorum.
Hooley Dooley!1. Any quorum involving the above mentioned (plus or minus Tor) and I am leaving town. Permanently. I know when I am outgunned.
I might leave the kids behind though... just to make things interesting for you all...
1 Or words to that general effect.
#12
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 29 January 2012 - 08:12 AM
tor, on 29 January 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:
Standing up for non breeding role call.
Although mine is mostly basically selfishness. My time is important and I can mess myself up with sleep deprivation without external help.
Although mine is mostly basically selfishness. My time is important and I can mess myself up with sleep deprivation without external help.
Well you fully meet the criteria as far as I'm concerned...
You're in!Quote
Hooley Dooley!1. Any quorum involving the above mentioned (plus or minus Tor) and I am leaving town. Permanently. I know when I am outgunned.
I might leave the kids behind though... just to make things interesting for you all...
I might leave the kids behind though... just to make things interesting for you all...
At this rate we'll soon develop into a movement!
Further evidence as if it was required.
School staff in rort scandal
Quote
PARENTS and staff in Victorian schools have been caught taking kickbacks, stealing fund-raising money and pocketing tens of thousands of dollars that should have been spent on students.
You just never hear of non breeders engaging in this sort of stuff. Week in, week out endless stories of bad parents... You are the exception R, in fact I'd even consider making you an honourary non breeder so to invite you into the cabinet rooms as an observer.
#13
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 06 February 2012 - 10:32 AM
I did my tax today. I got an accountant for the first time rather than DIY.
Myth number 1: You can put you're tax in late as long as you go through a tax agent.
This is bullsh*t apparently as the accountant told me today. It is only if you were registered with a tax agent prior to the October expiry date. Otherwise the ATO can charge you $110 for every 128 day period you are late. And they can charge you interest on the debt if there is one. The good news is the interest is tax deductible. The fine alas is not.
Myth number 2. You can put your tax in late if you are registered.
Truth is you can put you're tax in late every other year if you are registered. You've got to be good to be bad.
The accountant seemed a bit of a scamp and was talking about what some of the bent people get up to. He was telling me about a peculiarity of ACT property. It is not freehold. It is lease hold. It turns out that this is important for tax purposes in some way and people in the ACT have claimed the FHOG and the stamp duty as a deduction in the same financial year. It's not strictly legal but he claims it is widespread. You have to live in the property at some stage during the first twelve months. You can claim the stamp duty if you rent the property. When you bought the property you had the intention of renting it out. Six months is the respectable figure for renting the property. After this you move in and claim the FHOG as the place is the principal place of residence. My guy is unaware of any prosecutions by the ATO for the behaviour. I threw in that if I thought capital gains were in the offing I'd consider an IP. He gave a wry smile.
Myth number 1: You can put you're tax in late as long as you go through a tax agent.
This is bullsh*t apparently as the accountant told me today. It is only if you were registered with a tax agent prior to the October expiry date. Otherwise the ATO can charge you $110 for every 128 day period you are late. And they can charge you interest on the debt if there is one. The good news is the interest is tax deductible. The fine alas is not.
Myth number 2. You can put your tax in late if you are registered.
Truth is you can put you're tax in late every other year if you are registered. You've got to be good to be bad.
The accountant seemed a bit of a scamp and was talking about what some of the bent people get up to. He was telling me about a peculiarity of ACT property. It is not freehold. It is lease hold. It turns out that this is important for tax purposes in some way and people in the ACT have claimed the FHOG and the stamp duty as a deduction in the same financial year. It's not strictly legal but he claims it is widespread. You have to live in the property at some stage during the first twelve months. You can claim the stamp duty if you rent the property. When you bought the property you had the intention of renting it out. Six months is the respectable figure for renting the property. After this you move in and claim the FHOG as the place is the principal place of residence. My guy is unaware of any prosecutions by the ATO for the behaviour. I threw in that if I thought capital gains were in the offing I'd consider an IP. He gave a wry smile.
#14
tom
- Inimitable
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 3,227
- Joined: 19-July 09
- LocationPerth, Australia
Posted 06 February 2012 - 12:55 PM
I understood it that if they owe you money they do not follow through with the fine. Could just be another myth of course.... They send a warning letter and then let you off with a second warning letter after you lodge it is my experience around fy09/10 which I lodged concurrently with me fy10/11 about a month back...
They really seem to be cracking down on this because I have done it late in the past and never got a warning letter. This year got one at christmas for fy09/10 being late but after loeding the return got a second letter telling me they were going to let this one slide but don't do it again.
That is the last year they will owe me money I suspect (in the past it has been hit and miss depending on how much of my car allowance I use. At tax time I now have to be carefull because according to my accountant generally that is the trigger of whether they follow through with a fine.
While I am talking about my tax return about a week after lodging mine combank sent me a letter apologising for declaring interest on my FHSA... so $400.00 of declared interest later or about $150.00 nett out of my pocket they reckon I should write a letter to the ATO to claim it back as an amendment.... In my books that would be like putting up a red flag to a bull plus for $150.00 if they think I am writing a letter they can get sodded. What would they charge me for being 10 minutes late on my visa payment when they don't even lift a finger... I reckon writing a letter is worth all of that $150.00 and if I do write a letter it will be to the banking ombudsman not the ATO explaining the farce around when they cancelled their FHSA product and then dudded me with my interest to boot!
So between this and some other experiences, in the last 6 months I am now definitely going to get every bit of business I can out of there and into the teachers credit union who in every experience I have had with them, been champions. I am even thinking of taking a hit on the interest and moving my ubank stuff with them just because they are both responsive and are more than likely the bank I would use for a mortgage if I actually buy a house one day. Shame really because the guys in my local branch at combank are nice, but their systems are completely inflexible and occasionally broken from what I can tell.
They really seem to be cracking down on this because I have done it late in the past and never got a warning letter. This year got one at christmas for fy09/10 being late but after loeding the return got a second letter telling me they were going to let this one slide but don't do it again.
That is the last year they will owe me money I suspect (in the past it has been hit and miss depending on how much of my car allowance I use. At tax time I now have to be carefull because according to my accountant generally that is the trigger of whether they follow through with a fine.
While I am talking about my tax return about a week after lodging mine combank sent me a letter apologising for declaring interest on my FHSA... so $400.00 of declared interest later or about $150.00 nett out of my pocket they reckon I should write a letter to the ATO to claim it back as an amendment.... In my books that would be like putting up a red flag to a bull plus for $150.00 if they think I am writing a letter they can get sodded. What would they charge me for being 10 minutes late on my visa payment when they don't even lift a finger... I reckon writing a letter is worth all of that $150.00 and if I do write a letter it will be to the banking ombudsman not the ATO explaining the farce around when they cancelled their FHSA product and then dudded me with my interest to boot!
So between this and some other experiences, in the last 6 months I am now definitely going to get every bit of business I can out of there and into the teachers credit union who in every experience I have had with them, been champions. I am even thinking of taking a hit on the interest and moving my ubank stuff with them just because they are both responsive and are more than likely the bank I would use for a mortgage if I actually buy a house one day. Shame really because the guys in my local branch at combank are nice, but their systems are completely inflexible and occasionally broken from what I can tell.
#15
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 06 February 2012 - 01:14 PM
tom, on 06 February 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:
I understood it that if they owe you money they do not follow through with the fine. Could just be another myth of course.... They send a warning letter and then let you off with a second warning letter after you lodge it is my experience around fy09/10 which I lodged concurrently with me fy10/11 about a month back...
They really seem to be cracking down on this because I have done it late in the past and never got a warning letter. This year got one at christmas for fy09/10 being late but after loeding the return got a second letter telling me they were going to let this one slide but don't do it again.
That is the last year they will owe me money I suspect (in the past it has been hit and miss depending on how much of my car allowance I use. At tax time I now have to be carefull because according to my accountant generally that is the trigger of whether they follow through with a fine.
While I am talking about my tax return about a week after lodging mine combank sent me a letter apologising for declaring interest on my FHSA... so $400.00 of declared interest later or about $150.00 nett out of my pocket they reckon I should write a letter to the ATO to claim it back as an amendment.... In my books that would be like putting up a red flag to a bull plus for $150.00 if they think I am writing a letter they can get sodded. What would they charge me for being 10 minutes late on my visa payment when they don't even lift a finger... I reckon writing a letter is worth all of that $150.00 and if I do write a letter it will be to the banking ombudsman not the ATO explaining the farce around when they cancelled their FHSA product and then dudded me with my interest to boot!
So between this and some other experiences, in the last 6 months I am now definitely going to get every bit of business I can out of there and into the teachers credit union who in every experience I have had with them, been champions. I am even thinking of taking a hit on the interest and moving my ubank stuff with them just because they are both responsive and are more than likely the bank I would use for a mortgage if I actually buy a house one day. Shame really because the guys in my local branch at combank are nice, but their systems are completely inflexible and occasionally broken from what I can tell.
They really seem to be cracking down on this because I have done it late in the past and never got a warning letter. This year got one at christmas for fy09/10 being late but after loeding the return got a second letter telling me they were going to let this one slide but don't do it again.
That is the last year they will owe me money I suspect (in the past it has been hit and miss depending on how much of my car allowance I use. At tax time I now have to be carefull because according to my accountant generally that is the trigger of whether they follow through with a fine.
While I am talking about my tax return about a week after lodging mine combank sent me a letter apologising for declaring interest on my FHSA... so $400.00 of declared interest later or about $150.00 nett out of my pocket they reckon I should write a letter to the ATO to claim it back as an amendment.... In my books that would be like putting up a red flag to a bull plus for $150.00 if they think I am writing a letter they can get sodded. What would they charge me for being 10 minutes late on my visa payment when they don't even lift a finger... I reckon writing a letter is worth all of that $150.00 and if I do write a letter it will be to the banking ombudsman not the ATO explaining the farce around when they cancelled their FHSA product and then dudded me with my interest to boot!
So between this and some other experiences, in the last 6 months I am now definitely going to get every bit of business I can out of there and into the teachers credit union who in every experience I have had with them, been champions. I am even thinking of taking a hit on the interest and moving my ubank stuff with them just because they are both responsive and are more than likely the bank I would use for a mortgage if I actually buy a house one day. Shame really because the guys in my local branch at combank are nice, but their systems are completely inflexible and occasionally broken from what I can tell.
theoretically the punitive arrangements are that the ATO will get meaner the more often you give them cause to. There is a pyramid with belligerent non compliers at the top of the hit list. This is my first offence and I only overloooked the tax return because I was flat out working for the country. This may or may not wash but I'm already rehearsing my grand speech. But because of the gooses surplus pronouncement they may make an example of me yet. I'll know in three weeks. the guy knew my interest for the year. He is already hooked up to the ATO grid. Buying and selling of artworks/antiques sounds lucrative. Ever seen a capital gain declared from the sale of a painting?
What happened to your FHSA account? Still labor policy isn't it?
#16
Ugg
- Consummate
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 394
- Joined: 19-November 09
Posted 07 February 2012 - 08:20 AM
tor, on 29 January 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:
Oh he doesn't like the idea of free will either
and refers to people as moist robots on a regular basis.
and refers to people as moist robots on a regular basis.
some days I cannot see people as anything other than stimuli seeking brain boxes on legs.
This post has been edited by Ugg: 07 February 2012 - 08:21 AM
#17
tor
- Potential Kaptcha Question
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,692
- Joined: 25-July 09
Posted 07 February 2012 - 10:53 AM
Ugg, on 07 February 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:
some days I cannot see people as anything other than stimuli seeking brain boxes on legs.
It's the days you can't see yourself as anything more than that when you know you have cracked it. Seeing others as morons is pretty normal for people, even the morons.
When you realise that you yourself have no free will and are a moist robot that's when you get anything you want simply because you can consciously change what you want.
Once you get that trick under control it becomes easier to do the things required for what you wanted initially. Then you get what you wanted without having to change the definition of what you wanted.
#18
sydney3000
- Inimitable
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 1,438
- Joined: 10-December 09
Posted 07 February 2012 - 11:06 AM
tom, on 06 February 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:
So between this and some other experiences, in the last 6 months I am now definitely going to get every bit of business I can out of there and into the teachers credit union who in every experience I have had with them, been champions. I am even thinking of taking a hit on the interest and moving my ubank stuff with them just because they are both responsive and are more than likely the bank I would use for a mortgage if I actually buy a house one day.
Teachers Mutual Bank
#19
staringclown
- I am spartacus!
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 4,184
- Joined: 04-October 09
- LocationCanberra
Posted 08 February 2012 - 10:19 AM
tor, on 07 February 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:
It's the days you can't see yourself as anything more than that when you know you have cracked it. Seeing others as morons is pretty normal for people, even the morons.
True.
Quote
When you realise that you yourself have no free will and are a moist robot that's when you get anything you want simply because you can consciously change what you want.
I don't get it. If I don't want anything then I can get all I want?
Quote
Once you get that trick under control it becomes easier to do the things required for what you wanted initially. Then you get what you wanted without having to change the definition of what you wanted.
I'm confused. I need a definition of 'free will'. You guys had a discussion at the pub no doubt and established basic terms. Deal me in.
#20
Solomon
- Inimitable
-
- Group: Advanced members
- Posts: 1,644
- Joined: 01-August 09
Posted 08 February 2012 - 01:11 PM
staringclown, on 08 February 2012 - 10:19 AM, said:
I don't get it. If I don't want anything then I can get all I want?
Neither do I.
Is this the power of reverse psychology?
Or is this merely wishful thinking?
So, I empty my head of all want, and everything is supplied, because of course I didn't want anything, so anything I get is more than I wanted.
Is that rationally possible?
Quote
I'm confused. I need a definition of 'free will'.
Me too!
