Old wives and tax

According to the managing director of a law firm -- possibly a law firm which specialises in tax law -- there are some old wives' tales about what can and cannot be claimed as a tax deduction. Claimed deductions include some that are deliberately false -- and some that are more innocent mistakes.

What?! There are people who make innocent mistakes when completing their tax returns? Are there really people who don't clearly understand every one of the thousands of rules and regulations regarding what can and cannot be claimed? Goodness.

Well, that could explain why there are law firms which make a good living entirely on their claimed knowledge of tax laws. Because no-one else will claim to know all the ins and outs of tax laws. Large corporations employ tax law experts. Individual taxpayers have no hope at all.

Our tax laws are incredibly complex. Yet we -- each and every person who earns or could earn anything at all -- is expected to complete an accurate and honest tax return. Each and every year.

Unless we convince the tax office that we will never again earn enough to be liable for tax. And it takes a good knowledge of tax law to gain that happy status.

What is the reason for the complexity of tax laws? After all, we earn money and the government expects to gets its share of whatever we earn. That sounds simple enough.

A lot of the complexity is due to tax deductions. Deductions are the cause of many "innocent mistakes" and "deliberately false" claims. Why is that?

Because the rules for allowable deductions are complex. And because they continually change.

Old wives' tales may have been spot on last year. That does not mean that they will be correct this year. By next year, the old wives' tales will be just that: old wives' tales.

Why are there so many -- and such complicated -- rules for tax deductions?

Because the government wants to reward inefficient businesses.

*In* efficient? Yes.

You pay tax on your earnings -- less the cost of the earning. So the more it costs to earn a dollar, the less tax you pay. The more it costs -- the less efficient your earning -- the smaller the share demanded by the government. If you can reduce the cost of running your business -- the government will charge you more in tax.

Tax deductions are a way in which the government rewards bad business.

That's why everyone is encouraged to increase tax deductions. Encouraged to decrease the efficiency of their efforts to earn. Because will be rewarded by government for being bad at business.

To encourage better business, income tax should be a tax on income. Purely on income. With no rewards for slipshod business processes.

Here is a better -- and simpler -- approach to income tax:

Earn money, pay income tax.

If it costs you a lot to earn the money -- improve your business efficiency.

If you can't improve efficiency -- charge more for your product. Or accept a smaller profit margin. Or learn some basic facts about operating a business.

If you can't charge more -- you are in a failing business. No-one wants your goods or services. Try another business -- one that is in demand.

For every dollar that comes in you pay, for example, ten cents to the government. Simple! No need for tax lawyers. No need for specialist tax accountants. No need for high risk tax avoidance schemes. Old wives will save thousands each year because they will not need to emply a tax accountant.

And Australian business will be more efficient.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

"Wow, I never thought of it like that before." … Joan D. Vinge
   

Want not waste not

There are serious problems with WA's waste management performance. In the last four years, waste recycling has fallen by 20 percent.

Are you surprised?

The ABC has a whole series which shows how little is recycled. Worse, the series highlights that what householders send for recycling is often simply stockpiled. No matter how much waste we send for recycling -- no-one wants it.

There are mountains of broken glass. It's still cheaper to manufacture glass containers from raw -- non-recycled -- materials.

There are mountains of waste paper. By the time the glossy is separated from the matte -- and all the other necessary processing has been done -- it's cheaper to buy fresh woodpulp and make new paper.

Some people don't care. They are the people who don't care to recycle. They care even less that recycling efforts are wasted.

People who care -- and who see that their efforts are largely a waste of effort -- are discouraged. What is the point of sending waste for recycling when it will not actually be recycled?

The real problem is not recycling. The real problem is the original creation of all that waste material.

Buy a half kilo of mince. The mince comes on a plastic tray. The mince and its tray are wrapped in clingfilm. The meat and the tray and the clingfilm are placed in a plastic bag. The meat and the tray and the clingfilm and the plastic bag are carried home in a reuseable shopping bag.

One purchased item. Three items of waste material.

What a waste.

Buy a few AA batteries. The batteries come in a sealed container made of plastic and cardboard. The plastic may or may not be recyclable. The cardboard is covered with glossy advertising; it is unlikely to be recyclable. The batteries themselves are sort-of recyclable. You take the lot home in a plastic bag in a shopping bag.

Two batteries, lots of non-recyclable waste. What a waste.

We need to start at source. We need to look at the waste which is packaged with what we buy. We need to reduce the waste which comes with whatever we buy.

We need to reduce the waste that we create.

This will reduce the waste which needs to be recycled.

Reduce the need to recycle. By reducing the waste which needs to be recycled.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO what a ride!'
   

World's needy are being starved

Twenty million people are at imminent risk of famine in four countries, says a report from The Washington Post. Eight big private US relief organisations enlisted support from big corporations and rock stars to raise money. Their efforts were inspired by the anti-famine movements of the 1980s and 1990s.

Their efforts, in 2017, failed.

No eruption of public interest. Very few famine-related news stories. What went wrong?

The reason is fairly obvious -- according to the news report. "The continuing Trump circus sucks up so much media oxygen that..." famine stories are asphyxiated.

Alternatively...

Perhaps the public are sick and tired of demands for disaster relief.

In the 1980s and 1990s the public poured money into famine relief. What was the result?

Now -- thirty years later -- there is still famine. There are still millions of people at risk of famine. There are still thousands of people dying of starvation and famine-related diseases.

What has been achieved?

Nothing at all.

Okay, a few thousand people have been kept alive. At the cost of billions of dollars in food aid. For what? So that they can continue to have children. So they can continue to degrade their once productive environment. So they can have more and more people attempting to live off the same level of resources. So that there are even more people now dying of starvation.

Oh, except, of course, for the resulting demands that countries which "have more" should send aid to the starving millions. So that those starving millions can breed and eat and destroy and need more and more aid.

Tie food aid to population control. Then, perhaps, there will be actual benefits in food aid.

Meanwhile, don't expect to raise a lot of support for a problem which could use infinite support to grow into an even bigger problem.

Don't blame politics for public apathy. Even the general public is able to learn from thirty years of failure.

Try fixing the cause, rather than throwing money at a problem which only grows as more money is thrown.

Those eight "relief" organisations need to change their focus. Spend their efforts on "prevention". Find an approach which wiill actually fix the problem.

Then the public may be willing to get behind their efforts.

Find a solution. Implement the solution. That would be worth some public support.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO what a ride!'
   

Right is Wrong

"It is important for all those in positions of responsibility to condemn far-right views wherever we hear them." So says the British PM. There is, apparently, no need to condemn far-left views. In other words, far-right bad, far-left good.

Perhaps we should just try to be tolerant.

In Charlottesville, the mother of the dead young woman is upset. Acceptably and understandably so. She says, "They tried to kill my child to shut her up."

They?! How many people were driving that car?! Why generalise grief and hate and revenge against all people who may -- or may not -- be associated with the one driver? Must we always fan the flames of hatred against anyone -- anyone at all -- who disagrees with our point of view?

Meanwhile, outside the memorial service, a small group of anti-racist protesters are standing quietly -- carrying baseball bats. Peace, Love, Turn the other cheek? Or are they there to simply scare the shit out of anyone who has the wrong colour skin.

"Black lives matter," is the latest fad slogan. Of course black lives matter. Yet by saying, black lives matter -- the implication is that black lives matter more than brown lives. More than yellow lives. More than white lives.

I would have more trust in calls for justice and equality if everyone were wearing a tee shirt with the slogan, All Lives Matter.

I would have more trust in calls for justice and equality if the calls were accompanied by signs of tolerance and understanding of other points of view.

The bear has lived a long time in its cave. Poke it with a stick and it will be justifiably upset. Offer the bear honey and it may just be willing to share the shelter of the cave.

We need to accept extreme views -- even if they disagree with our own. Accept, understand, perhaps laugh at the funny people who wear sheets because they know they are doing wrong. Pethaps laugh at the funny people who carry baseball bats to a peaceful memorial service.

Accept extreme views. Reject extreme acts.

Use the legal system to prevent acts that we -- civilised people -- do not accept.

Try talking with people whose views disagree with ours. Talk about things that we do agree with. We may find that "they" are quite nice people.

Don't hate someone just because they hang out with a different crowd. That someone may turn out to be willing to listen to your point of view. If we just stop poking each other with sticks.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

"If you're not part of the solution, you're in government." … per Ginger Meggs
   

Cashless Welfare Card Fail !?

The cashless welfare card has failed. So says Elise Klein, development studies lecturer at University of Melbourne. The card is an oppressive scheme representing neo-colonialism and government overreach.

This from an academic who did not bother to turn up at the inquest into indigenous suicides in Western Australia.

Real people who actually live and work in the Kimberley have reported positive results. Elise Klein told the inquest -- via video link from the safety and sanctity of her ivory tower in Melbourne -- that, "The card has been a symbol of disempowerment..." followed by various other pejorative pieces of jargon.

Any suggestions for a better method of preventing indigenous suicides? No. Klein is too busy "examining the policy." It's easy -- as shown by this post -- to be negative.

The cashless welfare card may be flawed -- yet is has had some success. More success -- as far as I can tell -- than many other government schemes in the Aboriginal social welfare industry.

Yes, suggest ways in which the flaws may be fixed. Or suggest a better scheme... or even a rubbish scheme that can be examined and possibly tested.

Meanwhile -- for want of any better ideas -- support the scheme which has managed to notch up at least a few possibly minor successes.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

"If you're not part of the solution, you're in government." … per Ginger Meggs
   

Bring on the tax winter

The Australian Labor Party is planning changes to tax regimes. The Liberal Party says that these changes would lead to a tax winter, a freeze on economic growth.

At last! Tax changes that I can support!

To politicians -- with their hands in the pockets of whoever pays the most -- "economic growth" is tied directly to population growth. More population equals economic growth, economic growth requires population growth.

And population growth is destroying Australia.

Bring on this tax winter. Bring on the freeze on economic growth. Stop population growth while we still have a quality of life which is worth preserving.

Put some brain power into improving our quality of life without the cheap and easy -- and failing -- mantra of "populate or perish".

Or rush out now to buy shares in Soylent Green.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

"If you're not part of the solution, you're in government." … per Ginger Meggs
   

Bike Left, Walk Right

There seems to be a common perception that cars, cyclists and pedestrians must all walk/ride on the left-hand side of a shared path.

What nonsense.

Traditionally, on a road with no footpath, cars drive on the left -- and pedestrians walk on the right. Why?

The pedestrians walking on the *right* of the road will be directly facing the cars coming *towards* them. Ditto, car drivers will be directly facing pedestrians who are on the same side of the road as the car.

Car drivers and pedestrians who are on a collission course will be staring at each other... they will see the imminent collision... they will have time and warning enough to avoid that collision.

If both car and pedestrian are on the same side of the road -- that is, both on their left of the road -- the car will be racing up from behind the pedestrian. The pedestrian will not see the car coming from behind. If the driver does not see the pedestrian... Thump! If the pedestrain hears the car, turns, see the onrushing vehicle and pauses... or jumps the wrong way... Thump!

That's why cars drive on the left -- and pedestrians walk on the right.

It's the same situation on a shared cycleway, a path that is shared by bike riders and pedestrians: bikes stay on the left, pedestrians walk on the right...

When a bike is coming head on at a pedestrian, both walker and rider have plenty of time to see, and to take action to avoid. When the bike is overtaking from behind the pedestrian -- from the blind space behind the pedestrian -- the bike and the pedestrian are already on opposite sides of the path. Rider on the left, walker on the right. Already well clear of each other.

If both rider and walker are on the same side of the path -- that is, both are on the left of the shared path -- the bike will be quietly racing up from behind the pedestrian. On a direct collision course. If the rider is negligent -- or if the pedestrian wanders towards the middle of the track... Thump!

On a shared bike/pedestrian path, bikes must ride on the left, pedestrians must walk on the right. Heading towards each other, both walker and rider have maximum chance to see and avoid. Silently overtaking from behind, they will be well clear, on opposite sides of the path.

That is the safe way to share: bikes keep to the left; pedestrians keep to the right.

Sharing the path with maximum safety.

====
Dr Nick Lethbridge / Consulting Dexitroboper
Agamedes Consulting / Problems? Solved.
====

"If you're not part of the solution, you're in government." … per Ginger Meggs