It is absolutely, and gobsmackingly true, that truth is stranger than fiction. I had always believed, like most people still do, that government represents a legitimate democratic system of arranging society in such a manner as to be fair to everyone and to benefit the people equally, without fear or favour. My education of the way the world works has certainly taken a rapidly upward trajectory in terms of growth over the last few years. For instance its only a fairly recent lesson to learn that banks do not lend money, police and the courts do not pursue justice, and that the ATO is not a legitimately appointed government body, an observation which also applies to the government that allegedly oversees its operations. At the most basic level of logic, any claim governments have to possess any genuine authority is revealed to be false. We created the government, it did not create us, if any party has authority, its the people, but even so, authority itself, has some limits. This is most easily seen in the question of taxation, which many argue is actually theft and it is not difficult to understand the rationale behind such a conclusion. If it is not permissable for me to levy a tax on my neighbour, nor him on me, then how could either or both presume to grant power to a third party, to levy a tax, when we don’t possess the right to tax anyone as individuals, it follows then that we cannot grant authority to anyone to do anything at all, if we don’t have it ourselves.
Once again it is not difficult to identify that many government departments, like the government itself, operates fraudulently, and well in excess of their lawful powers. There are a number of examples but for the purposes of this post I want to look at the ATO who devote some effort to warning Australians about various scams but ironically operate the greatest scam in Australia’s relatively short history, though comparable in sheer audacity to the daily fraud indulged in by banking organizations.
In the High Court case of Moeliker versus Chapman I refer to Justice Callinan’s remarks: “If the Australian Taxation Office does not exist and the Deputy Commissioner (referring to Chapman) is not validly appointed and all who sail in her and with her. It would have to leave some doubt.” which indicates the fact that the ATO are not able to produce a copy of the lawful instrument that purportedly created it. The facts are that the ATO does not lawfully exist, but this has not prevented the ATO from bringing about successful prosecutions or from defending a number of challenges. For a non existent entity with presumably non existent officers to be successful in court cases, something, as you can imagine, has to give, and in this case it appears to be the integrity of the judicial system, the Judges and the rule of law.
The ATO are very efficient at applying the legal system but in different circumstances are just as adept at ignoring the law when it applies unfavourably to them, In the form of an affidavit I have requested answers to the following queries in the same form, an affidavit given, under the penalty for perjury, from the Commissioner of Taxation but have never been graced with a reply, so the assertions made therein having remained unrebutted, are so then, according to the maxim in law, “a judgment in commerce”, but that fact means diddly squat to the ATO, it seems they are above the law and know it. Below are some of the questions I have asked which remain unanswered and I believe if one doesn’t answer such questions, when a moral or lawful obligation requires one to do so, the law considers this non response, an act of fraud in its own right.
Affadvit Excerpt (not real names used)
“The Affiant believes that the Commissioner of Taxation Christopher Cross vicariously bears the ultimate responsibility for any and all of the unlawful, immoral and fraudulent actions of the staff listed below as they act under the Commissioner’s direction and policies and orders. These staff have all been issued with their own Affidavits as each person is very much personally liable and responsible for his or her own decisions and actions.
The Affiant believes that the Commissioner of Taxation, Christopher Cross is responsible for the failure of the staff of the ATO to either process the Affiant’s tax claim or substantiate the reason for its rejection by affidavit, thus providing a rebuttal of the particulars of the Affiant’s lawful return created by affidavit. The Affiant believes such inaction by ATO staff is fraudulent and dishonest and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant believes that the Commissioner of Taxation, Christopher Cross is responsible for unlawfully ignoring the lawful maxim that an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce and that an unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgement in commerce and that the failure to rebut by affidavit or sworn statement did result in the commercial judgement in the amount of the tax return claim thus becoming instantly payable and the Affiant believes that the monies have been unlawfully withheld by the staff of the ATO under the direction of the Commissioner Christopher Cross and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide any evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant believes that the staff of the ATO under the direction of the Commissioner of Taxation Christopher Cross has a lawful obligation to substantiate any claim or demand made by ATO staff, with proof of the authority to make any claim or demand for performance when requested and the Affiant notes that this lawful process was ignored between the initial instance of ATO Deputy Commissioner Alison Wonderland demanding audit information and subsequent issuing of a penalty by Deputy Commissioner Melinda Gates and the Affiant believes such actions to be unlawful and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant is of the belief that the ATO has not been constituted or instituted lawfully and has no authority. The Affiant has not been presented with verifiable evidence to the contrary and believes that no such evidence exists, and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant believes that the ATO is a corporate entity registered in a foreign country and holder of an ABN and there has been no proof presented to suggest that the ATO is a bona fide servant of the public or conforms with Constitutional requirements to be considered to be bona fide and the Affiant believes that no evidence to the contrary exists, and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide any evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant has not been provided with proof that a valid contract with wet ink signatures has been entered into under full disclosure and informed consent between the ATO and the Affiant and the Affiant believes that there is no evidence to the contrary and calls on Christopher Cross to provide a copy of such a contract and provide any other evidence of the existence of such a contract.
The Affiant has not been presented with evidence, as previously requested, that laws indicating income tax is compulsory rather than voluntary at law and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists and calls on Christopher Cross to provide lawful evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant has not been provided with any evidence requested from ATO staff who answer to the commissioner Christopher Cross that the sentient, living breathing woman is in any way liable for the affairs of the corporate fiction MARY POPPINS and believes that no such evidence exists and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide any existing evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant has not been provided with any evidence requested from staff under the direction of Christopher Cross that the ATO has any authority to act in a judicial sense as insinuated by the act of issuing penalties, without a guilty verdict being recorded in a lawful court, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence to the contrary exists and calls on Christopher Cross to privide any lawful evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant has seen no evidence that the ATO’s allegations made by staff under the Commissioner Christopher Cross’s direction to wit “you made a false and misleading statement” has any basis in provable fact and the Affiant believes that any evidence that might support such allegations does not exist.
The Affiant sees no evidence that she has been “reckless” given the Affiant states her declaration to be true and correct, that it aligns with her god given, unalienable rights and has signed off the tax return by accomodation and to the “best of her knowledge” and the Affiant believes such an accusation to be subjective, unfounded and has not been presented with any evidence that supports such an accusation.
The Affiant has been presented with no evidence that the ATO’s rulings, regulations and practice statements are enshrined as laws, as only parliaments can create statutes, and thus the Affiant regards such rulings, regulations and practice statements as pseudo laws and believes that there is no evidence to the contrary in existance and calls on Christopher Cross to provide any lawful evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant sees no evidence of material loss to the ATO that could justify the ATO staff under the direction of Christopher Cross making a lawful claim, and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide lawful evidence to the contrary if such evidence exists.
The Affiant sees no evidence that the ATO has any authority under the direction of Christopher Cross to enter into judgements or that staff of the ATO have any legitimate authority to issue penalties in the absence of a conviction at law and believes that no evidence to the contrary exists and the Affiant calls on Christopher Cross to provide evidence to the contrary.
The Affiant believes that Christopher Cross has conspired with others in the ATO to pervert the course of justice through a consistent refusal to provide proof of all or any claims, responding only with a counter claim as a means to combat the responsibilty shared by all ATO staff to lawfully address the commercial judgement occasioned by the failure of any staff member including Christopher Cross to rebut the affidavit that accompanied the tax return which the Affiant regards as deceptive and fraudulent.”
The questions above deserve answers, when it all boils down if the sentient being was liable for the affairs of the legal fiction then surely any communications would be directed to the sentient being rather than the fiction. Instead we find the tax office communicating with a fiction THE ALL CAPS NAME who is not married and is not supported by anyone, who doesn’t work and earns no income, does not drive and thus needs no licence, like the all caps name the ATO like any ABN holder is nothing more than a corporate fiction and requires consent to a contract to enforce anything and in lieu of a lawful contract existing is fraudulently masquerading as a legitimate authority.
The question of authority is one issue but extent is another, the conclusion can only be that we as taxpayers are being extorted and basically enslaved to a much higher degree than most of us realize. The government has literally stolen the 7.5% loading on wages that was set aside to finance retirements, but our loyal and devoted servants in the parliaments, couldn’t keep their grubby hands off it and thus stole, or to use a milder word, transferred it into Australia’s consolidated revenue account. The injustice is further aggravated when you consider the number of religious entities, companies and corporations that pay no tax and shoulder none of the load that is imposed placing a significant burden on mainly working class people.
Then of course because tax comes in so many forms and is imposed at different time intervals we become blind to the total amount collected as we usually have the cash flows to cover day to day living expenses but if you begin to do the sums and calculate the percentage that remains after income taxes, tax on super, fringe benefits tax, fuel taxes, car licenses, boat licenses, marriage licenses, G.S.T., capital gains taxes, sales taxes, medicare, real estate stamp duties, land tax, fines, council rates, permit fees,, vehicle registration taxes, boat registration taxes, alcoholic drinks, workers compensation levies, payroll tax and toll road taxes we get to understand just how significant a burden it is. With regard to infrastructure contributions tax it is said that for every new house and land package the component estimated to cover government imposts is in the order of 40% of the overall cost which on a home at 600K, 200K is going into government coffers. Possibly the most immoral of all taxes which reveals the criminal like opportunism of government and which displays the extortion most notably, is when the government puts their hand out for $45.00 for every $50.00 pack of cigarettes sold under a thin and these days thinning veneer of concern for the health of nicotene addicts. But the truth is that this is a regressive tax that really robs the poorest in society and just like their criminal counterparts, governments are capitalizing on the unfortunate addiction of smokers for self enrichment purposes.
If one bothered to do the calculations wage earners probably get to keep 25% of their earnings to pay for other things in life, like mortgages and what not. Although providing 75% returns to government coffers the taxpayer is not spared there, whenever people purchase goods or services, besides the GST, the purchaser of the goods or service are also funding the tax liabilities of the business supplying the goods or service, which must be factored into the bottom line of their operating costs in order for the business to survive, so we have a perfect storm with ever rising costs caused primarily by the increase or imposition of extra taxes, not to mention the requirement to comply with government regulations that may impose tens of thousands of extra dollars apart from strictly tax liabilities.
From 1788 Australia’s settlers paid no tax and it wasn’t until the early 1900’s that the first of any of these taxes existed with taxes on incomes first being levied in 1915 as a temporary measure to cover the war effort which became a permanent arrangement at the pleasure of government who found to their further delight that Australians were prepared to contribute to infrastructure development, roads, hospitals, schools and the like as people thought more or less to be reasonably fair. After all the people owned the utilities, power, water and telephone services and benefited accordingly with affordable access to these services. In the latter half of the 1900’s taxes steadily rose while new taxes were introduced to the point that the tax burden in recent decades has become crippling for most working class families who are compelled to have two breadwinners in full time jobs to be able to manage to eat and maintain a roof over their heads.
Following decades of infrastructure sell offs where everything has been privatized and all of these enterprises that were once publicly owned and publicly funded, now operating as privately owned for profit businesses, no one is coming to the fore to explain why taxes are not being significantly reduced, no one is explaining why the public is required to subsidize privately owned for profit concerns, one might be forgiven for thinking that our economic system is one of socialism for corporations, and in one sense it is reasonable to think of the political system in Australia as being one of representative government with the deeper and more revealing reality being the ultimate answer to the question, just who is being represented?
Simple mathematics offers an insight as to why products and services are generally far more expensive in Australia than overseas. It is the imposts created by government in the form of various taxes and compliance requirements that increase the cost of goods and services which presumably increase the cost by at least the 75% or an amount equal to the share that is returned to government in one way or another. One can reasonably assume if the government of country y collects less tax than the government of country z then it follows that the cost of goods or services will be cheaper in country y. So the basic conclusion must be that the reason one country is more competitive than another is mainly because of government’s taxation policies, but this is one area that the concept of a level playing field does not feature in many media driven economic debates, in this context at least.
The amount government robs you of is far greater than what is needed to fund our country and if the government were ever to utter the truth, these taxes are not being applied for the that purpose in any case. The ATO’s stated mission is for everyone to “pay their fair share” of the cost of “running the country” but this is not fair, it is not even true, and given its based on lies, it is theft, particularly when you consider that the money extracted is being used to pay off debt or more precisely to provide a return to investors for the bonds that the government sells. It is the proceeds of these bond sales which really are in essence government borrowings, and these are what actually funds things like infrastructure. In other words it is a further fraudulent impost targeting the labours of we the people, to provide the return to the investor and that also provides the security on the product being sold. Although a cozy arrangement for central banks, it doesn’t have to be that way, governments do not have to sell bonds only to pay interest on them. Sovereign nations have the option to issue their own currency on interest free terms but Reserve Banks however have managed to magically convince governments to borrow from them as opposed to governments printing their own money, good work if you can get it! The Reserve system has made the fraction percentile of elites obscenely wealthy by a system of enslavement, our possessions, even ourselves and our offspring are wholly owned by the state and in turn by the bankers.
Government does come at a huge cost and most certainly should be recognized and appropriately recompensed commensurate with the value of the contribution they make toward society with a performance matrix determining their value to the community.