Friday, February 10, 2017

Apple defrauding the European people €13 billion in tax

Another day for Apple, another 35 million Euro in tax defrauded from the people of Europe.

If this was a man or woman doing this in the British colony of Australia, their bank account would be raided pretty much straight away by the tax office, and possible a prison sentence imposed.

The same does not apply multinational movers and shakers.

Do you support a company that implements fraud as part of its daily business activity?

Another example of criminals running the show.

Don't forget that Apple took your data from the Stock Market app and used it for financial gain.

We do not recommend the purchase or use of any Apple products.

See article from 10 Feb 2017 by smh.com.au of the headline:

Tax bill? Just ask Donald Trump to fix it


Can Donald Trump's tax plan save Apple from paying a €13 billion ($18.2 billion) tax bill to Ireland?

Probably not, but the US President could still put his hand up for a share of the pie.


Apple appeals EU tax ruling
Apple has launched a legal challenge to a record $US14 billion EU tax demand, arguing that EU regulators ignored tax experts and corporate law, and deliberately picked a method to maximise the penalty.

Recall that in August Apple was ordered by repay €13 billion in taxes and interest after European Commission found the software giant's Irish tax structure was "illegal under EU state aid rules".

This week Margrethe Vestager, a Danish politician, who is currently serving as the European Commissioner for Competition and took on the Apple case last year, said that regardless of what Trump does ("whatever US tax reform they may pass is, of course, for them") the ruling stands.

US President Donald Trump would give multinationals a special tax break if they brought profits to be taxed back to the US. Photo: Bloomberg
"What is important for us is ... if any company or group of companies gets selective advantages by member states and thereby unlevelling (sic) the playing field."
But what if other countries might want a share of the tax owed?

As Vestager noted a her statement after the decision last year: "It may be that not all the unpaid taxes are due in Ireland. Other countries, in the EU or elsewhere, can look at our investigation."

She continues: "If they conclude that Apple should have recorded its sales in those countries instead of Ireland, they could require Apple to pay more tax locally. That would reduce the amount to be paid back to Ireland."



Margrethe Vestager, European Commissioner for Competition, says the ruling against Apple stands. Photo: AP
 
This leads to Trump's tax plan. He wants some of the $2.5 trillion profits that Fortune 500 companies hold offshore to be brought back to the US. To do this, Trump has proposed giving them a special one-off 10 per cent rate on their offshore earnings rather than taxing them at the full 35 per cent US corporate tax rate.

report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that works on state and federal tax policy issues, suggests Apple could gain a $US48.1 billion ($62.9 billion) tax break because of Trump's proposal.



 Apple CEO Tim Cook has said he will repatriate several billion dollars of cash held overseas to the US this year.  Photo: AP



"Under current rules, Apple should pay $67.3 billion in taxes when its $216 billion in earnings being held offshore are repatriated," the report says, noting the calculation is based on the estimated 3.8 per cent tax rate the company has paid to other governments on its offshore earnings.
Trump's proposal would give US companies a tax break of up to $514 billion.
ITEP report
Ordinarily Apple would be subject to a 31.2 per cent tax on these earnings upon repatriation. But under Trump's planned repatriation of 10 per cent, it would allow the company to pay just $19.2 billion, representing a $48.1 billion tax break compared to the $67.3 billion it would otherwise owe.

No wonder Apple CEO Tim Cook has said he will repatriate several billion dollars of cash held overseas to the US this year.

But it is not just Apple that stands to gain from the proposed tax holiday.

The ITEP report examines the benefit to the 10 companies with the most money offshore – Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Citigroup, Amgen, Qualcomm, Gilead Sciences, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs Group, and Bank of America.

The report suggests  that Trump's plan would allow US companies to collectively pay an estimated $206 billion in taxes on their $2.5 trillion in offshore earnings, rather than the roughly $720 billion that they would owe if these earnings were subject to the statutory corporate tax rate.

"In other words, Trump's proposal would give US companies a tax break of up to $514 billion," it says.

Rather than rewarding tax avoidance for a short-term revenue boost, the report calls on lawmakers to pursue legislation that would require companies to pay the full $720 billion they owe on their unrepatriated earnings.

Meanwhile in Australia the Australian Taxation Office, equipped with tougher anti-avoidance laws, has been investigating a number of multinationals over their tax structures.

Apple is among a number of technology companies currently under audit by ATO over its transfer pricing structures.

According to its latest accounts filed with the corporate regulator ASIC, Apple's Australian revenue fell $296 million, or 3 per cent, to hit $7.5 billion in 2016.

Its profit fell $119 million, or 97 per cent, to $3.6 million, which was largely due to an increase in the company's reported tax expense. Apple paid $128 million in income tax ($69.8 million related to FY2016) and there was an adjustment of $58.3 million relating to prior years.

The tech giant's local tax bill has fluctuated over the years, but is up from $85 million in 2015 and $80.3 million in 2014.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

NewsFlash The Australian media mentions the Constitution

It's funny how on social media when people talk about law and how ALL laws of every state and territory MUST comply with a law (read Act) called Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, but when it comes to the mainstream media there is no such mention of this founding law document from the scribes of any publication.

Well it looks like we've been foiled this time, by the Fairfax publication where they mention Section 44 (v) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act of 1901.



What is Section 44 part five you may ask?

Why it is;

Disqualification of Any person who:

has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of more than twenty-five persons;
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives. 

why of course silly.

Every elector should ask their local federal MP for a free copy of this thing referred to as  the 'Constitution'.

In the mean time you can download a copy of the UK Act from:


Wednesday, February 8, 2017

Police employee suicide v single fathers committing suicide

So, here's something for the herd population of Australia to ponder over.

Let's have a look at what the 'executive' is up to:

Apparently Australia's police force has a very stressful job.

For starters;

  • Maybe if they were not a 'force' upon the people, then some of this stress could be alleviated.

  • Maybe if they did not issue fines unlawfully, then they would not have the burden hanging over their head of going to prison at some point later in time.

  • Maybe if they did not serve invalid court orders upon the people which bring harm to the people, the police would not be so stressed out.

  • Maybe they realise that their oath to the 'Queen' is fraudulent.

But don't let the mainstream media sort those 'technicalities' out for you.

On the 6th of February 2017 the mainstream media reported that there was a shooting at the police headquarters in La Trobe St Melbourne.

Details at first were very minimal and the police were as usual very tight lipped.

The following day details emerged that a female police officer was shot where the police stated that:
“Our colleague’s death is not believed to be suspicious,”

The AFP also confirmed that the death was ‘not accidental’.

So at the end of the day the female police officer committed suicide as a result of the pressures of her job?

So now watch how the executive acts as a result of the officer's suicide, with support and safety measures to be put in place.

Let's flip the coin and see what's going on in Peasant Land:

The wise men which forced laws onto the people of this land, made it a requirement that a man has to beg an 'honour' (whatever that means) behind a bench in a court to see his son / daughter.

This man has to hire an interloper who can suck the man's life savings out of him so that the man can have an extra hour per week with his son / daughter.






It does not take long for someone to have enough of a fraudulent legal system and deal with it the only way they know how to.

Lionel Murphy, was pretty dodgy, in closed circles known as a paedophile, was also responsible for an unlawfully enacted Act called the Family Law Act, but don't let the mainstream media tell you this.

So how many fathers are driven to despair and ultimately suicide, per week in 2016, by a corrupt legal system that takes their son / daughter away from them, under the label of a 'child'?

Surely you do not see the executive scrambling to protect their tax slave fathers?

The government will just import more expendable flesh at the rate of 1000 per week into Melbourne.

The system by not allowing full access of an underage son /daughter to their mother and father is actually supporting 'child' abuse. 

The Truth about Pensions and the Lies of our Leaders




The forced superannuation that Australian workers are paying is a HUGE FRAUD, but since there is no action from the herd population, that means that they are quite happy with that fraud occurring against them by the people in the 'Australian Government'.

As long as there is footy and plenty of beer flowing....
"She'll be right mate"




Nick Minchin on the Tony Jones ABC TV Program Q & A 11/09/2008 stated quite clearly that funds were not, have not and are not collected and held in a bank account waiting for the government to pay it out in the form of the Old Age Pension, or words that meant, “ exactly that .”

As an ex Australian Federal Government finance Minister, now shadow defence minister, this man knows that his statement on that television program, was a blatant lie  (and he said it with a look of such sincerity on his face).

Well, it certainly was collected and it amassed such huge amounts that this government and those preceding couldn’t help themselves. Without any right, they plundered it and spent billions of it over the years. This was money earned by the people themselves through hard work and often deprivation (as a legislated obligation, part thereof was collected by the Tax Department for this very purpose). To this day this money is collected as a tax which originally, specifically, and intentionally was to fund, “ the Aged Pension.”

To dispel misinformation from Party Politicians and their spin doctors, here are some historical facts that every Australian (especially the young who are under the miss-guided belief and/or assumption that they are funding the Aged Pension from their current hard work) should know.

The young are in fact funding their own Pension Fund and to add insult to injury they are forced to pay into a super fund.

1939 - 1945

World War II


1942 - 1943

As a Wartime measure, the Federal Government gained sole control over Australian Income Tax. Labor Prime minister (Ben Chifley) introduced three bills to establish the National Welfare Fund, to be financed by a Compulsory Contribution (levy)  of one and sixpence in the Pound (20/-) on all personal income.

Opposition Leader (Robert Menzies) stated that the Compulsory Contribution (levy) should be kept completely separate from other government income streams, that it should be shown separately on the Taxation Assessment and paid straight into a “TRUST” account, and not mixed with the General Revenue.

Menzies said “ The stigma of charity should be removed from the Age Pension.” and that “It should be an entitlement earned by the person’s personal contribution to the fund.”

1946

Prime Minister Chifley agreed and established The National Welfare fund as at 1/1/1946.

A “Trust” Fund with the Parliament as “Trustee.” The Compulsory Contributions (levy) commenced as at 1st January 1946. It was shown separately on the personal Tax Assessments for 1946, 1947, 1948, 1949 and 1950 and the compulsory levy was properly paid straight into the Special “Trust” fund and Welfare claims were paid out of the fund.

The balance in the fund in 1950 was almost 100 million pounds.

1949

Robert Menzies became Prime Minister and he introduced Bills to amend the acts governing the National Welfare Funds.

The Compulsory Contributions (levy) was then grouped with the Taxation Assessment and appeared as one amount on the Taxation assessments and was paid as one amount straight into the Consolidated Revenue Account. The sabotage of the National Welfare Fund had commenced.

The Opposition Labor Party had collaborated in this sabotage by remaining silent instead of opposing Menzies’ action.

1951 - 1985

The compulsory levy of 7.5% now included in the tax continued to be collected and placed in the Consolidated Revenue Account  treated as General Revenue and spent, until 1985.

1974 – 1975

Labor Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) abolished income test for all persons 70 years of age and over and paid pensions to all people over that age.
1975 Liberal Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser) cancelled the Whitlam legislation.

1977

Liberal Prime Minister (Malcolm Fraser with Treasurer Philip Lynch)
transferred the balance in the Welfare Fund Account
(approximately $470,000,000 ) to Consolidated Revenue Account.

1985

Australian Labor Government repealed acts No. 39, 40 and 41 of 1945 (The National Welfare Fund Acts).

Thus the funds finally ceased to exist yet the 7.5% levy continued to be
collected as a proportion of the Income Tax revenue.

It also introduced the (much maligned) Income and Asset Tests, thereby excluding millions of levy and tax paying Australians from receiving Social Services Pensions.

This money these self funded contributions paid as a percentage of the total income tax collections are today worth far more than the amount of means tested pensions paid out.

Actuaries have calculated the non-means tested entitlement due to each retiree, today is in excess of $500 per week.

This surely debunks the politician’s claim that the generation are paying a proportion of their current taxes to cover the payments made to pensioners. The obvious short fall has been swallowed by the Government’s Taxation black hole.

The historical summary above highlights the fact that politicians of opposing political parties each contributed to the agenda to destroy the entitlement as it was intended. Why? They had no mandate to do so, it clearly was not and is not the will of the people.

While Party Politicians on both sides are controlled by a few people who are hidden from public view yet are open to manipulation and outright corruption, there can be no certainty of the payment of pensions.

Only a majority of truly Independent representatives can bring about a change from Government under corporate control, to Government for the People, of the People, by the People.

Just because a cabal of political miscreants become so greedy that they change the way a tax looks in the Ledgers, IN NO WAY REMOVES THE FACT THAT THIS TAX IS STILLCOLLECTED TO THIS DAY TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUPPLY AND CONTINUATION OF THE OLD AGE PENSION - A STIPEND TO THE ELDERLY CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY
WHO HAVE WORKED FOR DECADES OF THEIR LIVES TO BUILD A NATION AND HAVE FROM WORKING DAY ONE OF THEIR LIVES, BEEN PAYING 7% PLUS OF THEIR TAXES DIRECTLY TOWARDS THIS PENSION.

The old age pension is not a privilege:
Is not a right.
Is not a gift.
Is not even welfare.

The Old Age Pension is an asset owned and accrued by each Australian Citizen who has funded this asset from their very own purse.

The governments of the day were employed to amass, secure, invest and manage a fund that in its first 5 years bulged to almost £100,000,000, an amount that today would be worth approximately $240 million.

They did amass, secure, invest and manage - and the figures were colossal and frightening to them and hence they conspired to hide them back into the consolidated Revenue bucket and to this day, that bucket has been brimming with a 7.5% tax collected specifically and only, for the Old Age Pension.
No, young Australians, you are not paying for the welfare of Baby boomers, you are paying for yourselves, new immigrants, the needy in society requiring social services and welfare, dole recipients and the bludgers,

BUT YOU ARE NOT PAYING FOR THE OLD AGE PENSION OF ELDERLY AUSTRALIANS WHO HAVE WORKED ALL THEIRLIVES IN THIS COUNTRY AND PAID THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES.


Source Supplied

The farce of Australia Post CEO being a public servant


The people in the machine called the 'Australian Government' run a web of deceit that is convoluted where even if you catch them out (according to 'their' laws), as you are a member of  the herd population you are wrong.

The 'word' apparently from people in government is that they are all for transparency, but when it comes to the actual implementation of this so called word, the story is quite different.

Let's take a look at a scenario of people's salary who are in 'government' or in the 'public service'.

We'll make it as simple as possible so the simple folk hopefully grasp the situation.

You see, when you apply for a job in the 'public service' you are aware that you are working for the 'government', you know the 'Australian Government'.

In the good ol' days before the interwebs the positions were advertised in a gazette where the pleb knew the title of the position, salary, band etc.

Fast forward to the new era of internetting and we still do have gazettes, with the added bonus of those pesky public servant jobs being advertised somewhere called 'online'.

Let's take a look at a classic Aussie public service icon, our 'friend' called the ATO (Australian Taxation Office.

Let's not worry about running to the milk bar or newsagent to get a gazette, but rather let's go straight online:






Now some people should be aware that plenty can be written about the entity called the 'Australian Government', from the above illustration, and we can put that aside for the purposes of this article.

From the above screen capture of the ATO's website, you should be aware that the ATO is connected to the Australian Government, therefore if you are applying for a job there you can rest assured knowing that when you ring up people and hassle them for their taxes you're (allegedly) doing them a 'public service'.

Another component of the 'public service' is something called transparency.

The employment details for the position to be filled in are gazetted i.e. disclosed to the general public.

The following screen capture is for a position from 25 August 2015 of Taxation Officer at the ATO:


From the illustration one can see that there are no surprises, i.e. Job Title, Branch, Job Type and most importantly Salary figures are disclosed.

Now where were we?

The Australian people's postal delivery service is supposed to be a 'public service', right?

So the people should be aware that this postal delivery entity is called Australia Post.

Now let's have a closer look at what's been happening at 'Australia Post'.

The mainstream media reported that the salary of Australia Post's CEO Ahmed Fahour, was hidden from public view where Liberal Senator James Paterson released documents revealing Fahour's salary of $4,400,000 and a bonus of $1,200,000 in 2016.

So once again for the simple folk, Australia's postal service is supposed to be a 'public service' operation, you know part of this machine called the government.

Let's have a closer look at Australia's postal service website:


The website tells you that the business is called Australian Postal Corporation.



There is no link or reference to this entity called the 'Australian Government', so it's not a 'public service'.

Since it's been stated that Fahour is a CEO (of a corporation and not a 'public service') of Australian Post Corporation, does his salary have to be made 'public'?

So what did the government (lawfully) do with the Australian people's postal distribution 'public service'?

'Australia Post' is a business where a member of the public can buy into this franchise.

The Australian people deceived and defrauded by people in the 'Australian Government' but as always zero action from the herd population.

The people in the 'Australian Government' laughing all the way to their highly paid superannuation as the herd watches their 'footy'.

STILL not bleeding financially enough?

See article from 8 Feb 2017 by news.com.au of the title:


Australia Post CEO paid $5.6 million in 2016





AUSTRALIA Post’s chief executive was paid a total of $5.6 million in 2016, 10 times the salary of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, it has been revealed.
Ahmed Fahour’s salary of $4.4 million and bonus of $1.2 million were revealed by Liberal Senator James Paterson, who released documents provided by Australia Post in response to questions from a Senate committee.

The letters and parcel business had previously refused to disclose the salary of Mr Fahour, Australia’s highest paid public servant, saying there was “no public interest” in releasing the information.



In 2014, the last time his salary was included in Australia Post’s annual report, Mr Fahour took home a total package of $4.6 million, including a $2.6 million bonus. In 2015 he was believed to have been paid $2.1 million after turning down a $2.9 million bonus.

“The Oz Post CEO is effectively our highest paid public servant,” Mr Paterson tweeted. “That information should not be hidden from taxpayers.”

In its response to the Senate, Australia Post requested that the information not be released publicly, citing legislative reporting requirements, public interest immunity claims, and commercial confidentiality.

“The public disclosure of executive remuneration would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information,” Australia Post corporate secretary Erin Kelly wrote.

Ms Kelly argued the release of the information “would not promote or inform debate of issues of public importance”, “may be prejudicial against Australia Post and those individuals to which the information relates” who “may become targets for unwarranted media attention”.

She added that Australia Post was a “self-funded government business enterprise that does not rely on any government funding”, so public disclosure of executive remuneration “would in no way be of any relevance”.

In response, Mr Paterson wrote that the final statement was “of particular concern to the Committee”.

“Even if an organisation does not receive money through the appropriation bills, its operations may have significant implications for the expenditure of public funds,” he wrote.

“As a government business enterprise governed by Act of Parliament, Australia Post is accountable to the Parliament, and its committees, for the use of public resources with which it has been entrusted.

“The public disclosure of senior executive remuneration is a common feature of accountability within the public sector and for listed companies.

“While information about the salaries and bonuses paid to individual senior executives for major Australian companies and other postal services globally is freely available to senators and the Australian public, similar information is not available for Australia Post.”

Australia Post’s total revenues for the 2015-16 financial year were up 3 per cent to $6.6 billion on the back of a parcels boom, but its letters business is set to lose $1.5 billion over the coming five years.

Letters declined by a record 9.7 per cent in 2015-16, bringing losses of $138 million, but a potential extra $300 million in losses was avoided by overhauling the division in January. Prior to Mr Fahour’s reforms, the company had been on track to lose $5 billion on letters in that same period.

In a statement, an Australia Post spokeswoman said: “The remuneration of the executive team, including the Managing Director and Group CEO, is set by the Australia Post Board.

“Mr Fahour’s total remuneration package takes into account the size and complexity of the organisation, which has an annual turnover of more than $6 billion. It also reflects the large-scale transformation underway and that more than 73 per cent of its revenue comes from the non-regulated side of the business where it is competing with major global players such as DHL, FedEx and Toll.

“Mr Fahour’s remuneration in FY16 included a performance-based short-term bonus in line with Australia Post returning to profit. The previous year he did not receive a bonus.

“Total executive remuneration has not increased since 2014 when the executive last received their full eligible performance bonus. Since 2007 Australia Post has paid more than $6.3 billion in dividends and taxes to the Federal Government. Australia Post does not receive any taxpayer funding.”