|
|
|
Sign a Mandate for your State Now!
|
The following are examples of concerns that many people have regarding the alterations required to bring about, for the first time in any country, a fair and just taxation system. To put minds at rest the answers are readily available as indicated. The Debit Tax is proposed at 1% initially to ensure that sufficient tax revenue is available to the government during the change-over to the new Debit Tax System, with the final figure being 0.33% (ie 1/3 rd of 1 %) on all withdrawals of money from financial institutions. The Debit Tax would be the only tax and all other taxes would be repealed entirely. Table of ContentsItems marked in CAPS is assumed a typo error on the senders part.
I HAVE SCANNED THROUGH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN YOUR WEBSITE AND HAVE SOME QUESTIONS WHICH I HOPE YOU WOULD BE KING KIND ENOUGH TO ANSWER. Back to Top Top of SectionQ1 IF THE SALARY EARNER WERE TO PUT HIS SALARY IN THE BANK AND THEN MAKE A WITHDRAWAL, WOULD HE BE TAXED ON THE WITHDRAWAL? Answer Yes he would be taxed at 1% initially and then 0.33% thereafter. Most salaries and all Social Security hand-outs are currently paid into bank accounts. The transfer of money is safest utilising the bankibng system. Back to Top Top of SectionQ1a IF SO, WOULD IT THEN NOT BE WISER FOR HIM TO HIDE HIS MONEY UNDER HIS BED? Answer No, it would not be wiser for him to hide his money under the bed as the safety of his money would be more important than avoiding the 1%, decreasing to 0.03%, Debit Tax. As an example, 1% of a salary of $30,000 per year is a total of $300 per year which is a small price to pay for the security of funds. At 0.33% that figure reduces to $99. Back to Top Top of SectionQ2 IF A BUSINESSMAN WERE TO SELL HIS GOODS AND RECEIVE A CHEQUE IN PAYMENT OF HIS INVOICE, HE WOULD HAVE TO PUT THE CHEQUE IN THE BANK AND THEN WITHDRAW MONEY AS REQUIRED FROM THE BANK AND THUS PAY DEBITS TAX. WOULD IT NOT BE WISER FOR HIM TO RECEIVE A CASH PAYMENT AND THEN PUT THIS MONEY UNDER HIS BED, FOR PAYING OUT AS AND WHEN HE NEEDED TO, THUS AVOIDING THE PROPOSED DEBITS TAX? Answer No it would not be very wise. The businessman concerned would make his decision based upon the risk of having cash-in-hand as balanced against using the financial institutions and their inherent safety in the holding of the aforementioned money, considering that the 1%, decreasing to 0.33%, Debit Tax is further balanced against all the taxes that exist at the moment. Which means that, at the moment, we all pay about 68% tax when all hidden taxes are accounted for. i.e. stamp duties, wholesale sales tax, payroll tax, provisional tax, customs duty etc.. ad infinitum. Back to Top Top of SectionQ2a EFFECTIVELY, WOULD IT NOT BE WISER, UNDER THE PROPOSED SYSTEM, TO AVOID MAKING ANY DEPOSITS INTO BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, SO THAT DEBITS TAX COULD BE MINIMIZED? Answer No, not wise at all considering that the safety of your money is an important factor in using it wisely. Back to Top Top of SectionQ2b IF THIS WAS TO BE THE CASE, WOULD THE BANKS SEE IT POSSIBLE THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO CLOSE THEIR BRANCHES FOR DOWNTURN IN BANKING BUSINESS? Answer I doubt there would be a downturn. Rather than that, there would probably be an upturn as the people had more disposable income with the hidden taxes being removed from all purchases. Building Societies and Credit Unions would, in the event of banks deserting customers, flourish in their stead. There will always be an institution in which money could be saved or invested even if that facility is only available at a branch or agency using electronic communications as are used today. Back to Top Top of SectionQ2c AGAIN, WOULD THE BURGLARS AROUND FIND IT A VERY LUCRATIVE SYSTEM, SINCE ALL THE LITTLE OLD LADIES AROUND, WOULD THEN BE KEEPING LARGER AMOUNTS OF CASH IN HIDING PLACES IN THEIR HOMES? Answer I doubt the little old ladies would be keeping any more money at home than they do now, given the aforementioned. As to the workings of the burglar mind, I confess no experience. Back to Top Top of SectionQ1 YOU HAVE MADSE MADE THE POINT WELL THAT THERE HAS, IN EFFECT, NOT BEEN A MANDATE. DO YOU INTEND TO PRODUCE AN EFFECTIVE BLUE-PRINT OF A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE GST? Answer There is already a blue-print for the Debit Tax available from www.debittax.com The Debit Tax was debated in New York in September 1999 at the World Tax Symposium by corporate and academic professionals supported by many large accountancy firms as a very viable tax initiative. The GST was implemented in Zimbabwe at the behest of the IMF in order that the country could obtain loans. Three months after its introduction it was scrapped as unworkable. The IMF is the organisation behind the GST as it is a means of control. Our politicians cannot claim to be the brains behind the GST as our Tresaury bureaucrats work hand-in-hand with the IMF and other world bodies that we are being sold out to on a daily basis. The word is that New Zealand will move to a Debit Tax in the near future. Back to Top Top of SectionQ2 IF NOT, WOULD YOUR ACTION TO STOP THE GST BE A STEP TOWARDS TOTAL CHAOS IN THE TAXATION SYSTEM? Answer Not applicable as there is an alternative to the GST in the Debit Tax. Back to Top Top of SectionQ3 WOULD YOU ADVOCATE, AS AN INTERIM MEASURE, THE MAINTENANCE OF STATUS QUO, WHILE YOUR, HOPEFULLY VIABLE, BLUE-PRINT IS DEBATED AND PUT INTO EFFECT, WITH A MANDATE? Answer Yes, because it is better to make a single change to the Debit Tax rather than adopt a GST and then alter the system to the Debit Tax. The current system gathers tax revenue of about $125 billion per year. A 0.33% Debit Tax, on the 1996 Australian monetary turnover of $32.5 trillion would have collected $162.5 billion for the Treasury and the bulk of that money would have come from businesses which currently pay little or no tax at all. The tax burden on the people would be indirect, as a part of the buying costs of all their purchases, and we need to remember that the tax burden is always sheeted home to the ultimate consumer. Suppose you earn $30,000 per year and pay $99 in Debit Tax, at 0.33%%, over the year as you withdraw your money from safekeeping, you will always have the indirect tax that is built into every product or service so the manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers can pay the Debit Tax they are responsible for. However, you must take into account that you will be relieved of paying all other Federal taxes and most of the State taxes will be up for abolition as well. Back to Top Top of SectionStatement INTERESTINGLY, YOUR PROPOSED USE OF THE INTERNET FOR OBTAINING A MANDATE IS LIKELY TO BE THE NEW WAY TO MAINTAIN SANE DEMOCRACY. IT MAY, HOWEVER, BE DEEMED TO BE EXCLUSIVE. THE OLDER GENERATION WOULD NOT BE LIKELY TO FIND THEMSELVES "OFAIT" AU FAIT WITH COMMUNICATING ON THIS BASIS. Response The use of the web-site for obtaining signatures on Mandate forms is unlikely to be of any really significant nature. The vast majority of signatures will be gathered one-on-one, person-to-person. The question of the use of the Internet for resolving elections and questions of significance is still undetermined and will be likely not answered at any time in the near future. It is doubtful anybody could forecast the time of the introduction of the use of home computers in this arena. In the event that computers are to be used, I have no doubt that computer terminals will have to be made available for those without personal computers, and the process of voting would be made as simple as choosing an answer from Y (Yes) or N (No). I feel confident that older folks will have no problem pressing one key or another. Unlike other proposed taxes, such as the 2% "Easy Tax", which is a cascading, compounding, incremental tax that serves to push costs, and therefore prices, of goods and services, up, the Debit Tax is a flat rate tax applied at only the withdrawal transaction and this means business can plan strategies with the firm knowledge of their costs. Editor Mandate FAQ's. Back to Top Top of Section
|
|
|
