Paul Hogan, who rose to prominence in the 1980s as “Crocodile Dundee”, feels pretty important these days. He is being pursued by the Australian Tax Office and the Internal Revenue Service for moneys allegedly owed.
Hogan estimates that he has paid the ATO $100 million in tax. Yet, the ATO continues to pursue him – and has asked the IRS for help. Hogan, originally from Australia, now lives in the US.
The IRS has ordered several US banks to hand over records to the ATO – but Hogan has lashed back, claiming that Australian officials were not legally entitled to such information.
Hogan’s very public reaction to the ATO: “Come and get me, you miserable bastards.”
Hogan later continued, speaking about the investigation, “As a guy who brought millions into Australia, they should build a statue at the tax office to me and send me a Christmas card. I lived in America and still paid tax in Australia for 4 1/2 years when I could have paid tax in America, and it would have been cheaper, because I thought we needed the money back home more than they needed it here.”
Apparently, he believes the whole thing is a load of cods wallop…
Australia is one of many countries taking aim at so-called “alcopops”, pre-mixed alcoholic drinks that tend to resemble sodas. Australia, like Germany before it, has imposed a tax increase on alcopops in an effort to decrease dangerous underage drinking. It is believed that underage drinkers tend to purchase more alcopops than older drinkers because of the low price, flavors and packaging.
Has it helped? It depends on who you ask.
The Distilled Spirits Industry Council (DSIC) says that the increase in tax on alcopops has led to increases in dangerous drinking. Specifically, the DSIC cites figures that show that sales of alcopops have fallen by almost 40% since the tax increase took effect last month. That would be good, right? However, in that same time, sales of bottles of pure spirits have increased by about 20%.
In other words, more people are probably mixing their own drinks. This worries some who are concerned that those mixing the drinks are not aware of the alcohol content in mixed drinks. This could mean that people are drinking more alcohol than they planned to drink.
However, Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon says figures show that the tax increase is achieving its aim of curbing binge drinking among young people: “Consumption of the products that are targeted and [are] particularly attractive to young people [has] dropped dramatically.”
What do you think? Is this just exchanging one bad behavior for another? Would this work in the US?
(Image: Newscom)
The crackdown on tax evaders who depend on Liechtenstein in order to shield income has escalated.
Nine countries from the Organization for Economic and Co-operation Development (OECD), Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, have reportedly received and are examining information on Liechtenstein accounts from two banks. The Bundesnachrichtendienst has officially confirmed that Liechtenstein Global Trust (LGT) Group is a focus of the investigation, a charge that LGT has acknowledged. The other bank has not been officially named though the German Sueddeutsche Zeitung has indicated that it is a subsidiary from the Swiss private banking group Vontobel in Liechtenstein; Vontobel has said that this is not true.
The OECD has been prominent amid these investigations. The Organization claims to provide “a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies.”
It is not surprising to note the OECD’s involvement. In 2002, the OECD published a list of un-cooperative tax havens, which initially included seven countries. Only three remain on the list: Andorra, Monaco and yep, Liechtenstein.
Maybe those couples who want more than two babies should pay for it. After all, each extra baby consumes more carbon emissions – and thus resources – during lifetime, right?
Associate Professor Barry Walters thinks so. He believes that families should pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 per child. His proposal appears in a current edition of the Medical Journal of Australia. He also suggests that population controls like those used in China and India aren’t such a bad thing.
In the US, we would shudder at such a thought. In fact, we actually subsidize birth in the form of extra deductions and exemptions (though, as a mother of three kids, I can attest that it hardly offsets the extra costs to us). But maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe, as Earth gets a little bit more crowded each year, we should consider incentives to keep the population low. After all, money talks, does it not?
I know that this is not a novel idea. In fact, there are social programs in place that have suggested paying young moms not to have more children. Hmm. Maybe that’s the wrong way to go about it? Maybe instead of paying folks not to have children, we should have those who do have lots of children pay us?
I know, it’s not necessarily polite conversation. This idea of what is essentially government regulation of our private lives isn’t something we like to talk about in public. But doctors like Garry Egger wonder why that is. In response to Professor Walters’ idea, he queries, “One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers.”
What do you think?
Technorati Tags:
tax policy, population control, baby tax
digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/environment/A_Baby_Tax_in_Australia’;
