The knee jerk decision to ban Greyhound racing in New South Wales in 2017 brought with it a host of lesser matters that is being examined by a transitional task force. One of those issues is the expected surrender of working Greyhounds to animal welfare agencies the moment their racing days end and they can no longer deliver a dividend to their owners. That could become an avalanche, far outside the capability of welfare to find a new home for most of the dogs - and hence euthanasia.
This transitional authority seems to be leaning on progressive dates for both training and breeding Greyhounds. This raises the question of Greyhound owners still being able to breed and train dogs in this state to compete in Greyhound racing in other states where racing remains legal. It is thought that such an arrangement would dilute the surrendered option and make the numbers manageable.
It also seems to be heading in the direction of making Greyhounds a forbidden breed of dog in this state. The transitional authority seems to favour outlawing breeding from 2019 and outlawing any form of training from 2022. There is no mention of what law would apply to any member of the public continuing to own a Greyhound as a pet, but that breeding ban seems to end continuity of the breed.
At the stroke of a pen it seems that the New South Wales government is about to extinguish a noble breed of dog that is recognised by the world Kennel Associations and which has a place in competition at dog shows. Well before racing, this breed was a sporting dog valued for its speed in running down wounded game. The Greyhound is recognised on the world scene and it seems doomed to extinction here simply because of the illicit actions of a small number of trainers who consistently break the law.
We are constantly faced with attacks on the public by many breeds of dogs which seem to have a very aggressive nature if they are badly trained by their owners, and yet there is little interest in applying a similar ban to resolve that problem. The Greyhound has an enviable reputation as a pleasant and docile pet and is not known to be aggressive. It is not this dog which is the problem. The point of contention is other humans who break the law with their attempt to employ illegal winning tactics to training methods.
It seems that the New South Wales government needs to think long and hard as to its intentions. If that objective is to prevent recognised Greyhound racing as scheduled events in this state then that can be achieved by a simple legal ban on the format. It seems a big step outside its jurisdiction to prevent the breeding and training of a breed of dog that has legal sanction to be raced in other states of this country. That could be argued as an infringement of the constitution which guarantees the freedom of trade between the states.
It seems that we are perilously close to implementing legislation that will make it illegal to own a world breed of dog - even as a family pet - that was once bestowed on our native dog in some other states. The Dingo had that shame eventually lifted.
Hopefully, a lesson learned !
Sunday, 18 September 2016
A Public Danger !
The timing could not have been worse. It was 5-20 on a Friday afternoon and the Sydney commute was at its peak. The maximum flow of cars, buses and trains was taking the citizens of Sydney across the Sydney Harbour bridge when a flicker of flame from his engine bay at the rear of his bus alerted the driver to make an emergency stop.
The traffic controllers watching their computer screens in the bridge control room were horrified at what happened next. Within seconds the entire engine bay was a mass of fire with plumes of flame reaching high into the sky and great columns of black, oily smoke enveloping other traffic. Immediately all traffic control signals turned to red - and the bridge became a giant parking lot ! All this was watched live on the television channels as the story was treated as breaking news .
That alert driver acted promptly and began to evacuate his passengers. Fortunately, there were only seven people riding in that bus, but such was the intensity and speed of the fire that two passengers and the driver needed to be taken to hospital by attending paramedics to be be treated for smoke inhalation. Had that bus been packed with passengers in every seat and the usual number of strap hanging standing people the casualty outcome would have been horrific.
This news story filled television screens for the next hour or so. Eventually a heavy vehicle towed the burned out bus carcass off the bridge and the traffic flow resumed, but the delay had a cumulative effect and most drivers were seriously delayed.
The inevitable follow-up of what happened to this twenty-year old bus is causing consternation to the travelling public. It seems that similar bus fires are common - and it is a fact that this incident was the thirty-sixth similar bus fire so far this year - and we have three months of the year remaining.
It seems that we have 2,700 similar Sydney buses in service awaiting a contract to be let to have installed a fire retardant system that automatically releases a high pressure spray that snuffs out any fuel fire. Even if that contract was let immediately, the amount of work required installing the system in a fleet of buses would probably cause a delay well into 2017.
These are the same buses that get school children to classes and run packed to the rafters in morning and afternoon peaks. It is an ageing fleet that will shortly face the expectation that summer may deliver exceptionally hot days because of global warming. We have no idea what caused that fire on the Sydney Harbour bridge but it is a fact that an engine fire is possible at speeds in which an orderly evacuation will deliver casualties.
The public must learn to move promptly when an evacuation is ordered, and processing that fire retardant contract needs to move to high priority !
The traffic controllers watching their computer screens in the bridge control room were horrified at what happened next. Within seconds the entire engine bay was a mass of fire with plumes of flame reaching high into the sky and great columns of black, oily smoke enveloping other traffic. Immediately all traffic control signals turned to red - and the bridge became a giant parking lot ! All this was watched live on the television channels as the story was treated as breaking news .
That alert driver acted promptly and began to evacuate his passengers. Fortunately, there were only seven people riding in that bus, but such was the intensity and speed of the fire that two passengers and the driver needed to be taken to hospital by attending paramedics to be be treated for smoke inhalation. Had that bus been packed with passengers in every seat and the usual number of strap hanging standing people the casualty outcome would have been horrific.
This news story filled television screens for the next hour or so. Eventually a heavy vehicle towed the burned out bus carcass off the bridge and the traffic flow resumed, but the delay had a cumulative effect and most drivers were seriously delayed.
The inevitable follow-up of what happened to this twenty-year old bus is causing consternation to the travelling public. It seems that similar bus fires are common - and it is a fact that this incident was the thirty-sixth similar bus fire so far this year - and we have three months of the year remaining.
It seems that we have 2,700 similar Sydney buses in service awaiting a contract to be let to have installed a fire retardant system that automatically releases a high pressure spray that snuffs out any fuel fire. Even if that contract was let immediately, the amount of work required installing the system in a fleet of buses would probably cause a delay well into 2017.
These are the same buses that get school children to classes and run packed to the rafters in morning and afternoon peaks. It is an ageing fleet that will shortly face the expectation that summer may deliver exceptionally hot days because of global warming. We have no idea what caused that fire on the Sydney Harbour bridge but it is a fact that an engine fire is possible at speeds in which an orderly evacuation will deliver casualties.
The public must learn to move promptly when an evacuation is ordered, and processing that fire retardant contract needs to move to high priority !
Wednesday, 14 September 2016
A Tale of Two Cities !
It seems curious that the former entertainment Mecca of Sydney - Kings Cross - has strict closing hours and limits on alcohol consumption while our sister city to the south - Melbourne - is entirely free of similar restrictions.
Is it because Melbournians are better behaved ? Those Sydney restrictions were hastily imposed back in 2014 after a spate of senseless street bashings resulting in deaths and the spectacle of huge crowds surging from one alcohol serving venue to another in search of the nightly " action " !
Supporters of the curfew point to a dramatic drop in street crime immediately these time limits were imposed. There was an immediate 45.3% drop in domestic assaults in Kings Cross and a 20.3% drop in common assault across the entire city CBD.
The restrictions were draconian. 1-30 became the lockout witching hour. Those inside a venue could stay but no new entrants could enter and when someone leaves their only option was to go home. Last drinks call was at 3.00 am - and there were restrictions on the types of alcohol allowed to be served.
The entertainment industry protested that this was not the sort of regimen expected in a world city - and Sydney is certainly in that class. It was particularly galling when International visitors openly compared the drinking and entertainment laws between Sydney and Melbourne. Sydney was operating well below the accepted world standard.
High Court judge Ian Callinan has just completed a review of these lockout laws and has suggested changes. He suggests the 1-30 am lockout be extended to come into force at 2 am and the last drinks call moved from 3 am to 3-30 am, but only for establishments that are providing live music entertainment.
At present, bottle shops are forced to close at 10 PM. Callinan suggests that 11 am closing may be more appropriate, and that home delivery of alcohol be allowed until midnight. The state government will consider this review and probably make a decision by early in the new year.
Some critics of the Sydney restrictions hold the view that Melbourne is a less congested city and that its watering holes are widely spaced.. From its earliest days Kings Cross was the bohemian red light district and in the R and R days of the Vietnam war the cluster of entertainment venues expanded exponentially. By 2014 it was completely out of control and drawing crowds on a city wide basis.
Perhaps imposing these draconian laws just on Kings Cross is a little tongue in cheek. Many venues closed their doors as the crowds dwindled and new venues appeared in the suburbs where the laws do not apply. By watering down the laws it may be possible to create a new Kings Cross which will not morph into the prime city attraction because it will have to compete with the new crop of widely spread venues serving the Sydney night life traffic.
Unfortunately, the old Kings Cross had become a monster that was completely out of control. It had become a lethal place to visit because of drunken patrons and the government had little options other than to slay the dragon. Now might be an appropriate time to breather new life into the corpse, provided the revival can be controlled.
Perhaps if that revival goes to plan Sydney may be able to quietly dump those lockout laws some time into the future !
Is it because Melbournians are better behaved ? Those Sydney restrictions were hastily imposed back in 2014 after a spate of senseless street bashings resulting in deaths and the spectacle of huge crowds surging from one alcohol serving venue to another in search of the nightly " action " !
Supporters of the curfew point to a dramatic drop in street crime immediately these time limits were imposed. There was an immediate 45.3% drop in domestic assaults in Kings Cross and a 20.3% drop in common assault across the entire city CBD.
The restrictions were draconian. 1-30 became the lockout witching hour. Those inside a venue could stay but no new entrants could enter and when someone leaves their only option was to go home. Last drinks call was at 3.00 am - and there were restrictions on the types of alcohol allowed to be served.
The entertainment industry protested that this was not the sort of regimen expected in a world city - and Sydney is certainly in that class. It was particularly galling when International visitors openly compared the drinking and entertainment laws between Sydney and Melbourne. Sydney was operating well below the accepted world standard.
High Court judge Ian Callinan has just completed a review of these lockout laws and has suggested changes. He suggests the 1-30 am lockout be extended to come into force at 2 am and the last drinks call moved from 3 am to 3-30 am, but only for establishments that are providing live music entertainment.
At present, bottle shops are forced to close at 10 PM. Callinan suggests that 11 am closing may be more appropriate, and that home delivery of alcohol be allowed until midnight. The state government will consider this review and probably make a decision by early in the new year.
Some critics of the Sydney restrictions hold the view that Melbourne is a less congested city and that its watering holes are widely spaced.. From its earliest days Kings Cross was the bohemian red light district and in the R and R days of the Vietnam war the cluster of entertainment venues expanded exponentially. By 2014 it was completely out of control and drawing crowds on a city wide basis.
Perhaps imposing these draconian laws just on Kings Cross is a little tongue in cheek. Many venues closed their doors as the crowds dwindled and new venues appeared in the suburbs where the laws do not apply. By watering down the laws it may be possible to create a new Kings Cross which will not morph into the prime city attraction because it will have to compete with the new crop of widely spread venues serving the Sydney night life traffic.
Unfortunately, the old Kings Cross had become a monster that was completely out of control. It had become a lethal place to visit because of drunken patrons and the government had little options other than to slay the dragon. Now might be an appropriate time to breather new life into the corpse, provided the revival can be controlled.
Perhaps if that revival goes to plan Sydney may be able to quietly dump those lockout laws some time into the future !
Tuesday, 13 September 2016
The " Rehabilitation " Rorts !
As a country, Australia has a rigid licensing regime when it comes to recognising professional qualifications. Doctors - lawyers - all those who have served the apprenticeship of university and on job training are protected against shonks by their jealous professional bodies. We are slow to accept qualifications earned in another country and in many cases we demand such an entrant start at the bottom and re-train here.
It seems that there are glaring gaps in this accreditation system. When Ice burst onto the drug scene it brought with it a new dimension of opportunity for the unqualified. Ice was plentiful - and cheap - and amazingly addictive. Very quickly families found that they had a son or a daughter completely out of control and in need of rehabilitation.
The number of rehabilitation beds in the health system is hopelessly inadequate. Waiting lists run to months - and sometimes years. When a family has a teenager tearing themselves apart in a frenzy of need for Ice the need for intervention is immediate - and in most cases the only help available comes from the private sector.
The law of supply and demand comes to the fore. We are seeing a vast increase in the number of private "for profit "clinics springing up offering help to combat drug addiction generally and with specific care to combat Ice addiction.
Sadly, many families are so desperate to save the life of a cherished son or daughter that they are prepared to mortgage - and sometimes even sell - their family home to raise the cash necessary for treatment. Most clinics provide live in accommodation and have courses that are of many months duration. The cost can run into thousands of dollars - with no guarantee of success.
What is alarming is that this source of what seems to be a medical practice is totally unregulated. There are no recognised qualifications for those tasked with managing the withdrawal of users from drugs and the tactics employed change from clinic to clinic. Some go for what is termed "Cold Turkey " while others use distractions such as bush walks and exercise to regain control.
Many seem successful - while the user remains within the control of the clinic, but the moment they return home and restart contact with old friends - who are still using drugs - the drop back into the abyss starts again.
At least the authorities are clamping down on clinics which promise high success rates without any statistics to validate the claim. They are being subjected to the " Truth in Advertising "regime that is cleaning up the industry, but obviously the industry needs professional standards to apply so that families considering care for a son or daughter know what they are getting in exchange for their money.
The big decision is whether these private clinics are providing a medical service or some sort of lesser health regimen like a spa. They are free to set whatever fees they feel appropriate but the government has a duty to determine that they provide value for money - and to intervene if they are making promises they can not keep.
Drug rehabilitation is a murky world with no professional standards. The desperate families who are gambling their family wealth to try and save a son or daughter deserve better protection than is presently available !
It seems that there are glaring gaps in this accreditation system. When Ice burst onto the drug scene it brought with it a new dimension of opportunity for the unqualified. Ice was plentiful - and cheap - and amazingly addictive. Very quickly families found that they had a son or a daughter completely out of control and in need of rehabilitation.
The number of rehabilitation beds in the health system is hopelessly inadequate. Waiting lists run to months - and sometimes years. When a family has a teenager tearing themselves apart in a frenzy of need for Ice the need for intervention is immediate - and in most cases the only help available comes from the private sector.
The law of supply and demand comes to the fore. We are seeing a vast increase in the number of private "for profit "clinics springing up offering help to combat drug addiction generally and with specific care to combat Ice addiction.
Sadly, many families are so desperate to save the life of a cherished son or daughter that they are prepared to mortgage - and sometimes even sell - their family home to raise the cash necessary for treatment. Most clinics provide live in accommodation and have courses that are of many months duration. The cost can run into thousands of dollars - with no guarantee of success.
What is alarming is that this source of what seems to be a medical practice is totally unregulated. There are no recognised qualifications for those tasked with managing the withdrawal of users from drugs and the tactics employed change from clinic to clinic. Some go for what is termed "Cold Turkey " while others use distractions such as bush walks and exercise to regain control.
Many seem successful - while the user remains within the control of the clinic, but the moment they return home and restart contact with old friends - who are still using drugs - the drop back into the abyss starts again.
At least the authorities are clamping down on clinics which promise high success rates without any statistics to validate the claim. They are being subjected to the " Truth in Advertising "regime that is cleaning up the industry, but obviously the industry needs professional standards to apply so that families considering care for a son or daughter know what they are getting in exchange for their money.
The big decision is whether these private clinics are providing a medical service or some sort of lesser health regimen like a spa. They are free to set whatever fees they feel appropriate but the government has a duty to determine that they provide value for money - and to intervene if they are making promises they can not keep.
Drug rehabilitation is a murky world with no professional standards. The desperate families who are gambling their family wealth to try and save a son or daughter deserve better protection than is presently available !
Monday, 12 September 2016
The Tax Case Of The Century !
One of the reasons the world has not recovered from the 2008 recession is because rich companies have squirrelled away their profits in overseas tax havens instead of investing in new ventures, creating wealth and jobs in their home countries. It is estimated that American firms alone have 2.4 trillion laying idle, unable to be repatriated because of the tax that would be due once it crossed its home border.
Tax for the immensely rich is a matter of negotiation. When they generate profits similar to the GST of many world countries they get an eager audience from the government of tax havens ready to accommodate their tax plans. Such is the situation with Apple, the worlds biggest and most profitable company.
Back in 1991 and again in 2007 Apple came to an arrangement with Ireland to circumvent its low 12.5 % tax regime with what was called a " Double Irish " arrangement, that allowed Apple to combine the world profits from its business as taxable in Ireland - and it paid tax at somewhere between 0.005% and 1% of it's European profits.
Now the cat is well and truly amongst the pigeons. The EU has declared this " Double Irish " illegal under its tax laws and levied a $ 14.5 billion evaded tax bill on the company. Apple is appealing the ruling, but where charges for intellectual property must be divided up between where a product is designed, parts manufactured and then assembled and then where the end product is finally sold it creates an almost inpenetrable maize from an accountable point of view.
The American government is showing signs of panic. The EU has moved quickly to bring this tax matter to court and the American legal system is nowhere ready to do similar battle. The Americans are demanding that the EU either backoff - or slow the action. Should the EU win its case there seems a real chance that they would scoop the tax pool and when the American court action reached a conclusion - the cupboard might be bare !
This Apple case is merely the tip of the iceberg. Action is pending on a similar tax rort by Starbucks in the Netherlands and Fiat in Luxembourg, and lesser tax cases will probably clog the courts for years to come. The Americans are threatening tax action against EU companies with branches in the United States.
Hopefully, the final outcome may be some sort of universal tax agreement to nullify individual tax arrangements between countries. Tax evasion by individuals has been a slowly closing net in recent times and the banking industry has been forced to end that time honoured anonymous haven of the " numbered Swiss bank account ". Banks that refuse to open their books for the tax authorities are simply refused entry to the world banking system.
It seems that Apple will be the poster boy when this tax matter is finally settled. It has all the classical components of intellectual property and a diverse network of assembling its end products by partial production and later assembly in a number of different countries. Nailing down precisely where the element of profit actually occurred would be an accountants nightmare. An even bigger nightmare will be getting universal acceptance of a common tax system by the diverse governments of world countries.
Achieving consensus might be the means of bringing our troubled world out of the economic doldrums. The fact that $ 2.4 trillion is sitting in tax havens simply because that seems the only way to dodge punitive taxes is illogical. If that money was put to work in a productive manner this world slump could turn into a jobs bonanza.
Unfortunately, unscrambling this tax omelet through the courts may take decades rather than months. When it comes to tax agreements, the final outcome is a step into the unknown !
Tax for the immensely rich is a matter of negotiation. When they generate profits similar to the GST of many world countries they get an eager audience from the government of tax havens ready to accommodate their tax plans. Such is the situation with Apple, the worlds biggest and most profitable company.
Back in 1991 and again in 2007 Apple came to an arrangement with Ireland to circumvent its low 12.5 % tax regime with what was called a " Double Irish " arrangement, that allowed Apple to combine the world profits from its business as taxable in Ireland - and it paid tax at somewhere between 0.005% and 1% of it's European profits.
Now the cat is well and truly amongst the pigeons. The EU has declared this " Double Irish " illegal under its tax laws and levied a $ 14.5 billion evaded tax bill on the company. Apple is appealing the ruling, but where charges for intellectual property must be divided up between where a product is designed, parts manufactured and then assembled and then where the end product is finally sold it creates an almost inpenetrable maize from an accountable point of view.
The American government is showing signs of panic. The EU has moved quickly to bring this tax matter to court and the American legal system is nowhere ready to do similar battle. The Americans are demanding that the EU either backoff - or slow the action. Should the EU win its case there seems a real chance that they would scoop the tax pool and when the American court action reached a conclusion - the cupboard might be bare !
This Apple case is merely the tip of the iceberg. Action is pending on a similar tax rort by Starbucks in the Netherlands and Fiat in Luxembourg, and lesser tax cases will probably clog the courts for years to come. The Americans are threatening tax action against EU companies with branches in the United States.
Hopefully, the final outcome may be some sort of universal tax agreement to nullify individual tax arrangements between countries. Tax evasion by individuals has been a slowly closing net in recent times and the banking industry has been forced to end that time honoured anonymous haven of the " numbered Swiss bank account ". Banks that refuse to open their books for the tax authorities are simply refused entry to the world banking system.
It seems that Apple will be the poster boy when this tax matter is finally settled. It has all the classical components of intellectual property and a diverse network of assembling its end products by partial production and later assembly in a number of different countries. Nailing down precisely where the element of profit actually occurred would be an accountants nightmare. An even bigger nightmare will be getting universal acceptance of a common tax system by the diverse governments of world countries.
Achieving consensus might be the means of bringing our troubled world out of the economic doldrums. The fact that $ 2.4 trillion is sitting in tax havens simply because that seems the only way to dodge punitive taxes is illogical. If that money was put to work in a productive manner this world slump could turn into a jobs bonanza.
Unfortunately, unscrambling this tax omelet through the courts may take decades rather than months. When it comes to tax agreements, the final outcome is a step into the unknown !
Sunday, 11 September 2016
A " Taxing " Problem !
The eight million United States citizens who live abroad in any of 192 countries - including Australia - are finding that United States law requires them to file an American tax return that includes their world earnings - and that includes those who hold a "green card " entitling them to work in the United States.
This is not a new law but one that has been virtually ignored because the US lacked the ability to track overseas earnings by its citizens, and all that changed in 2010 when FATCA arrived on the legal books. FATCA stands for " Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act " and is now a legal requirement on world banks to divulge foreign earnings to US tax authorities. Any bank refusing to comply would be automatically cut off from trade with the American banking system.
What daunts many Americans living abroad is the complexity of the US tax legislation. It runs to 74,608 pages compared to its Australian counterpart - which is a modest 3657 pages. There is also a glaring anomaly in how the US tax law relates to the Superannuation requirements in the Australian tax system, resulting in many Americans suffering double taxation.
We are now seeing a steady stream of US citizens living abroad relinquishing their American citizenship simply because it is now uneconomical to retain it, and that includes those who managed to hold joint citizenship in both countries - but even that has problems. The US is one of only two world countries that insists on levying tax on the world earnings of its citizens - and it does not retreat from that stance lightly.
It seems reasonable that any citizen living permanently abroad would seriously consider citizenship in that country but the 1996 Reed Act imposes a penalty. It states that if any citizen relinquishes citizenship " primarily for the purpose of avoiding tax " that person will be permanently refused reentry to the United States for the duration of their life.
Along with paedophiles, terrorists and known criminals, those who insist on paying tax only where the money is earned are consigned to criminal class and will not be allowed to visit relatives or friends in the US - permanently.
It is obvious that the Australian tax system is much more benevolent that the tax regime in the United States. Here winning a motza on a horse race or by winning the lottery is tax free. In the US, that win is added to your anual earnings - and you are taxed accordingly. As a result, few lotteries insist on a lump sum prize and usually pay on the basis on regular annual dividends over a period of years to spread the tax take.
Should a visiting American tourist have the good luck to win one of the regular Australian Lotto jackpot prizes of thirty million dollars at least half of that would be confiscated by the US tax system because it would be added to his or her yearling earnings when paid as a lump sum. Certainly a good reason to consider relinquishing citizenship, even though that may permanently close the entry shutters to their former homeland.
When we grizzle about the tax system we may be wise to do a few comparison tests with the rest of gthe world.
This is not a new law but one that has been virtually ignored because the US lacked the ability to track overseas earnings by its citizens, and all that changed in 2010 when FATCA arrived on the legal books. FATCA stands for " Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act " and is now a legal requirement on world banks to divulge foreign earnings to US tax authorities. Any bank refusing to comply would be automatically cut off from trade with the American banking system.
What daunts many Americans living abroad is the complexity of the US tax legislation. It runs to 74,608 pages compared to its Australian counterpart - which is a modest 3657 pages. There is also a glaring anomaly in how the US tax law relates to the Superannuation requirements in the Australian tax system, resulting in many Americans suffering double taxation.
We are now seeing a steady stream of US citizens living abroad relinquishing their American citizenship simply because it is now uneconomical to retain it, and that includes those who managed to hold joint citizenship in both countries - but even that has problems. The US is one of only two world countries that insists on levying tax on the world earnings of its citizens - and it does not retreat from that stance lightly.
It seems reasonable that any citizen living permanently abroad would seriously consider citizenship in that country but the 1996 Reed Act imposes a penalty. It states that if any citizen relinquishes citizenship " primarily for the purpose of avoiding tax " that person will be permanently refused reentry to the United States for the duration of their life.
Along with paedophiles, terrorists and known criminals, those who insist on paying tax only where the money is earned are consigned to criminal class and will not be allowed to visit relatives or friends in the US - permanently.
It is obvious that the Australian tax system is much more benevolent that the tax regime in the United States. Here winning a motza on a horse race or by winning the lottery is tax free. In the US, that win is added to your anual earnings - and you are taxed accordingly. As a result, few lotteries insist on a lump sum prize and usually pay on the basis on regular annual dividends over a period of years to spread the tax take.
Should a visiting American tourist have the good luck to win one of the regular Australian Lotto jackpot prizes of thirty million dollars at least half of that would be confiscated by the US tax system because it would be added to his or her yearling earnings when paid as a lump sum. Certainly a good reason to consider relinquishing citizenship, even though that may permanently close the entry shutters to their former homeland.
When we grizzle about the tax system we may be wise to do a few comparison tests with the rest of gthe world.
Saturday, 10 September 2016
The " Greenslip " Enigma !
In the far distant past the government realised it had a problem with the ever falling price of used cars. Vast numbers of second hand cars were being used by low income owners who needed this method of personal transport but could not afford to cover them with insurance. When they did damage to property or another vehicle any debt that accrued was virtually unrecoverable.
Unfortunately, exactly this same lack of compensation applied to damage the uninsured car may inflict on other humans with which it may come into contact. We were seeing innocent men, women and children suffering life debilitating injuries such as Paraplegia denied any form of compensation.
The answer was to require a universal indemnity against human damage by way of insurance cover as a requirement of legally registering vehicles for road use. It was named a " Greenslip Insurance Policy " and was available from most insurance companies.
The public is becoming alarmed at ever rising premiums. Greenslips have been very profitable to the insurance industry and they have gained $ 2.9 million profits from it over the past fifteen years. There are predictions that the average minimum premium for Greenslips will slip past the six hundred dollar mark for the first time next year unless something is done to stem the growing industry of false insurance claims. This is now inflicting a $ 400 million loss on insurers.
Staged accidents are becoming an art form. In some cases they are choreographed by experts and two cars packed with victims come together in a low speed crash which will result in a number of insurance claims - all of which are hard to medically verify. Some sections of the legal industry now specialise in representing such claimants.
The New South Wales government is aware that this state has the highest Greenslip premiums and is proposing draconian measures to reign in increases. One of those proposals is to slap a five year limit on all forms of compensation, and another is to exclude specific injuries which feature heavily on suspicious insurance claims.
Injuries that form less than ten percent of bodily function may be excluded from cover and these would include whiplash, muscular back injuries, spinal disc protrusion, shinbone fracture - and post traumatic stress disorder resulting in inability to work !
Controversially, it is also proposed that litigants be refused the aid of legal representation in presenting their claim and that any form of appeal against the compensation handed down be barred.
This proposed solution is causing alarm. The likely outcome will leave genuine cases at a disadvantage and if the insurance industry decides to play hardball the courts will lean heavily on the side of the insurers. If ordinary people are denied legal representation the scales of justice are weighed against them.
The main objective in restoring Green Slip insurance to affordability is to eliminate this burgeoning fake claim industry, and by removing the majority of hard to prove injuries from the covering legislation the fraudsters are going to be disadvantaged. At the same time, the police need to pay special attention to all forms of road trauma with the aim of identifying false claims. The widespread cctv network and the fact that most citizens now have a mobile phone with camera capacity makes fraud a risk.
The danger is that if the government persists with the plan it has suggested those genuinely suffering major industry as a result of car accidents will face a barrier to just compensation. If the insurance industry is allowed to be represented legally in court, then the public must have similar protection.
Anything less is a denial of justice !
Unfortunately, exactly this same lack of compensation applied to damage the uninsured car may inflict on other humans with which it may come into contact. We were seeing innocent men, women and children suffering life debilitating injuries such as Paraplegia denied any form of compensation.
The answer was to require a universal indemnity against human damage by way of insurance cover as a requirement of legally registering vehicles for road use. It was named a " Greenslip Insurance Policy " and was available from most insurance companies.
The public is becoming alarmed at ever rising premiums. Greenslips have been very profitable to the insurance industry and they have gained $ 2.9 million profits from it over the past fifteen years. There are predictions that the average minimum premium for Greenslips will slip past the six hundred dollar mark for the first time next year unless something is done to stem the growing industry of false insurance claims. This is now inflicting a $ 400 million loss on insurers.
Staged accidents are becoming an art form. In some cases they are choreographed by experts and two cars packed with victims come together in a low speed crash which will result in a number of insurance claims - all of which are hard to medically verify. Some sections of the legal industry now specialise in representing such claimants.
The New South Wales government is aware that this state has the highest Greenslip premiums and is proposing draconian measures to reign in increases. One of those proposals is to slap a five year limit on all forms of compensation, and another is to exclude specific injuries which feature heavily on suspicious insurance claims.
Injuries that form less than ten percent of bodily function may be excluded from cover and these would include whiplash, muscular back injuries, spinal disc protrusion, shinbone fracture - and post traumatic stress disorder resulting in inability to work !
Controversially, it is also proposed that litigants be refused the aid of legal representation in presenting their claim and that any form of appeal against the compensation handed down be barred.
This proposed solution is causing alarm. The likely outcome will leave genuine cases at a disadvantage and if the insurance industry decides to play hardball the courts will lean heavily on the side of the insurers. If ordinary people are denied legal representation the scales of justice are weighed against them.
The main objective in restoring Green Slip insurance to affordability is to eliminate this burgeoning fake claim industry, and by removing the majority of hard to prove injuries from the covering legislation the fraudsters are going to be disadvantaged. At the same time, the police need to pay special attention to all forms of road trauma with the aim of identifying false claims. The widespread cctv network and the fact that most citizens now have a mobile phone with camera capacity makes fraud a risk.
The danger is that if the government persists with the plan it has suggested those genuinely suffering major industry as a result of car accidents will face a barrier to just compensation. If the insurance industry is allowed to be represented legally in court, then the public must have similar protection.
Anything less is a denial of justice !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)