Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.


Tuesday, April 15, 2014

ACC; IRD; Privacy, And The Unravelling Of Corruption In NZ From FATCA. Big Post.


This is one of my most important posts.


New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is in trouble again over its flouting of privacy: 


A judge has overturned ACC's policy of cutting off accident claimants' compensation if they refuse to approve widespread gathering of information about themselves.


How blinkered we are as a country. I start with this question:












Only one person answered to the change in principle, but the answer is actually worse. Bronwyn Pullar is well known to ACC and the ACC debate – and I’m on your side Bronwyn, you just didn’t understand where I was coming from:












So if I’m asking for an entitlement paid from taxpayer (and compulsory government ACC premiums are a tax, determined by my taxable income as provided compulsorily to IRD – to make that clear) I can withhold my information: however, as a taxpayer, I have no right to withhold information about me from IRD. That department is specifically not covered by New Zealand’s privacy legislation or the token Privacy Commissioner who gets paid a very expensive lunch everyday.


Although that argument goes beyond my original brief, which is simply what point our privacy legislation giving the right to consent to what information one department (ACC) can gather, when to another department, IRD, the whole notion of consent has been legislatively denied me. I’ve written often on the police state powers of IRD.


Can the Left explain the difference in principle to me?












Nope. Predictably, no answer. Let me do it. There’s only the single logical conclusion. The difference in principle must be that IRD’s overriding of our privacy legislation is justified by the Cult of Redistribution’s worship at the bloodied altar of the New Zealand tax take. Bloodied, because force and violence against an individual’s right to be left alone is always the ultimate threat of the tax surveillance state.


And on that point we get to a further problem I’ve been writing on this month: FATCA – the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act - which threatens to unwind IRD’s and our government’s role as corrupt. As stated on my previous post:


These are the facts spelled out. The supply by New Zealand financial institutions – … including every bank - of the requested information to IRS [on all account holder US citizens in New Zealand] would rightly contravene the most sacrosanct provisions of our privacy legislation. Thus, under a cynical work-around IGA between US and New Zealand governments, which allows them to avoid the political fallout of breaching that privacy legislation and creating second class citizens in New Zealand, these same financial institutions now simply provide that information to the IRD which can legally, albeit immorally, send it to IRS given our privacy provisions do not cover IRD


Our politicians have signed the New Zealand taxpayer up to FATCA which has no benefit, indeed, is a cost, to taxpayers and to every New Zealand bank and financial institution account holder, given the US government is reimbursing no costs to administer ‘their’ law. FATCA was cynically put on us via the privacy law circumventing IGA only to provide the US information on its citizens, and to fund the US tax take, not New Zealand’s. There is absolutely no benefit for New Zealand.


If I assume from this debate regarding ACC and privacy, that it is only the New Zealand tax take which justifies the change of principle regarding my privacy vis a vis IRD – it doesn’t philosophically, read this blog, but bear with me – then the IGA signed by this National Government was, even on the New Zealand tax take’s own terms, corrupt, certainly morally, and given I will show  in a later post that FATCA is unconstitutional in the US, probably legally. Indeed, FATCA and the US bullying over our new, and dreadful, Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act, is the final straw for me: the US government may as well simply print its constitution in a roll and sell it to the people for toilet paper


Because extend this principle out. A New Zealand government didn’t want the political fallout which would come from breaching our privacy legislation, so they used IRD, being immorally above that privacy legislation, as a backdoor for US to spy on its own citizens. If they did this once, why won’t a future government find it convenient to use the Teflon IRD on other issues that might be a bit embarrassing politically? Answer: there’s nothing stopping any government doing this. It’s the premise of this blog that IRD and its huge powers, is where the rubber meets the road to our total serfdom. All the Left protesting against GCSB, NSA and PRISM, what’s the difference, again, please?


As a side note, the Canadians are looking at their legal options over IRS’s assumed ability to impose penalties on non-US banks which don’t comply with FATCA: good on those Canadian politicians. Compare that to our gutless politicians who just signed the dotted line: ask yourself, what right does the US IRS have to penalise our banks, our bank account holders, over a matter that has nothing to do with us, and when we are forced to administer their information bureaus and their tax take at our cost for no benefit? It’s ludicrous.


But enough. It’s breakfast time here, Mrs H is getting moody. The free West is gone, utterly, from the gutlessness of our political masters and the monstrous Left ethic that an individual’s life only exists to be sacrificed to a hopeless mob created over generations of welfare created dependency. The pursuit of happiness has become a very sad one, indeed, if it were possible, is bawling its eyes out more than Oscar Pistorius.


And as shown by the non-response by Sacha Dylan, and the pathetic bleating of the Left on Twitter over the ACC privacy issue, it remains important to constantly expose that central, lethal contradiction of the Left, whereby they want their privacy cake, while eating it too. They want their privacy from the state, while promoting a big brother state from which, to meet its ends, an individual must have no privacy: grow up, this is simply not possible. When your central beliefs contain a contradiction this big, you must re-examine your premises.


Finally, remember again what the Free West was supposed to be about: it's what Sir Charles Upham was fighting for. As for our privacy, you need no invite for the funeral:





Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)