Read here what I think about the NZ tax system. The NZ government is currently revising its tax policy. Feel free to render your parliamentary submissions here.
There is a blatant contradiction in the legislation. There are numerous flaws which need to be addressed:
1. "Voluntary compliance" is a contradiction in terms. The tax system is not voluntary. It is enforced at the point of a gun. In fact since people do not volunteer, but rather the government accepts and facilitates the means by which govt officers extort wealth from NZ taxpayers, this makes members of parliament extortionists, as well as any officer who facilitates the process.
So how does a legislator achieve this rationalisation? Do they imagine that 'voluntary compliance' is like 'self discipline'? Do they imagine that people actually choose taxation, and would not appreciate some discretion? Do they imagine that the will of the majority justifies extortion? Be it real or a facade arising from the lack of real impact or 'participation' that any one voter has. It is the ultimate sham that results in not merely the plundering of taxpayer wealth, but also the psychological injury to all voters in the form of psychological repression.
2. Voluntary participation - The notion that morality is social is a contradiction in terms. There is no collective consciousness, which is ultimately the point of issue when it comes to psychological repression. It is natural for a consciousness to want to evade tax, and yet you subjugate people to this arbitrary statutory legal system which makes a 'necessity' or 'virtue' out of extortion, knowing full well that it entails the initiation of force, and that it is a breach of the far more logical common law.
Our politicians are destroying the minds of individuals, their capacity to think critically, their respect for objectivity, undermining any prospect of objective justice. Perhasp the most concerning aspect is the compartmentalising of people's minds....sadly a consequence affirmed by the market's specialisation of labour.
Democracy was never freedom - it was a transition from divine tyranny of priests and monarchs to the tyranny of the majority, which was only ever a pretense for those who would presume to represent them. How exactly does a representative embody the contradictions of 60,000 odd voters? Would such a member countenance rationality in a system where 'numbers' and financial support for one's future candidacy are the standards of value. Where is the sincere desire to represent and educate people of the facts. I've never seen any respect for objectivity among politicians. Why does the electorate have as much represent for electorated officials as they have for 2nd hand car salespeople and loan sharks. Because they are middlemen.
I can't even say that you are acting in your interests, as politicians. On some basic level, you are deriving a lifetime pension, a sense of power and attention. The problem is, you are engaged in a very boring, farcical process, governing a lot of idiots (thanks to your notion of governance), and as a result showing your own ineptitude, safety and lack of efficacy. Why would anyone want to appeal to the worst in people, i.e. Their cynical indifference to their participation, and their fear of non-compliance. This is your reality as politicians. Their is no self- respect in this form of governance. Rulers are of course the most insecure people because compliance is unconditional.
------------------------------------
Author
Andrew Sheldon
