THE HEWSON TAXATION FRAUD

The higher echelons of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will no doubt be purring with satisfaction as they consider how Australian Opposition leader Dr. John Hewson is skillfully attempting to condition the Australian people, that with the adoption of his Consumption Tax "reform" programme, Australia will be on the way to economic recovery. The concept of a General Services Tax has long been the policy of the I.M.F.

It should never be forgotten that the I.M.F. and the World Bank were established as a result of the 1945 Bretton Woods (U.S.A.) agreement, the main architect of this agreement being Harry Dexter White of the American Treasury Department. White was subsequently exposed as a top Soviet agent. As documented by Jeremy Lee in his best seller, "The New World Order" And The Destruction of Australian Industry, ($10.00 posted), since the end of the Second World War there has emerged an unholy alliance between International Finance and International Socialism (under various guises) in an attempt to centralise power on a global scale.
All that needs to be said at present is that Dr. John Hewson's proposals threaten to increase the present financial stranglehold on the Australian people.

A problem correctly stated is a problem already half-solved. What is the major problem confronting Australians today? In spite of record post Second World War unemployment, and a number of restrictive practices in industry, the actual or potential production is adequate to meet all requirements. If there are necessary capital works, such as improving Australia's transport system, then why are those works not being carried out? According to the "experts", and Dr. Hewson clearly regards himself as one of these, it would be too "simplistic" and would threaten an increase in inflation, if new financial credits were made available for such purposes.

Australia is being strangled by debt, as is every nation in the world operating under orthodox financial rules, but Dr. Hewson offers no answers. He does suggest that Australians should work harder and become more efficient! The whole thrust of the Hewson programme is concerned with how to get more taxes from the Australian people in the most "efficient" manner. There is no suggestion that TOTAL TAXATION is going to be LESS.

Dr. Hewson and his echo, National Party colleague, Mr. Tim Fisher, have boldly stated that if the 15 percent G.S.T. were ever increased, they would resign from Parliament. Big deal!

Anyone capable of doing a little elementary arithmetic can demonstrate that as inflation continues, and the G.S.T. makes that certain, then the 15 percent must result in increased tax revenue. It is a system of taxation, which feeds upon itself.

Manipulating public opinion has reached the stage where the promoters of the G.S.T. stress that many other nations have adopted it. The G.S.T. propagandists should be asked to nominate that nation where they believe it has been a great success. Our New Zealand friends will be amazed to know that the G.S.T. has been an outstanding success, and that the majority of New Zealanders are very happy with it.

When faced with a few realities, the G.S.T. propagandists are slightly discomfited, as witnessed by the criticism of Mr. Brian Grey, of Compass Airlines. No one will dispute that under de-regulation, Compass has revolutionised air services in Australia, bringing fares down to a level, which makes it possible for more Australians to use air travel inside Australia. This has assisted a tourist industry collapsed by the pilots' strike. As Mr. Grey says, air travel and tourism has been one of the few growth industries. Mr. Grey says it is a strange way to reward incentive by imposing a 15 percent tax on it!

Dr. Hewson's programme is not merely an economic strategy, as witnessed by the fact that it is conceded that lower income earners will require concessions. In other words, there is the important question of not losing too many votes! Probably the most astonishing aspect of the Hewson propaganda circus is otherwise sensible people appear to believe that the G.S.T. might be worth trying.
We must warn that the G.S.T. in Australia would be just as disastrous as it has proved elsewhere. As C. H. Douglas has said, "the heavy taxation under which we suffer works directly to the advantage of financial houses which control the banking system."

VALUE - A BIT VAGUE

by Neil McDonald
A consumption tax is really a villain in disguise - value added tax. All but fools know what tax is - the spoils that Robin Hood took from the rich to feed the poor. Our tax comes without escape from rich and poor. How, then, can value be added to tax? Only in the mind, because value is a variable. C.H. Douglas in Social Credit defined value as "that quality which gives to anything maximum exchangeability under present conditions". The value of a boat is its ability to transport across a river with minimum inconvenience and maximum speed. A fee would vary patronage in proportion to urgency and other boats. A nearby bridge would almost eliminate the value of a boat. But, if the bridge were occupied by enemy soldiers, the urgency of escape would greatly increase the value of the boat.

The value of the proposed consumption tax can be compared accurately if present sales and other taxes are defined and held firm. If inflation does not complicate, there is only one reason to prefer a consumption tax - better value. Unless John Hewson can promise that a consumption tax will not cost more increases, is consideration worthwhile? The known devil, is a lesser risk than the unknown. Give John Hewson's gang a serve of rejection. The choice between two evils offers one genuine alternative. When in doubt, leave out. A certain way to reduce taxation is to amputate. Chop off excess public service bureaucracy. Oust overheads. Write off the national debt. Sever overseas dependency. Become self-reliant.

Australia can survive physically by using Australian labor. With much better bookkeeping, debts can be turned into credits. The orthodox way leads only to ruin and rising inflation. A few centuries ago, bridges and cathedrals were built without "one penny of debt". Wealth creates assets - not debt. Amongst suffering Australians, surely somewhere is statesman material, desperate to find a way to unlock physical riches without impossible financial debt? Debt is merely figures in books, intangible, uneatable and without value.

IS THE N.F.F. CHANGING TACK?

by D. Thompson
In what must be regarded as a dramatic about face, the National Farmers Federation, at their General Council Meeting last week, passed a resolution calling for a halt to any existing reforms of protection measures in agriculture. N.F.F. President, Mr. Blight, is reported as saying, "I think we've done enough, and I don't see why we should give away any protection we've got left - and God help us, it's very minimal - while we still have a lot of the regulations and the inefficiencies we have out there".

CAN THE N.F.F. COME TO GRIPS?
While a change of heart by the N.F.F. could be a vital breakthrough, they have still failed to grasp the main nettle! What emergency measures are they proposing to keep farmers on their properties under crisis conditions? Will they demand a halt to unnecessary food imports? Will they demand a moratorium on rural debt, now out of control? Will they commit the massive $11 million "Fighting Fund" to mount a public campaign to save rural Australia; to fight for farmers? As yet, the answer appears to be no they will not.

Mr. Blight believes that the N.F.F's. most important currency in dealing with politicians and senior bureaucrats is "credibility". Such radical solutions will damage "credibility", and must presumably be left to "perfidious" groups like the League of Rights. Primary producers must be sacrificed on the altar of the N.F.F's. 'credibility'. In fact, the N.F.F. has declared its intention to commit the "Fighting Fund" to bashing the unions, but certainly not the banks! (Australian, 20/11/91).
We note that one of the Trustees of the "Fighting Fund" is Mr. Nobby Clarke, former manager of the National Bank. Surely farmers and unionists could co-operate for vital protection for their industries? How many unionists are unemployed because their industry has been sacrificed to the 'global market'?

WILL THE 'CLOSET PROTECTIONISTS' EMERGE?
We believe there are many closet protectionists" who may emerge following the first timid statements of those like Mr. Blunt's. Mr. Doug Anthony was one of the first. In a letter to The Weekend Australian (23/11/91), he said that Blunt's statement "indicates that at long last it (N.F.F.) has seen the folly of the devastating "level playing field" philosophy it has been pursuing for the last seven years..." Much could be said about the failure of the Nationals to recognise the same folly!

In a dramatic call from the heart, the author Morris West, himself never a farmer, is calling for an immediate moratorium on rural debt. He takes a swipe at the banks, Government and Opposition for refusing to acknowledge the gravest rural crisis in our history: "I feel like the child in the crowd, staring at a naked king heading a procession of his fawning courtiers. I want to shout as loudly as I can: 'The king has no clothes!'"

WHY I CANNOT BE BOTHERED PUTTING 12 PEOPLE IN JOBS

from The Age (Melbourne), 19/11
"In the great debate over unemployment, a relevant fact rarely mentioned, is that it is no longer worth being an employer. Without employers, there is no employment. "I owned and operated a business employing up to 55 people for more than 20 years. Last year, having spent several years overseas in semi-retirement, I returned to Australia and investigated establishing another business. This business would have involved the investment of $500,000, and would have employed 12 to 14 people. My investigations revealed the following:
* For most of the past 20 years, there has been an unending flow of anti-employer legislation through our parliaments. Most of it seeks to make the employer responsible to an ever-increasing degree for the social welfare of his employee.
* There has been an explosion in bureaucratic interference with the normal process of running a business.
* Apart from a few exceptions, the Australian worker has become lazy, uncommitted, overpaid and under skilled.
* The taxation system has been altered in such a way that tax is now being paid on profit before it has been earned.
* Two of the main benefits of owning a business, the fringe benefits and capital gain on the eventual sale, have been largely removed by the imposition of F.B.T. and capital gain tax.

"I rapidly concluded that I was better off to invest the money and take a job. And, surprise, surprise, if you have sufficient ability to run a successful business, it is not difficult to get a job, even in hard times. The net result is that I have a job and 12 to 14 people do not. I also have less worry and more disposable income. Multiply my experience by 50,000 and you have the root cause of Australia's unemployment problem. And it is not going to go away until the basic problems mentioned above are rectified." (David Norman, South Perth, W.A.)

UNSWEET MARKET SHARE

from Herald-Sun, Melbourne, 21/11
"U.S. Ambassador Mal Sembler disguised the facts, when he argued that Australia's sugar producers have lost market share in the U.S. simply because corn syrup sweeteners have lower production costs than cane or beet sugar. American corn growers can certainly undercut their highly subsidised neighbours in cane and beet sugar production but not Australia's efficient sugar producers. "The remarkably low costs of production chalked up by our own cane growers would ensure that we could more than match U.S. corn syrup producers on their turf -- if only we were given a fair crack at the market.

"For Mr. Sembler to contend that our sugar exports to the U.S. have been cut by 34% this year 'for good reason' (because U.S. sugar consumption has been halved in recent years) is to tell only part of the story. U.S. sugar demand has only failed because cloistered domestic sugar producers are subsidised at twice the world price, effectively pricing their product out of the huge soft drinks market. Our cost-efficient producers are restricted to feeding on the crumbs of the dwindling U.S. market for sugar.

"He does hit the nail on the head, however, when he admits 'we've been accused of distorting the world market and I can't deny that'. Politicians of all persuasions should note his comment that we have 'unrealistic expectations' if we expect our friendship with the U.S. to produce any trade concessions. (Harry Bonanno, Brisbane, Qld.)