Slashdot Mirror
Australian Gov't Asks eBay To Name Big Sellers
beaverdownunder writes "In an effort to combat fraudulent claims lodged within its Centrelink welfare-payment agency, the Australian Government has asked auction-site eBay to name all Aussies who sold more than $20,000 worth of goods in the last year. Should someone be found to have been doing such a high-volume of business on eBay while claiming Centrelink benefits but not declaring that income, they could potentially face prosecution. However, the president of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties, Terry O'Gorman, says this action is a gross invasion of privacy. 'What we say should happen is that if police have probable cause for investigating someone, they go to a magistrate, they get a warrant and they access that person's eBay records that way,' he said."
I sold a few hundred in text books that felt like a part time job. $20k is no joke.
I guess I just think people should pay their taxes. If I make over 20,000 dollars, my employer reports me. Not sure why other people should get away with it because they're selling stuff on E-Bay. It's not really an invasion of privacy. They didn't ask for what people were selling, just if they made over a certain amount of money selling stuff. And it's not like their looking for some people who sold one or two trinkets. 20,000 is a lot of income you're trying to hide.
Paypal is required by law to report transaction volumes to the IRS as potential income in US. Why cant the australian gov. just do that? You cant take payment by check/mo on ebay anymore so all transactions are electronically traceable. If joe welfare is taking public money and selling large volume on ebay isnt he guilty of both tax evasion and welfare fraud? This seems like more of a job of whatever tax collecting agency Australia uses.
You have to take into consideration overhead costs, product purchases, and other various retail related expenses.
Not that I'm defending the practice, just pointing out facts.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
if you suspect someone, you get a warrant, not a list of XX people who made more than YYY. Why should ebay do the cops job? now remember that ebay is in probably 95% of the countries on the planet. Why should ebay do the polices job in over 200 countries?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
All employers are required to report salaries and bonuses paid to their employees. All businesses are required to submit detailed reports of their sales and maintain documentation for auditing. All wholesales, retailers and everyone is required to maintain clean accounting of their counterparties and submit them while being audited. Just because the commerce happens over the internet does not give you additional rights or additional expectations of privacy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
How do you get probable cause for tax evasion without looking at financial records?
You could argue that the person's observed life style is in excess of their declared income but that could still be an invasion of privacy unless you get a warrant. You end up having to get a warrant to gather the evidence to get a warrant to gather evidence to ..... . Reductio ad absurdum.
I would bet that employer's in Australia are required to let the government know what they are paying their employees. This is effectively the same thing only the "employer" is E-Bay.
My opinion is that anybody who has a turnover of $20K a year on eBay should mention this on their tax returns. If they did not make a profit, chances are they do not have to pay any additional tax (depending on local laws).
However, "pro-active reporting" or policing should not be done by eBay. If the Revenue Office or the police have suspicions about a particular person -- they should get a warrant to get data from eBay, just like Terry O'Gorman says.
I don't know what it's like in Oz, but here in the US if you have any sort of income via salary, investments, pensions and yes even selling goods on EBay it gets reported to the IRS on various types of forms generally 1099 or W2 something or another.
One thing to keep in mind is even if the Ebay income is reported on a 1099 to the IRS, that income isn't necessarily profit that you have to pay taxes on. Ebay fees, shipping costs, the costs associated with the acquisition of the items etc all count against the income. And the fact is few people really make any profit on Ebay.
I really don't consider this an unusual invasion of privacy. It part and parcel of the normal invasion of privacy needed to run the system of anal rape known as income tax. Since the US Constitution was amended to enable that many years ago, Congress has the power to write laws to enable it. There isn't much you can do about it except move to someplace that doesn't do that.
I thought ebay already reports sales to the IRS? or was that only PayPal? If they report to the IRS, no reason they shouldn't just dump all the relevant data to the Australian equivalent and let them sort it out however they want.
I sell more stuff on gumtree than ebay, and there's no electronic transaction record, and they pay cash, and its free...
Enjoy the red tape shit fight
Regards
A Taxpayer
I'm not signing anything
The problem I think is more with PayPal than eBay, the Australian Taxation Office can look into an Australian bank account at will because it is tied to the Australian Tax File Number (TFN). This is a legal requirement of operating as a bank in Australia. PayPal as far as I am aware does not have an Australian banking license, and hence is not required to bind the TFN to the PayPal account. The .au government just needs to force PayPal to acquire a banking license to operate in Australia. I think that would also give Australian users of PayPal the much needed legal protections that they have with their regular bank accounts.
If the government is giving this money to these people, they have the option of doing background searches and requiring bank records to prove the level of income of the individual requesting the funds. If they choose to not do that, they can't go after them after the fact unless they do have probable cause.
The crap I had to go through to prove my income before getting support for my child when he was born was insane. They needed all my bank accounts listed as well as the last 3 months of statements from all of them. All my credit liabilities, and a dozen other things.
If they saw income over 28k I wouldn't have gotten assistance. Simple as that.
[Internet] companies have to issue a 1099-K for people sell 200 transactions or over $20,000.
I am all for this type of exposure, not because I believe in total abiding. The issue I share with the Aussies is that people in this world as leeches to society. I know people who claim unemployment, get food stamps, state assistance, have nothig in their name, file for bankruptcy with a bunch of toys under their possession, etc. and are "professional sellers" on eBay, all the while shuffling funds to their PayPal account from the bank. It's pathetic and I feel no shame on ousting garage like that to lessen the debt on taxpayers like myself.
given that some centrelink employees are running their ebay business while they are at work
pot?
kettle?
black?
fix your own backyard first centrelink
Why not take this the other direction and have the government get it legal with the courts or whoever and then provide eBay a list of welfare payees or addresses they want to cross check? All the government needs to do is figure out what data they actually need before making the request and get it stamped--nothing hard there. Then privacy is protected, and the government gets only the data they intend to investigate.
A quick note for non-Australians, Centrelink is the agency that distributes Australian pensions and unemployment benefits. This has NOTHING to do with tax at this point although I'm sure the ATO (Australian Taxation Office, our IRS) will get interested if Centrelink catches any welfare cheats.
I think it is acceptable to use information from different sources to monitor recipients of services.
When people sign-up for a government provided service, there is likely to be a application filled out and an approval process.
This approval process may include a credit check, a tax record check, a employment check, etc. I dont hear anyone complaining about privacy infringement during this process. That agency will likely want to monitor its recipient list periodically, rechecking those records and also checking against death certificates, marrage licences, vehicle regestration, property taxes, etc. Again I really dont see the problem, nor does anyone else!
So if a government service provider wants to request records from large non-government organizations in order to monitor the eligibility of those services, I'd say go for it!
The ability to provide or withhold a public service is not based solely on good-faith. The act of determining eligibility is not a form of law-enforcement. As long as it done without discrimination it is legal and in the best interest of the taxpayers who are funding the service.
oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
Items purchased in CA for resale outside of CA (by an entity with no CA presence) are exempt from sales tax. Any given retailer may or may not insist that you use form BOE 230; some stores near the border will even accept your neighboring state's drivers' license.
A guy who lived over the road from me in Melbourne had a job supervising a hostel, for which we was paid with free accomodation. He had welfare payments from the government because of a disability. He used that money to pay for his hobby of motorcycle racing.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Screw Australian government taxes.
Your selling your own stuff, you already fucking paid tax!
You must be naming and shaming these globalist motherfuckers.
How many cocksucking banksters have been arrested?
Oh that's right NONE
GST in Australia doesn't work that way. Businesses claim back the GST paid on goods and services that went into producing goods and services they supply to their own customers. So only the end-customer who can't claim the GST component as an imput credit, actually pays GST.
So a hard disk might be re-sold 3 or 4 times before it ends up in somebody's computer, but the ATO only earns the GST once. All the other transactions are refunded as input tax credits. See Page 25 of the BAS Workbook
I usually don't agree with Govt actions like this but in this case I'm all for it. I'm an aussie who works 50 hrs/week and pays tax. Why should I be subsidising some piece of shit who's sponging off the taxpayer and who I have to support via my tax? I'd rather my tax go to people who are really in need instead of these parasites
So, someone divorces & they couple agrees to see the common property (large & small items) so they can fairly divide the proceeds from selling-off their assets.
AU Gov't is told by eBay that these two (or, more unfair, one partner's eBay name is used to sell all to benefit both).
AU Centrelink begins to demand repayment of one or both partners' benefit payments over the months / years that they were selling lots on eBay.
Problem: If it's deemed to be a business, they may have NO profit, since selling used items (that are not antiques) usually yields -less- than one has paid for the good, when new. And - as the couple moves into their next homes, they'll likely buy new goods, at costs much higher than they got for their used ones.
With cost of living (eg, due - in part - to Carbon Tax) rising (or due to soon), one could -need- to sell much of what they own, eg, to make ends meet. Selling used items, owned for months if not years, would likely be deemed -not- to be running a business, I think.
"Much Ado About Nothing"
The current Australian gov't has the problem that they haven't inspired or encouraged ENOUGH THINKERS / DESIGNERS / ENTREPRENEURS of AU to CREATE WEALTH.
If it's not "easy" wealth, like Mining, there's not enough folks moving to create & harvest it in AU, or so it seems.
Sure, the Global Economic Crisis hurt all economies... but too many companies and people in AU seem to be waiting for Gov't handouts.
Holden (formerly General Motors Holden), like Mitsubishi (before it stopped manufacturing in AU) demand & receive multi-million-dollar handouts, and -still- make obsolete (ie, Fossil-Fuel Powered) vehicles in AU.
"Tax the clever" seems to be the rule, in AU, rather than "inspire [their] creative contributions" to the economy.
Even clever radio hobbyists have recently been INSULTED by an AU Gov't change to allow its Radio Amateurs to APPLY for "special permission" to use higher transmitter power. (The gov't SUDDENLY got "inspired" to make this offer to Aussie "Ham" operators, only -after- New Zealand authorized -ALL- of its higher license class Ham's to use transmit power levels similar to those in use - for decades - in USA, etc.)
But the AU Gov't - who, in recent decades began to TAX its clever Ham licensees for use of their long-ago allocated radio spectrum - not felt the need to add both a CHARGE (application fee) & to decide -EACH- application independently, before its higher class licensees may begin to "test" with higher transmit powers like their counterparts in New Zealand & USA have won - simply by being licensed & having operated within their license conditions in past.
Applying to INCOMPETENT spectrum & license administrators for the chance to be considered worthy of participating in a "test" of higher power levels is INSULTING to those competent Radio Amateurs, who already pay ~$ 60 / year for their (lower power) licenses, while US Hams pay NIL, due to a past court case, based on one's constitutional right to "Freedom of Speech" in USA.
New Zealand has begun to assert its National Identity - NO LONGER A NATION OF FOLLOWERS, whose Gov't will hold back or tax or - in other ways - INSULT its clever Radio Hams, as AU Gov't continues to do (in the shadow of a defacto monopoly - Telstra (telco) - whose much earlier fear over potential loss of a -few- dollars per -year- in call charges lead to BANNING the use - by Radio Amateurs - of "phone patches" that would enable Hams to connect their radios to the POTS network, as is done in USA, permitting auto-dialing auto-patch telephone calls for non-commercial & emergency calls, eg, where phone networks do not exist - for commercial reasons - thus, preventing Hams from (lawfully) setting up their own non-commercial, long-range, wireless phone systems, to extend their home phone services availability out into their surroundings, to avoid missing calls, to enable making of emergency and medical calls - eg, in indigenous communities, where people h
"... as an Australian taxpayer I also want to see the welfare using our tax dollars on those who are genuinely needy (given than most government benefits in this country are means-tested)."
http://www.basicincome.org/bien/aboutbasicincome.html
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
I'm looking at this from the perspective of a business owner. Specifically, an online auction business with no physical presence in Oz. After all, why would eBay have a physical presence in Oz? What follow is my mythical conversation.
Ah look, a letter from the Australian government. Look, they want us to provide details about our customers who may be Australian. I don't see any profit for us in that action, so I'm not motivated to act. I don't see any U.S. law that requires me to respond to Australian government requests or any binding by Australian law.'
Mary, take a letter!
Dear Oz:
Nope!
Love,
eBay
---
You can find a great deal on that item you want, right now @ ebay.com
Anyway, as far as buying/saving on eBay goes:
If you see an item that you want listed in auction format, send the seller a message asking if they will accept $x to end the auction early and sell the item to you. If that doesn’t work, use a sniping service such as Bidball.com to bid for you. It’ll bid in the last few seconds, helping to save $ and avoid shill bidding.
If there is a particular item that you want that is relatively rare on eBay or goes fast when one is listed, use ebuyersedge.com to set up a saved eBay search for it. You’d get an e-mail whenever a match is listed. You can use the price, category, exclude word, etc. filters to narrow down the results that you get in the e-mails. Excellent for “Buy It Now”s priced right.
If the item that you’re looking for is difficult to spell, try a misspelling search site like Typojoe.com to find some deals with items that have main keywords misspelled in the title. Other interested buyers may never see them.
Absolutely not... It's a dicey prospect as to how much sales equal profit etc. ATO etc already have enough power to access people's financial records to do the job properly. They must be tasked to detect welfare fraud I assume, and if they suspect someone they also have the power to audit etc.
The proposed is nothing but over-reaching. It isn't scalable unless you're going to start applying the same method to ALL auction/transaction related sites (ebay just happens to be popular at the moment), it can be easily thwarted, and more importantly as others have said either;
A) Inappropriately places private information given to the government into the hands of a private corporation (assuming the government provides ebay a list) OR
B) Inappropriately obtains records from ebay the government has no right to (assuming ebay provides the government a list)
Yes, hashing could work, but let's face it... trust the government and ebay to do the job properly???! lol
Whilst he was no doubt a tax avoiding bastard that should have paid much more (the kind that the government SHOULD go after), I'm more inclined to agree with Packer overall anyway;
"Now of course I am minimizing my tax and if anybody in this country doesn't minimize their tax they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you're not spending it that well that we should be donating extra."